DNA Was Designed By A Mind

I've provided a link at least three times in this short thread, including at least one post that you responded to and quoted.

I can't do the reading for you.

(yeah great post Brandon)

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Do you know what happens to DNA left out in the open? It degrades and is destroyed.

It doesn't keepa chuggin, gettin' better ever' day.

Who's talking about DNA left out in the open??? I'm not. I'm talking about a self-replicating molecule of unknown type, formed in the ocean, which developed over the eons into a single celled organism.......

ooooohhhhhhh

its left out in the ocean.....not the air.......

now that makes a lot of difference

DNA left in the ocean would surely build itself into a critter right quick



do you seriously propose that DNA would not degrade in the ocean?

(oops almost forgot, great post Brandon)

The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction).

DNA left in the ocean would surely build itself into a critter right quick



do you seriously propose that DNA would not degrade in the ocean?

real life wrote:

DNA left in the ocean would surely build itself into a critter right quick



do you seriously propose that DNA would not degrade in the ocean?

Brandon's not talking about DNA. Neither is Shapiro. Read Brandon's post again if you don't see where you got lost.

From Shapiro...

Quote:

The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction).

As usual, you are full of **** real life. You co-opt Shapiro's argument that the earliest replicator probably wasn't RNA and discard everything else he says about the requirements needed for a replicator molecule to survive.

real life wrote:

I've provided a link at least three times in this short thread, including at least one post that you responded to and quoted.

I can't do the reading for you.

(yeah great post Brandon)

You provided a link and as usual you were told you were misrepresenting the argument made by Shapiro.

You ignore it when others point out where Shapiro doesn't agree with you and repeat your argument as if it has merit, which it doesn't. Your argument will never have merit because you base it on lies about what others said.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

DNA left in the ocean would surely build itself into a critter right quick



do you seriously propose that DNA would not degrade in the ocean?

Brandon's not talking about DNA. Neither is Shapiro. Read Brandon's post again if you don't see where you got lost.

Brandon referred to a 'replicating molecule'.

DNA is the 'replicating molecule' upon which life on Earth is based.

If he wishes to describe another 'replicating molecule' that he has in mind (such as RNA) then I would add that RNA would fare no better in the open ocean than DNA.

Systems of the type I have described usually have been classified under the heading "metabolism first," which implies that they do not contain a mechanism for heredity. In other words, they contain no obvious molecule or structure that allows the information stored in them (their heredity) to be duplicated and passed on to their descendants. However a collection of small items holds the same information as a list that describes the items. For example, my wife gives me a shopping list for the supermarket; the collection of grocery items that I return with contains the same information as the list. Doron Lancet has given the name "compositional genome" to heredity stored in small molecules,

In living organisms, DNA does not usually exist as a single molecule

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

I've provided a link at least three times in this short thread, including at least one post that you responded to and quoted.

I can't do the reading for you.

(yeah great post Brandon)

You provided a link and as usual you were told you were misrepresenting the argument made by Shapiro.

You ignore it when others point out where Shapiro doesn't agree with you and repeat your argument as if it has merit, which it doesn't. Your argument will never have merit because you base it on lies about what others said.

I never said that I agree with Shapiro on all points or that he agrees with me on all points.

We share some points of agreement, and disagree on many others.

If you think I've misrepresented Shapiro's position then you'd better be able to specifically cite what I said in context and make your case. (Hint: dont waste your time, you can't)

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't see anything inherently improbable in the idea that in a world full of oceans, over billions of years, with molecules forming and disintegrating under various energy inputs, a self-replicating molecule could form eventually.

But award winning chemists, who have studied the problem for years, do.

The small-molecule alternative, however, is in harmony with the views of biologist Stuart Kauffman: "If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with unknown companions."

parados wrote:

From Shapiro...

Quote:

The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction).

As usual, you are full of **** real life. You co-opt Shapiro's argument that the earliest replicator probably wasn't RNA and discard everything else he says about the requirements needed for a replicator molecule to survive.

Brandon wasn't in Shapiro's camp.

Brandon alluded to a 'replicator first' model of early life, out in the ocean.

Please try to keep up, parados. We discussed this issue of yours yesterday and I won't continue to give you gentle guidance.

I don't see anything inherently improbable in the idea that in a world full of oceans, over billions of years, with molecules forming and disintegrating under various energy inputs, a self-replicating molecule could form eventually.

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't see anything inherently improbable in the idea that in a world full of oceans, over billions of years, with molecules forming and disintegrating under various energy inputs, a self-replicating molecule could form eventually.

But award winning chemists, who have studied the problem for years, do.

.....Giving a testimonial ("he said it and he's smart") is not an argument. Reproduce a bit of their argument or stop referring to it. I am not surprised in the least that you attempt to argue science by listing smart people who agree with your thesis.......

I've provided a link at least three times in this short thread, including at least one post that you responded to and quoted.

I can't do the reading for you.

(yeah great post Brandon)

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today. Anyway, any scientific theory that's halfway plausible is superior to a magical theory.

Do you know what happens to DNA left out in the open? It degrades and is destroyed.

It doesn't keepa chuggin, gettin' better ever' day.

Who's talking about DNA left out in the open??? I'm not. I'm talking about a self-replicating molecule of unknown type, formed in the ocean, which developed over the eons into a single celled organism.......

ooooohhhhhhh

its left out in the ocean.....not the air.......

now that makes a lot of difference

DNA left in the ocean would surely build itself into a critter right quick



do you seriously propose that DNA would not degrade in the ocean?

(oops almost forgot, great post Brandon)

Brandon referred to a 'replicating molecule'.

real life wrote:

Brandon referred to a 'replicating molecule'.

He referred to a replicating molecule of unknown type. He was quite specific. His statement was consistent with Shapiro's article.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon referred to a 'replicating molecule'.

He referred to a replicating molecule of unknown type. He was quite specific. His statement was consistent with Shapiro's article.

Yes, he was quite specific about giving no specifics.

Who's talking about DNA left out in the open??? I'm not. I'm talking about a self-replicating molecule of unknown type, formed in the ocean, which developed over the eons into a single celled organism.......

That is specifically the type of scenario Shapiro rejects.

parados,

Don't waste my time any longer until you can read and understand what I and others have said.

You obviously don't understand my posts, neither did you understand Brandon's point, nor have you understood Shapiro's article.

Who's talking about DNA left out in the open??? I'm not. I'm talking about a self-replicating molecule of unknown type

real life wrote:

That is specifically the type of scenario Shapiro rejects.

What Shapiro really rejects is *poofism*. How are you going to deal with that?