DNA Was Designed By A Mind

real life wrote:

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?

Nothing. Because I wasn't interested in the author, I was interested in the context.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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.

In the first place, i did not write that, the source i quoted wrote it, and this is yet another example of your fundamental dishonesty.

This is the statement you made, and which Pauligirl states "appears" to be a quote of Antonio Lozcano in the forward to someone else's book, and which, as Roswell points out, is not provided in context:

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.

Now, you offered this after i justifiably ridiculed your remark about oxygen being inimical to DNA. This statement which you have quoted does not establish when DNA appears, and whether or not it is correct to assume that living systems can only be defined by the presence of DNA--so it is a non sequitur to any remark about oxygen being poisonous to DNA. Nor does a reference to the first cells (whether or not found "in the rocks") have any bearing on what conditions were like at the time the DNA assembled itself.

My remark was a response to your typical idiocy, in this case, that oxygen is poisonous to DNA. I simply pointed out that free oxygen is the product of a biotic process, and it were foolish to assume that any great amount of free oxygen existed before the rise of eukaryotes. That is the reason that i used the specific quotes i employed.

I'm not at all surprised that you don't get it. I see no evidence that you understand the significance of prokaryotes and eukaryotes, whether the context is Shapiro's reference to lipid spheres, or the increase in ambient free oxygen in the atmosphere and the seas. I'm not concerned with your dishontest efforts to divert the discussion into useless paths, and to make it seem that you have made a point when you haven't. Your putative quote of Antonio Lozcano does not in any way answer the question of the source of free oxygen in the atmposphere. The quotes which i provided refer to the biotic processes which produced that free oxygen.

But you are fundamentally dishonest because you are once again attempting to establish that the argument is about whether or not DNA could assemble itself in the ambient environment of either the atmosphere or the seas. No one here has made such an argument. As was the case of you citations of Shapiro, this is a red herring which you have introduced.

But more fundamentally dishonest is your use of any quote by any scientist who does not adhere to your young earth creationist point of view. You are promulgating a lie in your own terms to cite an authority who considers the planet to be billions of years old, and that there is geological evidence to that effect, when you don't yourself believe that.

So, as i pointed out, referring to free oxygen in the atmosphere is a red herring, and you have failed to demonstrate that this were true, you have failed to provide the context of Mr. Lozcano's statement (if that is indeed what it is) and you have failed to provide a shred of evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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

No, that is not an issue at all, it is a red herring that you are attempting to introduce.

His statement does not provide any evidence that were ambient free oxygen in the environment of the atmosphere or the seas at the time that DNA assembled itself. In fact, it it is taken as authoritative, it undermines your attempt to introduce that red herring to the extent that you claim it undermines a statement that there wasn't ambient free oxygen in the environment at that time.

His statement has no bearing on your attempt to distort the nature of this argument into a controversy over whether or not DNA could assemble itself in the environment of the atmosphere or the seas, separate from any living system, because no one here has made that claim.

His statement has no bearing on whether or not DNA was "designed" by a mind.

You continue to fail to provide any evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. You continue to attempt to divert the discussion from your failure by littering the thread with red herrings.

0 Replies

JLN wrote-

Quote:

Farmerman, no need to block Spendi's post.

He has to because he can't resist reading them and they disturb his self esteem.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
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?

In the first place, i did not write that, the source i quoted wrote it, and this is yet another example of your fundamental dishonesty.

Didnt say you wrote it. But you emphasized it saying 'you conveniently ignore this', and I'm pointing out that it isn't in conflict with Dr Lozcano's statement.

You want to accuse others of dishonesty for things they don't say.

0 Replies

What exactly was it that Settin' Aah-aah accused somebody of not saying?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

0Didnt say you wrote it. But you emphasized it saying 'you conveniently ignore this', and I'm pointing out that it isn't in conflict with Dr Lozcano's statement.

You want to accuse others of dishonesty for things they don't say.

This is the passage to which i objected:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
geochemical evidence for microbial activity ....in the rock record

I did not write "geochemical evidence for microbial activity ...in the rock record"--that was a portion (one which you internally edited) of a passage which i quoted and cited.

Don't try to pin on me something which i did not write. When you do, it makes you a liar.

So far, you've done nothing in this thread but drag red herrings across the trail of the fox. In fact, you are what the country boys call a dog that won't hunt.

You have provided no evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. No one in this thread has provided any evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. No one has even provided a plausible logical argument for it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I did not write "geochemical evidence for microbial activity ...in the rock record"--that was a portion (one which you internally edited) of a passage which i quoted and cited.

Ok sorry. I accidentally left one of the quote boxes off. My bad. But I know you knew my meaning.

real life wrote:

Set,

Setanta wrote:
Quote:
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.

There.

Now address the issue of your error.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

But more fundamentally dishonest is your use of any quote by any scientist who does not adhere to your young earth creationist point of view. You are promulgating a lie in your own terms to cite an authority who considers the planet to be billions of years old, and that there is geological evidence to that effect, when you don't yourself believe that.

What a load of garbage.

To suggest that one must agree with an author on each and every point or agree on none at all is the lamest thing you could try to pull.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

But you are fundamentally dishonest because you are once again attempting to establish that the argument is about whether or not DNA could assemble itself in the ambient environment of either the atmosphere or the seas. No one here has made such an argument.

Actually, if I were as nit picking as you, I would first point out that I've not made reference to DNA forming (or not) in the atmosphere.

Again, if I were like you , I would then rail on about your dishonesty, what a pitiful liar you were.

But I'll look upon this as a simple mistake instead and overlook it.

What I have said is that oxygen would severely damage DNA, but it is not necessary to imagine this taking place in the atmosphere since chemical reactions taking place in the mud on the face of the earth would also come into continual contact with oxygen.

So I'll let this pass and regard it as an error.

Let's also keep in mind that there is no open environment that Dr Shapiro thought suitable for attempting to 'evolve' a self replicating molecule. That's why he tries to imagine it happening inside a living organism.

You on the other hand have on numerous occasions suggested that prebiotic chemical activity in clays could be a reasonable starting point for life's building blocks.

Lets remember that if there were not considerable free oxygen on earth at this point that the lack of ozone would allow harmful radiation to decimate biochemicals that you postulate are in the process of self assembly in the mud.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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

No, that is not an issue at all, it is a red herring that you are attempting to introduce.

It is an issue because when I posted the statement by Dr Lozcano, I was told what a load of unscientific garbage it was. Of course the accuser thought that he was dissing me, and so he felt quite safe.

But the statement was not mine and the question is, is it true?

If it is not, why is it included in Dr Margulis' book?

Now if it is true that:

Dr Anthony Lozcano, professor at the Science Faculty of National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City and President of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life 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.

then those who claim that 'there IS geological evidence of the environmental conditions of our planet at the time of the emergence of living systems' are simply incorrect.

That would mean that either:

you must produce some OTHER type of evidence for your claim that little or no free oxygen existed at that time

or

you are employing circular argumentation

or

you are simply making an assumption.

Which is it?

0 Replies

Science 20 December 2002:
Vol. 298. no. 5602, pp. 2341 - 2342
DOI: 10.1126/science.1079894
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives
GEOLOGY:
Earth's Early Atmosphere
Uwe H. Wiechert
New evidence indicates that before 2400 million years ago, Earth's atmosphere contained no more than trace amounts of oxygen. In his Perspective, Wiechert reviews the latest evidence reported by Farquhar et al., who have analyzed the sulfur isotope composition of ancient inclusions in diamond. These inclusions were transported into the mantle by subduction and reached Earth's surface again by explosive volcanism. Further insights into conditions on early Earth are provided by Habicht et al., whose experiments suggest that the sulfate concentrations in the ocean were much lower than today, with important implications for the composition of the atmosphere.

0 Replies

http://ww.ux1.eia.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html

Addition of O2 to the Atmosphere
Today, the atmosphere is ~21% free oxygen. How did oxygen reach these levels in the atmosphere? Revisit the oxygen cycle:
Oxygen Production

Photochemical dissociation - breakup of water molecules by ultraviolet
Produced O2 levels approx. 1-2% current levels
At these levels O3 (Ozone) can form to shield Earth surface from UV
Photosynthesis - CO2 + H2O + sunlight = organic compounds + O2 - produced by cyanobacteria, and eventually higher plants - supplied the rest of O2 to atmosphere. Thus plant populations
Oxygen Consumers

Chemical Weathering - through oxidation of surface materials (early consumer)
Animal Respiration (much later)
Burning of Fossil Fuels (much, much later)
Throughout the Archean there was little to no free oxygen in the atmosphere (<1% of presence levels). What little was produced by cyanobacteria, was probably consumed by the weathering process. Once rocks at the surface were sufficiently oxidized, more oxygen could remain free in the atmosphere.
During the Proterozoic the amount of free O2 in the atmosphere rose from 1 - 10 %. Most of this was released by cyanobacteria, which increase in abundance in the fossil record 2.3 Ga. Present levels of O2 were probably not achieved until ~400 Ma.

Evidence from the Rock Record
Iron (Fe) i s extremely reactive with oxygen. If we look at the oxidation state of Fe in the rock record, we can infer a great deal about atmospheric evolution.
Archean - Find occurrence of minerals that only form in non-oxidizing environments in Archean sediments: Pyrite (Fools gold; FeS2), Uraninite (UO2). These minerals are easily dissolved out of rocks under present atmospheric conditions.
Banded Iron Formation (BIF) - Deep water deposits in which layers of iron-rich minerals alternate with iron-poor layers, primarily chert. Iron minerals include iron oxide, iron carbonate, iron silicate, iron sulfide. BIF's are a major source of iron ore, b/c they contain magnetite (Fe3O4) which has a higher iron-to-oxygen ratio than hematite. These are common in rocks 2.0 - 2.8 B.y. old, but do not form today.
Red beds (continental siliciclastic deposits) are never found in rocks older than 2.3 B. y., but are common during Phanerozoic time. Red beds are red because of the highly oxidized mineral hematite (Fe2O3), that probably forms secondarily by oxidation of other Fe minerals that have accumulated in the sediment.
Conclusion - amount of O2 in the atmosphere has increased with time.

Looks like Lozcano is wrong. Quelle surprise.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Now , the issue is: either he is correct, or he is incorrect.

No, that is not an issue at all, it is a red herring that you are attempting to introduce.

It is an issue because when I posted the statement by Dr Lozcano, I was told what a load of unscientific garbage it was. Of course the accuser thought that he was dissing me, and so he felt quite safe.

I told you nothing of the kind. I simply posted an array of citations about the rise of eukaryotic organisms in reference to the production of free oxygen in the atmosphere.

It is still a red herring, because, as i have pointed out, you continue to dodge the fact that no one here has alleged that DNA assembled itself in the ambient environment.

Quote:

then those who claim that 'there IS geological evidence of the environmental conditions of our planet at the time of the emergence of living systems' are simply incorrect.

That would mean that either:

you must produce some OTHER type of evidence for your claim that little or no free oxygen existed at that time

or

you are employing circular argumentation

or

you are simply making an assumption.

Which is it?

It is none of those, because your citation is a non sequitur. No one here has alleged that DNA assembled itself in the ambient environment, either of the seas or of the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, as the citations which Username has provided show (and as did the citations which i provided) the great inferential evidence is that free oxygen in the atmopshere is a result of biotic action. Clearly, with around 20% of the atmosphere being free oxygen, and with the biomass responsible for maintaining that proportion, it could not have been common in the ambient environment prior to the rise of the biomass, your citation of Lozcano notwithstanding. In fact, you were also asked to provide context of the citation, and you have failed to do so. For all we know, Lozcano wrote: Creationists make the following claim, for which there is no basis.

Without context, how can we know.

But as i have pointed out, this is a red herring.

It continues to be true that neither you, nor anyone else has provided any evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

0 Replies

By the way, no one said that there is geological evidence of the environmental conditions of our planet at the time that life arose. This is just another of your strawman arguments, this is just another red herring.

What evidence do you have that DNA was "designed" by a mind.

0 Replies

It is hard to imagine that a series of random chemical/electrical accidents could result in you banging your head against a wall for months on end Settin'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

What I have said is that oxygen would severely damage DNA, but it is not necessary to imagine this taking place in the atmosphere since chemical reactions taking place in the mud on the face of the earth would also come into continual contact with oxygen.

If that is true of mud then chemical reactions that take place in the cells mean that DNA in cells come into continual contact with oxygen. More oxygen enters cells than enters mud. Cells have to take in oxygen to survive. Your statement about oxygen and mud is silly and unscientific. Gases do not flow freely through mud. Often mud is found under standing water.

Quote:

So I'll let this pass and regard it as an error.

Let's also keep in mind that there is no open environment that Dr Shapiro thought suitable for attempting to 'evolve' a self replicating molecule. That's why he tries to imagine it happening inside a living organism.

You on the other hand have on numerous occasions suggested that prebiotic chemical activity in clays could be a reasonable starting point for life's building blocks.

Lets remember that if there were not considerable free oxygen on earth at this point that the lack of ozone would allow harmful radiation to decimate biochemicals that you postulate are in the process of self assembly in the mud.

Lets see. Does mud act as a sun screen and block harmful radiation? We know that light weight clothing blocks UV radiation. I would bet that a thin layer of mud works just as well. Most mud doesn't come in "thin layers."

Your arguments are silly real life and ignore the most basic common sense let alone science. Mud doesn't come in layers so thin that all the mud is in constant contact with the atmosphere and subject to solar radiation.

0 Replies

Well, it'd be interesting to see you try to fit your 'water passes over the pores on the surface of a mineral' with your 'layers of mud covering reactants would protect biochemicals from UV'.

Which is it?

Is it on the surface where water can deposit minerals in pores on a mineral?

Or is it covered by layers of mud, protected from radiation?

Your ever-more-hopeful scenarios are apparently the reason that Shapiro and others he has cited have referred to the assembly of a self replicating molecule evolving in the open environment as akin to 'miracles beyond the scope of scientific inquiry'

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

By the way, no one said that there is geological evidence of the environmental conditions of our planet at the time that life arose. This is just another of your strawman arguments, this is just another red herring.

I guess that the presence (or non-presence) of oxygen is not an environmental condition then.

And I guess that citing arguments involving volcanoes, red beds and diamonds are not intended to be geological evidence.

btw you keep complaining about not having access to the context of Dr. Lozcano's remarks, but Pauligirl posted a link.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Well, it'd be interesting to see you try to fit your 'water passes over the pores on the surface of a mineral' with your 'layers of mud covering reactants would protect biochemicals from UV'.

Which is it?

Is it on the surface where water can deposit minerals in pores on a mineral?

Or is it covered by layers of mud, protected from radiation?

Who said it can only be one? That is just your attempt to try to use one method against the other. Your attempts are becoming feebler all the time.

You constant harping on things that were never said shows you have no argument. Why would a mineral face need to be covered with mud to protect the pores from radiation? The mineral face can be in a cave. It can be on the shaded side of a hill. It can be simply the fact that rocks block UV radiation. Even a child knows that shining a light on an opening will not light the entire cavity but will create shadows. Why does moss grow on only one side of trees? The sun doesn't shine from EVERY direction. Step outside and see your shadow. Maybe you can get a 4 year old to explain why you have a shadow. Your questions show an inability to think at all.

Quote:

Your ever-more-hopeful scenarios are apparently the reason that Shapiro and others he has cited have referred to the assembly of a self replicating molecule evolving in the open environment as akin to 'miracles beyond the scope of scientific inquiry'

You mean the same award winning chemist Shapiro that proposes SEVERAL ways life could have started? That Shapiro?

You do realize real life that award winning chemists disagree with you on just about everything you promote as being "scientific."

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know