DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The theory is that at some point in time, after the Earth had existed for billions of years, a self-replicating molecule formed by chance in an ocean. Once it did, natural selection and mutation would have come into play. The reason why I do not tell you the composition and structure of the molecule is that there is no possible way to know what it was. If you object to this scenario, give an actual argument demonstrating that it is unlikely.

Shapiro makes the argument much more eloquently than I .

I won't cut and paste all 8 pages, but I have provided a link and have discussed the major theme of his piece.

It's funny how you are so confident that 'something coulda' happened, but you can't begin to show evidence that it actually did, or what the actual result would be if it had.

In short, your vague wish that something MIGHTA happened is unfalsifiable and unscientific. It's just speculation masquerading as science.

As to the question of whether a self-replicating molecule DID form, I cannot and don't claim that I can prove it happened, but it fits the facts nicely, and it doesn't seem unlikely to me that it would eventually occur given billions of years and a whole planetful of soup.

Dr Shapiro doesn't think it fits the facts so well. He and other award winning chemists refer to it as belief in the miraculous.

Maybe it doesn't seem unlikely to you because you aren't the chemist that he is.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The theory is that at some point in time, after the Earth had existed for billions of years, a self-replicating molecule formed by chance in an ocean. Once it did, natural selection and mutation would have come into play. The reason why I do not tell you the composition and structure of the molecule is that there is no possible way to know what it was. If you object to this scenario, give an actual argument demonstrating that it is unlikely.

Shapiro makes the argument much more eloquently than I .

I won't cut and paste all 8 pages, but I have provided a link and have discussed the major theme of his piece.

It's funny how you are so confident that 'something coulda' happened, but you can't begin to show evidence that it actually did, or what the actual result would be if it had.

In short, your vague wish that something MIGHTA happened is unfalsifiable and unscientific. It's just speculation masquerading as science.

As to the question of whether a self-replicating molecule DID form, I cannot and don't claim that I can prove it happened, but it fits the facts nicely, and it doesn't seem unlikely to me that it would eventually occur given billions of years and a whole planetful of soup.

Dr Shapiro doesn't think it fits the facts so well. He and other award winning chemists refer to it as belief in the miraculous.

Maybe it doesn't seem unlikely to you because you aren't the chemist that he is.

1. If you think it's unlikely, then give some kind of a calculation, or numbers, or demonstration of it's unlikelihood. My only assertion is that given billions of years and a planetful of oceans, it doesn't seem unusual to me. The mere repitition over and over that it's so unlikely as to be a miracle carries no weight. Saying, "he's smart and he thinks it's unlikely carries no weight." Comments about the poster are an irrelevant distraction, which carry no weight in a reasoned argument.

2. Speaking of miracles, why are you running at full speed from the other question? How can you criticize a theory that consists of occurrences which may be true and may be false, but are at least ordinary physical occurrences, on the grounds that their demonstration lacks rigour, and then turn around and say that there is grounds to believe in a magical creature because an ancient book says you should? This is certainly the glaring defect in your reasoning. If the theory of evolution lacks rigour according to you, how about the theory that God created the heavens and the Earth?????

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
But DNA is certainly not the original replicative molecule which arose from raw chemicals.

'Certainly'? You sound so certain.

You ruled it out yourself. You observed that it would not have been stable in an unprotected environment. Also it's too complex. I agree with those observations. I always have. Nobody on this thread has ever suggest that DNA or RNA were the first replicative molecules to form on the early Earth. Yet you keep using it as one of your straw men.

real life wrote:

So, tell us what WAS.

We don't have to know what WAS, in order to know what WASN'T.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Nor is RNA.

And you KNOW this how?

Same reasons as DNA (see above).

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
We don't know what the original replicator was.

Oh, now comes the confession. What happened to your certainty? You can sure spin on a dime, my friend.

I've said this many times before. And again, we don't have to know what the first replicator WAS in order to rule out what it WASN'T. My position and my certainty hasn't changed a bit.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
That's what everyone is trying to figure out, including Shapiro.

Shapiro is studying small molecules.

Yes, we know that.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
As to the question of whether a self-replicating molecule DID form, I cannot and don't claim that I can prove it happened, but it fits the facts nicely, and it doesn't seem unlikely to me that it would eventually occur given billions of years and a whole planetful of soup.

Dr Shapiro doesn't think it fits the facts so well. He and other award winning chemists refer to it as belief in the miraculous.

That's not what Shapiro or the other chemists are saying at all. They are calling the spontaneous formation of RNA miraculously unlikely, but they are NOT talking about replicators in general (which is what Brandon said).

Just because someone uses the word miraculous in a sentence doesn't mean they are conceding to the ignorance of poofism.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Assuming that RL is actually trying to understand this stuff and not intentionally misunderstanding it for the purpose of debate, then it's clear that RL's delusional view of reality completely overwhelms his ability to draw rational conclusions from evidence and from normal communication (written english). His repeated misinterpretation of large scale context as well as simple sentences, is almost pathological.

I have been thinking about this since i was last in this thread (in those odd moments when something important--such a blister on my toe or a fly trapped between the screen and the glass on the storm door--didn't justifiably demand my attention). I often call "real life" a moron--not because i actually think he is a moron, but because he says so many moronic things.

But now one does wonder--is he really that stupid? Or is he so warped up in his delusional belief system that he is incapable of understanding anything contradictory to his belief set? Or perhaps he is simply, as you put it, pathological--in this case, a pathological liar

Quote:

God forbid he finds another article by someone else and we have to go through this all over again.

Allow me loudly to second that.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Dr Shapiro doesn't think it fits the facts so well. He and other award winning chemists refer to it as belief in the miraculous.

Idiot.

The only thing which Shapiro calls statistically improbable is that RNA would have existed and survived prior to the existence of living organisms. He nowhere states that it is statistically improbable that life arose through the chance combination of chemical elements and compounds available in the primordial environment. In fact, he is saying that that is precisely what happened. His only quibble is that large molecule formation and survival is statistically improbable; and small molecule formation is not only statistically probable, but would account for the constant production of small molecule, energetic systems, which would continue to reappear due to high statistical probability, and which would eventually provide the environment for large molecule assemblage.

You're way out of your league. If i were tutoring a high school freshman who was incapable of reading Shapiro's article and understanding it better than do you, i would despair of him or her ever successfully completing a basic science course.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If he or you want to imagine that some other replicating molecule is the basis of life on Earth, then have fun.

But it isn't.

I am curious real life. Since you claimed no other replicating molecule could be the basis of life on earth, how can you keep promoting life without this replicating molecule having existed?

Is it just your imagination?

Can life exist without DNA? yes or no?
Can an organism exist without DNA? yes or no?
Is replication one of the requirements of life? yes or no?

You keep contradicting yourself and Shapiro with your statements.

Shapiro lists RNA as one of the building blocks necessary to get to life as we know it today. He doesn't say RNA never existed before our present life. He only says it existed in very controlled areas to evolve to where it is today.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Yet he claims Shapiro agrees with him on just about everything.

Provide a quote.

<yawn>

Provide a quote where you say you disagree with Shapiro on just about everything.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
But DNA is certainly not the original replicative molecule which arose from raw chemicals.

'Certainly'? You sound so certain.

You ruled it out yourself. You observed that it would not have been stable in an unprotected environment. Also it's too complex. I agree with those observations. I always have. Nobody on this thread has ever suggest that DNA or RNA were the first replicative molecules to form on the early Earth. Yet you keep using it as one of your straw men.

real life wrote:
So, tell us what WAS.

We don't have to know what WAS, in order to know what WASN'T.

So, in essence, you assume the existence of an unknown replicating molecule for which there is absolutely NO evidence?

And you think I'm the only one with a position of faith. Laughing

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Yet he claims Shapiro agrees with him on just about everything.

Provide a quote.

<yawn>

Provide a quote where you say you disagree with Shapiro on just about everything.

Why should I pretend, for your sake, that I said something I didn't say?

You made a statement about me, saying I claimed blah blah blah

Just admit you made it up.

You lied.

The same thing you constantly accuse me of. Your projection is most pitiful.

It is evident that you routinely ascribe to me statements that I've never made.

Admit it.

You want to <yawn> and act like it's no big deal.

You simply lie about what others say.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
But DNA is certainly not the original replicative molecule which arose from raw chemicals.

'Certainly'? You sound so certain.

You ruled it out yourself. You observed that it would not have been stable in an unprotected environment. Also it's too complex. I agree with those observations. I always have. Nobody on this thread has ever suggest that DNA or RNA were the first replicative molecules to form on the early Earth. Yet you keep using it as one of your straw men.

real life wrote:
So, tell us what WAS.

We don't have to know what WAS, in order to know what WASN'T.

So, in essence, you assume the existence of an unknown replicating molecule for which there is absolutely NO evidence?

And you think I'm the only one with a position of faith.

So, then you are saying that there were no replications that occurred before DNA and RNA?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
Yet he claims Shapiro agrees with him on just about everything.

Provide a quote.

<yawn>

Provide a quote where you say you disagree with Shapiro on just about everything.

Why should I pretend, for your sake, that I said something I didn't say?

You made a statement about me, saying I claimed blah blah blah

Just admit you made it up.

You lied.

The same thing you constantly accuse me of. Your projection is most pitiful.

It is evident that you routinely ascribe to me statements that I've never made.

Admit it.

You want to <yawn> and act like it's no big deal.

You simply lie about what others say.

Ok.. so answer the following questions and lets see if I made it up as you say. If you can show you don't agree with Shapiro on the following points then I will admit I made it up.

Do you think life can occur without DNA or RNA?
Do you think replication can occur in life without DNA or RNA?
Do you think RNA is a building block required in evolution from what Shapiro proposes as first "life" to achieve life as it presently exists on the earth?
Do you think abiogenesis was the cause of life or even the "likely" cause of life on the earth?
Do you think evolution occurs and is the reason for present life on the earth?
Do you think RNA was created out of thin air or at the least out of inorganic chemicals?
Do you think life is a result of energy input?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ok.. so answer the following questions and lets see if I made it up as you say. If you can show you don't agree with Shapiro on the following points then I will admit I made it up.

The only way for you to clear yourself is to provide a quote of me saying what you claimed I said.

The burden of proof is on you, parados.

0 Replies

Nah parados--life is just a bowl of cherries. Sing it sweetly whilst pirouhetting musically.

There's a psychological category for that sort of stuff. It's called AC. (Advanced nutcase-ism).

Goes clean against all known laws of evolution theory. Keep you short of food for 24 hours and you'll forget all about it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Ok.. so answer the following questions and lets see if I made it up as you say. If you can show you don't agree with Shapiro on the following points then I will admit I made it up.

The only way for you to clear yourself is to provide a quote of me saying what you claimed I said.

The burden of proof is on you, parados.

I gave you the opportunity to have me admit it but you don't want me to I guess. Laughing

0 Replies

But back to your original unsupported argument real life..

Are you saying that there were NO replicators and thus no replications that occurred before RNA? Is that what Shapiro said?

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened." --Thomas Jefferson

It was simple in those days. They cut the hay with scythes and the better off ladies bottled the fruit with wasps crawling around licking up the spillages. They even knocked the rules out on a piece of parchment by candlelight.

Nowadays it's more like " Learned views are, for certain, the less confident in proportion as they are more learned."

I think of it as a giant game called Contradictions played with enough aplomb so as to not seem like a work avoidance scheme to the punters.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So, in essence, you assume the existence of an unknown replicating molecule for which there is absolutely NO evidence?

The contention that such a molecule existed is simply a logical deduction based on the evidence we have available. It's common for science to make deductions from evidence. And deduction is not the same thing as faith.

* We know that the raw chemicals required for at least some replicative molecules existed on the early earth.
* We know that the conditions were very energetic (good for chemical reactions) and very varied.
* We know that at some point, simple DNA based life existed.
* We know that DNA and RNA are too complex to have resulted from a non-replicative precursor.
* We know that Poofism is ruled out because we're doing science (not mythology)
* Therefor, some replicative molecule (probably many generations of them) must have formed after the raw chemical stage, and before DNA/RNA.

Do you have a different deduction to make from those facts?

Shapiro is proposing a transitional mechanism which gets us from raw chemicals to a replicative molecule. His is not describing how to get from the first replicator to RNA or DNA.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

Do you have a different deduction to make from those facts?

Yes- they are all simple common sense dressed up in scientese and that they prove nothing.

They mean "it's here" therefore it must have got here. Like when a bus comes it must have set off from the depot.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
So, in essence, you assume the existence of an unknown replicating molecule for which there is absolutely NO evidence?

The contention that such a molecule existed is simply a logical deduction based on the evidence we have available. It's common for science to make deductions from evidence. And deduction is not the same thing as faith.

* We know that the raw chemicals required for at least some replicative molecules existed on the early earth.

Lets be generous. Depending on how 'raw' you are defining as 'raw chemicals' , one could say that ALL ingredients were here.

The problem is that as you go upladder, some of the compounds you need are inherently unstable, and even water will destroy them.

rosborne979 wrote:

* We know that the conditions were very energetic (good for chemical reactions) and very varied.

As they are today. Lots of variety, constant changes

Which means also that chemical reactions can go both ways; and the likelihood of the type of molecule you need surviving in the open (whether in the mud or in the ocean or wherever) is nil.

rosborne979 wrote:

* We know that at some point, simple DNA based life existed.

Yes of course.

rosborne979 wrote:

* We know that DNA and RNA are too complex to have resulted from a non-replicative precursor.

Yes. Not good for your side.

rosborne979 wrote:

* We know that Poofism is ruled out because we're doing science (not mythology)

You *know* the supernatural isn't possible because you only have the means to study the natural? Is that it?

That doesn't mean that the supernatural is impossible, ros. It means that science has limits. Accept it.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, doesn't it?

rosborne979 wrote:

* Therefor, some replicative molecule (probably many generations of them) must have formed after the raw chemical stage, and before DNA/RNA.

And you have NO evidence of these 'many generations'. NONE.

rosborne979 wrote:

Do you have a different deduction to make from those facts?

Take note that some of these 'facts' are not facts at all. They are rosy assumptions.

rosborne979 wrote:

Shapiro is proposing a transitional mechanism which gets us from raw chemicals to a replicative molecule. His is not describing how to get from the first replicator to RNA or DNA.

He is proposing how to get to a living organism without a replicative molecule because postulating an 'independent replicator' that leads to first life is a waste of time, and he's not wasting his thinking about it.

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know