DNA Was Designed By A Mind

wandeljw wrote:

Do you believe FM is more likely to "trip up", real life?

It's not a matter of 'tripping up' wande.

I think it's appropriate for him to defend his own view.

I don't expect parados to have to do so, and therefore I don't treat a reply from parados as representing FM's position.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:

*checks in, no reply yet*

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3343118#3343118

Looks like a valid reply to me.

Given RL's history of misrepresentation, I certainly don't trust his references without seeing the source and putting it all back into context.

If you think that the statement could mean different things in different contexts, I'd be very interested to hear 2 or 3 different meanings you think it could carry, depending on context.

If there aren't various meanings, then your 'I don't trust you without the context' is a smokescreen.

0 Replies

Sadly, creationism thrives on the "2 or 3 meanings" ploy.

0 Replies

So let me guess . . . "real life" hasn't provided a source for his silly statement from authority . . . and no one has provided a shred of evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

How am i doin' so far here?

0 Replies

set,

are you unable to say whether you agree with the statement or not until you know who said it?

it is that kind of subjectivity that is the very reason I posted it without attribution, to trigger this kind of discussion.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If you think that the statement could mean different things in different contexts, I'd be very interested to hear 2 or 3 different meanings you think it could carry, depending on context.

Just provide the source, then we won't have to guess.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So let me guess . . . "real life" hasn't provided a source for his silly statement from authority . . . and no one has provided a shred of evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

How am i doin' so far here?

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1860/imagesvp9.jpg

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
I certainly don't trust his references without seeing the source and putting it all back into context.

If you think that the statement could mean different things in different contexts, I'd be very interested to hear 2 or 3 different meanings you think it could carry, depending on context.

Just provide the source, then we won't have to guess.

I'm not asking you to guess. I'm asking you to THINK.

Read the statement and if you think it could mean more than one thing, then provide several examples.

0 Replies

Those arrows are wire-guided because there is no possibilty of anybody, ever, providing a shred of evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

Or was not.

The phrase is synonymous with evidence for the existence of God.

Or the non existence of God.

Even little girls and blind people can fire wire-guided arrows.

I'd tell ros that he is a joke but for the fact he has used his grease monkey on me which is synonymous with having his head up his arse. He'll be glad it is greased I'm sure.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I'm not asking you to guess. I'm asking you to THINK.

No you're not, you're asking me to waste my time speculating about the possible meaning of an unsupported statement which you seem to have pulled out of thin air.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Still waiting for that source real life.....

Somehow I knew you wouldn't be forthcoming

0 Replies

real life wrote:

set,

are you unable to say whether you agree with the statement or not until you know who said it?

it is that kind of subjectivity that is the very reason I posted it without attribution, to trigger this kind of discussion.

You are so full of bullshit. I've already replied to that statement in my post #3342770--and i disagreed with it, providing quotes and the sources of the quotes. Don't try to feed us some horseshit line that you have provided an unattributed quote because you want to spark a discussion which will transcend subjectivity. Without attribution, you are just peddling bullshit. Even with attribution, you will have provided one point of view which is contradicted by at least the three sources which i provided, with all the authors (more than three) named.

The fact of the matter is, you've been shot down every time you shot off your mouth in this thread, and now you are attempting to claim some higher moral ground of philosophical purity in which you want to "trigger" an honest discussion. That's a load of crap; you have been consistently, fundamentally dishonest throughout this thread.

0 Replies

Farmerman, no need to block Spendi's post. There are good number of people who I almost never read--well maybe sometimes when their posts are brief. I say this with the full knowledge that many people do not read mine--and I don't blame them. I address most of my posts to very few people.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
set,

are you unable to say whether you agree with the statement or not until you know who said it?

it is that kind of subjectivity that is the very reason I posted it without attribution, to trigger this kind of discussion.

I've already replied to that statement in my post #3342770--and i disagreed with it, providing quotes and the sources of the quotes..... Even with attribution, you will have provided one point of view which is contradicted by at least the three sources which i provided, with all the authors (more than three) named.

None of the three snippets which you quoted even address the two issues covered in the statement I provided.

Let's look at the statement again:

a prominent biologist wrote:

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.

Your snippets:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Other than documenting broad assumptions (you gotta love statements like 'Debates over the biogenicity of the very first putative cellular prokaryotes are peripheral to the central observation that prokaryotic life arose' ) your quotes contribute nothing toward supporting nor negating the statement I've provided.

The statement mentions:

lack of geological evidence of the enviromental conditions at the time life began

lack of fossil evidence of evolutionary processes preceding the first cells for which exists fossil evidence

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
I'm not asking you to guess. I'm asking you to THINK.

No you're not, you're asking me to waste my time speculating about the possible meaning of an unsupported statement which you seem to have pulled out of thin air.

If you cannot made a sound judgement on the veracity of a statement without knowing it's author, what does that say about your objectivity?

0 Replies

Your scientific hebetude is not evidence that i have failed to address your statement from authority.

In the first place, pointing out the origin of atmospheric free oxygen makes your claim irrelevant. The inferential evidence is that free oxygen in the atmosphere arises from living organisms, so that whether or not there were fossil evidence of the extent of free oxygen in the atmosphere becomes insignificant to the discussion. Furthermore, you conveniently ignore this:

Quote:

. . . 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).

Of course, i can understand why you would want to ignore evidence of biological evidence in the the rock record dating back to three and half billion years ago or longer. So that you will understand, biological fractionation of carbon refers to the process of separating carbon from carbon dioxide, the waste product of which is free oxygen. I also note that you are ignoring the point which i made, and which FM discussed in more detail of the geological evidence of the removal of free oxygen from the atmosphere and the seas, the evidence of which is metallic oxides.

Finally, you continue to ignore the point that i made that even if you could prove that there were free oxygen in the ancient atmosphere (which you haven't) it would be a non sequitur in the discussion, because nobody here has claimed that DNA was assembled in the ambient environment of the seas or the atmosphere.

This is yet another dodge of yours.

You have provided ZERO evidence for the proposition that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

0 Replies

Set,

Setanta wrote:

geochemical evidence for microbial activity ....in the rock record

is specifically NOT

Quote:

(a) fossil record of the evolutionary processes that preceded the appearance of the first cells

By the time you have microbes, you've passed the period that precedes it. Get it?

Further, if there were not already abundant free oxygen in the atmosphere, then the lack of ozone would allow harmful radiation to wreak havoc on the fledgling biochemicals which you need to flourish (whether in the water or in the mud) in order to establish your view.

0 Replies

RL's quote appears to be a Foreword written by Antonio Lazcano for
Early Life By Lynn Margulis, Michael Dolan
http://tinyurl.com/63vcas

Antonio Lazcano
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Antonio Lazcano is a Mexican biology researcher and professor at the Science Faculty of National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City. He has studied the origin and early evolution of life for more than 30 years.
Lazcano pursued his undergraduate and graduate studies at UNAM, where he focused on the study of prebiotic evolution and the emergence of life. He has been professor-in-residence or visiting scientist in France, Spain, Cuba, Switzerland, Russia, and the United States. He has written several books in Spanish, including The Origin of Life (1984) which became a best-seller with more than 600,000 sold copies. In addition, he has been a member of several advisory and review boards of scientific organizations, such as NASA
He is the current president of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, and also the first Latin American scientist to occupy this position.
Lazcano has devoted considerable efforts to promote scientific journalism and teaching. He also promotes the study of evolutionary biology and the origins of life in Latin America.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Lazcano"

0 Replies

Well done, Pauligirl. You win the Google award.

You know, I was nearly at the point this afternoon of providing the citation, but I was having so much fun that I decided to give it another day or so.

Your resourcefulness is commendable.

As you see, it is a prominent biologist of decidedly evolutionary views that is responsible for the statement that has been so roundly condemned by some of our scientific types on A2K (because they thought it was MY statement at first).

How embarrassing for them to learn that it was not I that made such an assertion public first. It was a fellow evolutionist.

Now , the issue is: either he is correct, or he is incorrect.

Which is it?

His fidelity to the evolutionary cause is not under question. I've not painted him as a secret believer in ID/creation.

He is an evolutionist in spite of knowing that no evidence exists on the specific matters he has cited, and he accepts the assumptions that fill the gaps to keep himself well within the camp.

Is his statement correct, or incorrect?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Farmerman, no need to block Spendi's post. There are good number of people who I almost never read--well maybe sometimes when their posts are brief. I say this with the full knowledge that many people do not read mine--and I don't blame them. I address most of my posts to very few people.

I read yours JL. Even if they are long Smile

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know