DNA Was Designed By A Mind

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.

It is generally accepted that the first living organisms were some form of prokaryotes, which may have evolved out of protobionts. The oldest known fossilized prokaryotes were laid down approximately 3.5 billion years ago, only about 1 billion years after the formation of the earth's crust. Even today, prokaryotes are perhaps the most successful and abundant life forms. Eukaryotes only formed later, from endosymbiosis of multiple prokaryote ancestors. The oldest known fossil eukaryotes are about 1.7 billion years old. However, some genetic evidence suggests eukaryotes appeared as early as 3 billion years ago.

The origin of the eukaryotic cell was a milestone in the evolution of life, since they include all complex cells and almost all multi-cellular organisms. The timing of this series of events is hard to determine; Knoll (1992) suggests they developed approximately 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago. Some acritarchs are known from at least 1650 million years ago, and the possible alga Grypania has been found as far back as 2100 million years ago. Fossils that are clearly related to modern groups start appearing around 1.2 billion years ago, in the form of a red alga.

The most striking fact of the fossil record of bacteria and animals is the strongly asymmetric timing of their origins (Fig. 1.1). Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago (Ga), and the first geochemical evidence (isotope ratios indicative of biological fractionation of carbon) for microbial activity appears in the rock record between 3.8 and 3.5 Ga (Mojzsis et al. 1996; Falkowski and Raven 1997; Rosing 1999). Prokaryotic fossils have been reported from rocks as old as 3.47 billion years (Schopf, 1993), and structural evidence of prokaryotic aggregations in the form of films, mats, and stromatolites dates to 3.5 Ga (Awramik 1984; Schopf 1992). Debates over the biogenicity of the very first putative cellular prokaryotes are peripheral to the central observation that prokaryotic life arose, diversified, and underwent more than 2 billion years of evolutionary change before the emergence of animals. Microbes have been the only form of life on Earth throughout most of its history. Animals first appear in the fossil record approximately 500 million years ago (Ma). By this time, microbes had profoundly modified the physical and chemical environments of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere, establishing the habitats in which multicellular life made its debut. Animals arose in a world teeming with microbes that had already established complex symbiotic interactions (both extra- and intracellular) with one another.

How life emerged from non-life is an extremely challenging question. The experiments of Oparin, Miller and others now lend weight to the hypothesis that energy in the form of ultraviolet light from the sun, or lightning discharges, could have created complex organic molecules. Over the immensity of time, cell-like aggregates of these molecules, called coacervates, somehow gave rise to the first primitive cells. Major, additional steps are needed - the origin of photosynthesis and respiration, and the ability to self-replicate. We know little about these.

Geological evidence suggests that the first cells arose at least 3.5 billion years ago. Fossil remains of 2-billion-year old stromatolies - large structures formed by blue-green algae - demonstrate that much biological activity was taking place then, and probably much earlier. Similar structures can be seen today along the coast of Australia. Geological evidence also tells us that photosynthesis appeared on the scene roughly 2.5 billion years ago. Initially this oxygen was taken up by easily oxidized rocks, producing "banded rock" and "red bed" formations. About 1 billion years ago, oxygen began to accumulate in the atmosphere. This had two important consequences. First, it set the stage for the advent of aerobic (oxygen-based) respiration. Second, as ultraviolet light split oxygen molecules, ozone was formed, resulting in the ozone layer that now serves as a shield against UV light.

Whether or not it does, i will accept the evidence of specialists in this field over that of a bible-thumper desperately fighting in the last ditch to defend the proposition that his scripture of choice is a literal description of the cosmos, its origins and its composition.

[url=http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/complex_life/complex_life.html][b]The University of Michigan's current lectures series[/b][/url] wrote:

Geological evidence suggests that the first cells arose at least 3.5 billion years ago.

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.

Settin' Aah-aah wrote-

Quote:

Whether or not it does, i will accept the evidence of specialists in this field over that of a bible-thumper desperately fighting in the last ditch to defend the proposition that his scripture of choice is a literal description of the cosmos, its origins and its composition.

As I understand the views of Bible-thumpers they would designate a nice suburban estate as a nice suburban estate.

Specialists in the field would designate it as a collection of beta-minus breeding hutches arranged for efficiencies of supply and waste removal.

If one rides with specialists in the field one has to accept all their conclusions and not just a few according to one's tastes and delicacies.

No geological evidence of the environmental conditions of our planet at the time of the emergence of living systems exists, nor is any fossil record of the evolutionary processes that preceded the appearance of the first cells present in the rocks.

_________________

The last three hours have shown up where fundamental dishonesty raises its head in the here and now.

Picking out your own "specialists" is dishonest.

rl

Quote:

No geological evidence of the environmental conditions of our planet at the time of the emergence of living systems exists, nor is any fossil record of the evolutionary processes that preceded the appearance of the first cells present in the rocks.

_________________

The correct RL phraseology should be

My church and worldview dictate that I find no geological evidence....
etc etc.

The evidence of paleoclimate/strat. occurences of the chemical structure of life (C12v C13) is clear evidence in a "fossil" record. Scientists use it all the time and are familiar with its compelling evidence. Apparently you are too stubborn to want to read what Ive suggested you read for the last 2 years on this very subject,SO, you continue to post your ignorant garbage trying to sound like you even have the slightest isea of what you speak. Obviously, the Church of RL doesnt wish you to be too informed, lest you stray.

Im goin to Newfoundland so you can spout whateve you wish. Set just nicely showed us that you are somewhat clueless RL. Otherwise you could have found the very same links as he. Im assuming that you know how to type into a search engine.

Actually the statement is not mine, but that of a prominent biologist ( an evolutionist).

Now we can watch as you squirm around to change from:

'that statement is false , non-scientific garbage, RL'

to

'that statement is true and scientifically sound, RL. You just don't understand it.'

Should be fun. Proceed.

Rosborne correctly qualified my statement as follows:

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.

I agree, but would make the following qualification: BRAINS result from the evolution of DNA and MINDS result from a combination of evolution of DNA and culture. The CONTENT of mind (thought) is fundamentally learned, a social as well as a biological product.