DNA Was Designed By A Mind

real life wrote:

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.

And you are relating this because of course you agree with it.
Rolling Eyes

In typical real life fashion, he is only using Shapiro as a club to try to pound some holes in other theories. If Shapiro's version was the prevailing one, he would be using the opposing theory to try to poke holes in Shapiro.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

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.

And you are relating this because of course you agree with it.

I agree with half of it.

An independent replicator is not going to assemble itself in the mud or in the ocean or anywhere else.

But a living organism without replicative ability is a dead end as well.

0 Replies

Not to mention the fact that even if Shapiro was right, that still wouldn't prove there was a Creator, as the alternative models that Shapiro comes up with are also natural without any input from an intelligence.

Which is why I cited Shapiro's comment. Making snide comments about the evidence of others does not suffice to constitute evidence for your own views, RL.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:

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.

And you are relating this because of course you agree with it.

I agree with half of it.

An independent replicator is not going to assemble itself in the mud or in the ocean or anywhere else.

But a living organism without replicative ability is a dead end as well.

So then you don't agree with Shapiro or you don't understand Shapiro since he states that is does have replicative ability to meet the standard he set out.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

* 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.

Ok, we agree.

real life wrote:

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

Ok, we agree.

real life wrote:

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.

Just because chemical reactions go both ways doesn't mean that the possibility of some replicative molecule surviving is nil.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
* We know that at some point, simple DNA based life existed.

Yes of course.

We agree.

real life wrote:

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.

Perfectly fine for my side since we always assumed DNA/RNA had precursors. So we agree on the basic fact I stated anyway.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
* We know that Poofism is ruled out because we're doing science (not mythology)

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

I do accept it, that's why poofism is ruled out. So we agree on this one as well.

real life wrote:

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.

I notice you only complained about the "many generations", not the basic deduction. So I guess we agree again.

real life wrote:

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.

The only assumptions made in that sequence came from you, and were inaccurate and unsupported. You agreed with the actual facts I provided, right down the line. Now you are claiming there were assumptions in that list. Which of the items I provided do you not agree with?

real life wrote:

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.

More accurately, he is proposing how to get thermodynamic life (not necessarily an organism) without a replicative molecule because he believes that an independent replicator can not arise spontaneously without a transitional element (which he is proposing).

So Shapiro is proposing a transitional mechanism between raw chemicals and a replicator. Exactly what I said.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

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.

And you are relating this because of course you agree with it.

In typical real life fashion, he is only using Shapiro as a club to try to pound some holes in other theories. If Shapiro's version was the prevailing one, he would be using the opposing theory to try to poke holes in Shapiro.

Actually I think he's demonstrating some type of cognitive impairment. He's pathologically incapable of perceiving certain concepts.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:

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.

And you are relating this because of course you agree with it.

In typical real life fashion, he is only using Shapiro as a club to try to pound some holes in other theories. If Shapiro's version was the prevailing one, he would be using the opposing theory to try to poke holes in Shapiro.

Actually I think he's demonstrating some type of cognitive impairment. He's pathologically incapable of perceiving certain concepts.

There we go.

I was waiting for the 'you're just stupid' reply.

It was right on time. Thanks ros for representing.

0 Replies

I thought it was held in reserve for a lot longer that ros usually does with me.

You ought to consider yourself an intimate confident rl for ros to have been brought down again to blurting out that you're a brainless pathological nitwit without an ounce of common sense over such a long post.

He's a lot faster with me.

He has got this thing in his head, which Freud, and he's a very famous scientist, said was to do with Mom and formative experiences, that what he says is an incontovertible fact, so you're going to have to face up to it, as I have myself, and there's nothing to it actually, as you probably know, that you are cognitively impaired and pathologically incapable of perceiving some certain, as yet undefined, concepts. As I am.

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.

There's a gargantuan difference between saying what we are:

1. It's likely that a planetful of self-replicating objects (life as it exists now on Earth), which we already believe evolved from simpler objects, had their origins in a first self-replicating molecule, which occurred by chance in random chemical reactions after a planetful of oceans had existed for billions of years.

and saying what you are:

2. Life on Earth came from a magical being saying "poof" and making everything appear at once.

Your attempt to equate the first model, which doesn't seem particularly unusual, with the second, which assumes a huge fact not in evidence, is absurd.

0 Replies

The glaring flaw is RL's argument is that he condemns the theory of evolution for having a shaky step in its reasoning, and then turns around and says, if I may paraphrase:

"Now, what I believe, on the other hand, that's a real theory. A magical being created the universe because an ancient text says so."

If evolution isn't to be accepted because of insufficient rigor, then the God Theory should be laughed out of town on the basis of being a series of wild assumptions with virtually no evidence, much less rigor. Note that he's been asked to comment on this again and again and hasn't dared to even address it. His own argument about rigor and insufficient evidence is his downfall. It's like saying that the germ theory of illnesses is insufficiently demonstrated, but the idea that illnesses are caused by demonic possession is a more likely explanation

0 Replies

That's because rl is a nice bloke who knows you can't handle the truth.

I'm an arsehole.

The God theory is designed to be simple and straightforward so that all those who spend their lives arguing about other theories can be got back mending the roads and designing frocks and such like. Anything important.

It's the workshy who reject it.

I just wish they would try to do so with a little bit more wit than they have so far managed to demonstrate.

It's their capacity to bore the arse off a gatepost that puts me off.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

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.

And you are relating this because of course you agree with it.

In typical real life fashion, he is only using Shapiro as a club to try to pound some holes in other theories. If Shapiro's version was the prevailing one, he would be using the opposing theory to try to poke holes in Shapiro.

Actually I think he's demonstrating some type of cognitive impairment. He's pathologically incapable of perceiving certain concepts.

There we go.

I was waiting for the 'you're just stupid' reply.

It was right on time. Thanks ros for representing.

Actually, I don't think you're stupid. Judging purely from your posts, you are either disingenuous or delusional. Neither of which are stupid.

Your posts merely speak for themselves.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It's their capacity to bore the arse off a gatepost that puts me off.

I had never thought about the fact that I have never seen a gatepost with an arse but now I will never be able see one without an ass that I don't picture the sign hanging from it that says "Spendi was here."

0 Replies

Well weathered ones are the best. Good perches for birds.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

That's because rl is a nice bloke who knows you can't handle the truth.

I'm an arsehole.

The God theory is designed to be simple and straightforward so that all those who spend their lives arguing about other theories can be got back mending the roads and designing frocks and such like. Anything important.

It's the workshy who reject it.

I just wish they would try to do so with a little bit more wit than they have so far managed to demonstrate.

It's their capacity to bore the arse off a gatepost that puts me off.

The theory that a magical being "poofed" us here is simple alright, but since the main attack on the theory of evolution is on the basis of insufficient rigor, by the same argument, the God Theory must be condemned utterly.

All the personal references are irrelevant, and just a smokescreen for an indefensible position.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

parados wrote:
Specious argument. Who said code doesn't occur without a designer?

What codes do occur w/o a designer?

sorry to join this topic belatedly, but i have an unpredictable & sometimes intense work schedule--64 hours worked in a recent week, for example. so here's an example of sorts: the alphabet (pick whichever one you like). there's no evidence that an individual designer created any of the ancient ones, such as phoenician, hebrew, greek, or latin. and beg a giant pardon if someone already proposed this example.

0 Replies

even more belatedly, i've come up with perhaps a better example of code without a designer: the "dance" honeybees use to communicate the location of nectar. of course, it could be argued that honeybees were "designed", but that requires a different sort of argument than the one given here since we don't know of any insects (or any other organism) of human design. Laughing

0 Replies

Surely this "code" is merely the natural progression/evolution of species, caused by constant minute mutation over many millions of years?
Why, every time there is a succesful human coupling there is a tiny change in the DNA of the resultant offspring, compared to its parents. Sooner or later there will be a mutation.

How else could we explain the likes of Britney or George W?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

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.

And you are relating this because of course you agree with it.

In typical real life fashion, he is only using Shapiro as a club to try to pound some holes in other theories. If Shapiro's version was the prevailing one, he would be using the opposing theory to try to poke holes in Shapiro.

Actually I think he's demonstrating some type of cognitive impairment. He's pathologically incapable of perceiving certain concepts.

There we go.

I was waiting for the 'you're just stupid' reply.

It was right on time. Thanks ros for representing.

Actually, I don't think you're stupid. Judging purely from your posts, you are either disingenuous or delusional. Neither of which are stupid.

Your posts merely speak for themselves.

Congrats. You've managed to add the 'you're just lying' response as well as the 'you're just crazy' response.

Substantive responses all. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

btw ros,

You inadvertently missed:

Quote:

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

I knew you wanted to address it, so I thought I'd mention it.

Kinda makes the 'replicator formed in the ocean' deal kinda tricky , doesn't it?

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know