0
   

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:06 pm
RL is our own "methodological Supernaturalist"
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:16 pm
parados wrote:
Water isn't in the pore. Your logic is impeccably flawed.
We only need to assume DNA can form in a pore without water.


So we are to assume that water flows over the top of a rock and NO water gets in the pores?

However other chemicals being carried by the water are dropped into the pores in the rock without any water actually carrying them there. It just gets 'em close and they bail out at the proper time, dropping into the pore like little paratroopers without ANY water accompanying ?

Now as the compounds needed for DNA are being carried by water (on their way to a pore, let's hope they make it or the future of the human race is toast) , are you aware that some of those components will also be destroyed by water? (we're toast Laughing )
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:27 pm
farmerman wrote:
RL is our own "methodological Supernaturalist"

Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:55 pm
He is certainly methodical at exposing your supernatural propensity to silly-soddery and that's for sure.

He has taught me to avoid going on a camping holiday in the hills with ros and fm.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 06:01 pm
A résumé of an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science describing how lipid vesicles can, through physiochemical processes, replicate. The lead author is Doron Lancet of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel.

Dr. Lancet elaborates on the lipid model, and significantly, Dr. Lancet rejects the "RNA world" model as well, and cites Shapiro as one of the authorities rejecting that model.

The following is an abstract of an article in The Anatomical Record. The authors are Pierre-Alain Monnard of the Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard University; and David W. Deamer of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California-Santa Cruz. The entire article can be read here.

Quote:
This review addresses the question of the origin of life, with emphasis on plausible boundary structures that may have initially provided cellular compartmentation. Some form of compartmentation is a necessary prerequisite for maintaining the integrity of interdependent molecular systems that are associated with metabolism, and for permitting variations required for speciation. The fact that lipid-bilayer membranes define boundaries of all contemporary living cells suggests that protocellular compartments were likely to have required similar, self-assembled boundaries. Amphiphiles such as short-chain fatty acids, which were presumably available on the early Earth, can self-assemble into stable vesicles that encapsulate hydrophilic solutes with catalytic activity. Their suspensions in aqueous media have therefore been used to investigate nutrient uptake across simple membranes and encapsulated catalyzed reactions, both of which would be essential processes in protocellular life forms.


This is another abstract of an article, Synthesis of lipids on the micelle/water interface (however, the article must be purchased to be read), by Kilian Conde-Frieboes and Eveline Blöchliger, at the Institut für Polymere, in Zurich.

Quote:
Liposomes can be considered as a model for a protocell in the context of the origin of life. These self-organising systems can self-reproduce under certain experimental conditions. Herein we demonstrate the ability of another lipid aggregate, micelles, to catalyse a reaction leading finally to the formation of new lipids. In contrast to other published work, where the lipids are products of a hydrolysis reaction, here the lipids are built up from simple precursors. In addition, we observe a transformation of micelles into liposomes.


This article, entitled "Self-Organization, Autocatalysis and Models of the Origin of Life", by Regina R. Monaco, of the Exobiology Division, NASA Ames Research Center, and Fátima Rateb de Montozon, of the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, and the Department of Geomatic Engineering, University College London, describes both protein first and lipid first models.

*****************************************
The small molecule thesis of Shapiro simply requires a "container." To suggest that Shapiro did not have lipid spheres in mind, or that he is unaware of the work of other biochemists in the area of lipids and the origins of life ought to stretch the credulity even of someone who takes the bible as literal truth.

But then, that's "real life's" problem in the first place, innit . . .
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:48 pm
Arguing science with a Creationist is like performing a symphony for a deaf audience.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:02 pm
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Water isn't in the pore. Your logic is impeccably flawed.
We only need to assume DNA can form in a pore without water.


So we are to assume that water flows over the top of a rock and NO water gets in the pores?
We don't assume that at all. It's a fact supported by surface tension.
Quote:

However other chemicals being carried by the water are dropped into the pores in the rock without any water actually carrying them there. It just gets 'em close and they bail out at the proper time, dropping into the pore like little paratroopers without ANY water accompanying ?
Liquids like water have surface tension. Small quantities of molecules not in a liquid do not have surface tension.

The last time I checked water does not automatically absorb every molecule it comes in contact with. An interesting speculation on your part but not reality.
Quote:

Now as the compounds needed for DNA are being carried by water (on their way to a pore, let's hope they make it or the future of the human race is toast) , are you aware that some of those components will also be destroyed by water? (we're toast Laughing )
If they are dissolved in the water and stay dissolved for a length of time. (See Shapiro) You might want to look up "evaporation." It's what causes water sitting on top of a rock to disappear leaving behind the substances dissolved in it.

By the way real life, you still haven't found any holes in what I said. Only some gaping holes in your knowledge.


Here is a simple experiment that even you can do real life.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/exp/waterproof-hankey-1/
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:55 pm
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

Now as the compounds needed for DNA are being carried by water , are you aware that some of those components will also be destroyed by water?
If they are dissolved in the water and stay dissolved for a length of time. (See Shapiro) You might want to look up "evaporation." It's what causes water sitting on top of a rock to disappear leaving behind the substances dissolved in it.


We're not talking about being dissolved. We're talking about being destroyed.

parados wrote:
By the way real life, you still haven't found any holes in what I said. Only some gaping holes in your knowledge.

You might feel differently if you only knew what was actually being discussed. But apparently you don't.

Some of the compounds necessary to produce DNA would be degraded and destroyed by water. You might want to do a little (or a lot) of reading.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:00 pm
Setanta wrote:

The small molecule thesis of Shapiro simply requires a "container."


Actually, Shapiro states that several things are needed:

(1) A boundary is needed to separate life from non-life.

(2) An energy source is needed to drive the organization process.

(3) A coupling mechanism must link the release of energy to the organization process that produces and sustains life.

(4) A chemical network must be formed, to permit adaptation and evolution.

(5) The network must grow and reproduce.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:02 pm
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Water isn't in the pore. Your logic is impeccably flawed.
We only need to assume DNA can form in a pore without water.


So we are to assume that water flows over the top of a rock and NO water gets in the pores?
We don't assume that at all. It's a fact supported by surface tension.
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 06:04 am
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

Now as the compounds needed for DNA are being carried by water , are you aware that some of those components will also be destroyed by water?
If they are dissolved in the water and stay dissolved for a length of time. (See Shapiro) You might want to look up "evaporation." It's what causes water sitting on top of a rock to disappear leaving behind the substances dissolved in it.


We're not talking about being dissolved. We're talking about being destroyed.
Quote:
DNA is NOT destroyed by just touching water. I posted numerous examples of how to extract DNA using water. DNA needs to be dissolved for a period of time for it to be "destroyed."
Quote:

parados wrote:
By the way real life, you still haven't found any holes in what I said. Only some gaping holes in your knowledge.

You might feel differently if you only knew what was actually being discussed. But apparently you don't.
This from the guy that says Shapiro only mentions lipid membranes and then later says he never said that.
Quote:

Some of the compounds necessary to produce DNA would be degraded and destroyed by water. You might want to do a little (or a lot) of reading.
IF immersed in water for an extended period. You are the one that needs to do some reading.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 06:04 am
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:

The small molecule thesis of Shapiro simply requires a "container."


Actually, Shapiro states that several things are needed:

(1) A boundary is needed to separate life from non-life.

(2) An energy source is needed to drive the organization process.

(3) A coupling mechanism must link the release of energy to the organization process that produces and sustains life.

(4) A chemical network must be formed, to permit adaptation and evolution.

(5) The network must grow and reproduce.


The boundary is the container, genius. Certainly the small molecule hypothesis requires all of these things--and lipid structures provide the container in which small molecules can accomplish this, and, critically, lipids can replicate without a replicator chemical, as can several types of proteins.

So, your response to having the evidence presented to you that Shapiro is speculating on ways and means of life aseembling itself from natural physiochemical processes is to attempt another diversion.

So, yes, let's have no diversions.

What evidence do you have that DNA was "designed" by a mind?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 06:08 am
Clarification of my earlier post, the quotes were screwed up

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

Now as the compounds needed for DNA are being carried by water , are you aware that some of those components will also be destroyed by water?
If they are dissolved in the water and stay dissolved for a length of time. (See Shapiro) You might want to look up "evaporation." It's what causes water sitting on top of a rock to disappear leaving behind the substances dissolved in it.


We're not talking about being dissolved. We're talking about being destroyed.
DNA is NOT destroyed by just touching water. I posted numerous examples of how to extract DNA using water. DNA needs to be dissolved for a period of time for it to be "destroyed."
Quote:

parados wrote:
By the way real life, you still haven't found any holes in what I said. Only some gaping holes in your knowledge.

You might feel differently if you only knew what was actually being discussed. But apparently you don't.
This from the guy that says Shapiro only mentions lipid membranes and then later says he never said that.
Quote:

Some of the compounds necessary to produce DNA would be degraded and destroyed by water. You might want to do a little (or a lot) of reading.
IF immersed in water for an extended period. You are the one that needs to do some reading.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 11:04 am
parados-

Why do you think Mr Jefferson included the "perhaps".

Was he setting forth proper usuage of English for the fledgling nation where one can seem to be saying something that one isn't saying but which reflects well upon the person quoting it in terms of his humility and enlightenment in the ears of the gormless.

"Empty vessels make most noise," will do. At least it isn't wobbly.

Is the "proportion" direct or inverse?

What are we to make of your views in the light of the quote? You do seem very confident.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 02:08 pm
While DNA was not designed (in the sense of "created") by a mind, it has been both empirically "discovered" and conceptually "constructed" by minds.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2008 02:26 pm
And in the blink of an eye on the evolutionary time-scale and in the last minute on a historical one.

During which time we developed an intellectual DNA refining the political process. Are we to set this IDNA at odds with an itsy-bitsy, determined, glop of biological material which wouldn't exist in knowledge without the IDNA?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 11:04 am
JLNobody wrote:
While DNA was not designed (in the sense of "created") by a mind, it has been both empirically "discovered" and conceptually "constructed" by minds.

Minds which resulted from the evolution of DNA.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 12:27 pm
Yeah-- one paricular one--the Christian one.

And after a great deal of trial and error, mostly error.

That was a really stupid response ros. Really, really stupid. How can anybody be that stupid. You've just conceded the whole case. Lock, stock and barrel.

Not that you will allow yourself to know it though.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 06:14 pm
parados wrote:
Clarification of my earlier post, the quotes were screwed up


You need to correct more than that. Rolling Eyes

btw after we're done talking about how water would make 'evolution' of DNA in the open environment impossible in a practical sense (and your scenario over water washing over pores in a rock IS an open environment scenario), we can talk about another corrosive chemical that Shapiro mentions -- oxygen. Cool
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2008 06:17 pm
You can mention oxygen to your heart's content. The oxygen content of our atmosphere is a product of life forms which began the CO2/O2 respiration cycle after life was well established. This is just like that young weak sun bullshit you tried to peddle, it's not significant unless someone is stupid enough to assume the early atmosphere was composed just as the present atmosphere is composed.

You have no argument, and you have provided not an iota of evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 01:24:02