13
   

Aren't scientists rather arrogant and elitist in abiogenetic theories?

 
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 05:15 pm
@Rickoshay75,
Are you saying that DNA never demonstrates itself? It might be hard to see, because it is everywhere, including in the eyeballs that you are using to view this, and it made them as well.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 06:00 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
not by itself thumbsy. Its like a road map and no car
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 08:22 pm
@farmerman,
So what can you do, without DNA...............................DNA is not a road map, DNA is the road, the map, and the sky. Without it, none of those things exist.
TheJackal
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 11:40 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
RNA isn't DNA and they performed a lot of the DNA functions before DNA.. RNA are capable of adaptation and self-replication. You can actually do a lot without DNA, just not as much as you can with DNA. DNA are simple molecular chains. And to be more exact, without electromagnetism, none of those things would exist. Furthermore we have shown enzymes that hint at life without DNA or RNA. We already know life can exist without DNA or RNA such as red blood cells. Regardless however, it needs be repeated for the dunce among us here that abiogenesis has not bearing on evolutionary synthesis.. It doesn't matter if you believe magical unicorn man waved his magical horn and created life, or if life emerged from natural processes as the fact remains, evolution is a fact.. This even if you want to argue DNA as a code when DNA changes over time. You can't reproduce without changes in the genome..., ever.. Hence reproduction in itself actually guarantees evolution regardless of how great or small those changes are. The human genome project has proven that for quite a while now, and there is no indication of intelligence involved. There are no magic elves pushing the atoms around and sequencing them, it is rather the forces of nature, and mostly the electromagnetic force.



TheJackal
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 12:00 am
@TheJackal,
I thought I would add to the above a response to the following:

Quote:
DNA is code, it does not function by electromagnetic reactions. However somehow, DNA does take atoms of the Earth, and create the animation of life. Thus it is the most powerful creation in the known universe


This quoted comment deserves the dunce award.. O.o You must have gotten your education out of cereal box.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 03:00 am
Quote:
DNA is code, it does not function by electromagnetic reactions.


It sure does! You see it is an antenna!!

It can receive and send electromagnetic waves.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 08:53 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Now that I think of it, many of the genetic researchers, do wear protective equipment. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/u/a/atsmdqcl.jpeg
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 10:32 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
you man you don't believe me? It really is.
DNA is an antenna and a receiver. Why is that so difficult for you?
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 11:06 am
@Quehoniaomath,
I believe, that you believe.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 11:12 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
yes I believe it because I have seen it, but you can't tell why you don't believe me?

It is even in medical journals!

But go ahead if you want to make a fool of yourself, see if I care! Wink

0 Replies
 
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 11:18 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
DNA is an antenna and a receiver. Why is that so difficult for you?

No, DNA is a tickertape. It records stock prices and is useful in parades for astronauts. It's a tickertape. Don't you hear me? a TICKERTAPE. Tickertape, tickertape, tickertape. Wait, let me post some useless information about tickertapes to show you how super cereal I am.

Quote:
Although telegraphic printing systems were first invented by Royal Earl House in 1846, early models were fragile, required hand-cranked power, frequently went out of necessary synchronization between sender and receiver, and did not become popular in widespread commercial use. David E. Hughes improved the printing telegraph design with clockwork weight power in 1856,[2] and his design was further improved and became viable for commercial use when George M. Phelps devised a resynchronization system in 1858.[3] The first stock price ticker system using a telegraphic printer was invented by Edward A. Calahan in 1863; he unveiled his device in New York City on November 15, 1867.[4][5][6] Early versions of stock tickers provided the first mechanical means of conveying stock prices ("quotes"), over a long distance over telegraph wiring. In its infancy, the ticker used the same symbols as Morse code as a medium for conveying messages. One of the earliest practical stock ticker machines, the Universal Stock Ticker developed by Thomas Edison in 1869, used alphanumeric characters with a printing speed of approximately one character per second.

Previously, stock prices had been hand-delivered via written or verbal messages. Since the useful time-span of individual quotes is very brief, they generally had not been sent long distances; aggregated summaries, typically for one day, were sent instead. The increase in speed provided by the ticker allowed for faster and more exact sales. Since the ticker ran continuously, updates to a stock's price whenever the price changed became effective much faster and trading became a more time sensitive matter. For the first time, trades were being done in what is now thought of as near real-time.
Edison gold & stock ticker

By the 1880s, there were about a thousand stock tickers installed in the offices of New York bankers and brokers. In 1890, members of the exchange agreed to create the New York Quotation Co., buying up all other ticker companies to ensure accuracy of reporting of price and volume activity.
-Wikipedia

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/NixonTickerTapeParadeNYC1960.jpg/250px-NixonTickerTapeParadeNYC1960.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Edison_Stock_Telegraph_Ticker.jpg/220px-Edison_Stock_Telegraph_Ticker.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/19/article-2220065-15938F77000005DC-621_634x392.jpg
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 11:22 am
@Banana Breath,
Actually, without DNA, there would be no tickertape, or parades, so you are correct.

Next
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 11:22 am
@Banana Breath,
Quote:
No, DNA is a tickertape. It records stock prices and is useful in parades for astronauts.


No, but I am willing to accept it if you can prove it.

Do you also have problems with me thinking that DNA is an antenna? a receiver and a sender?

if so, tell me why this is a problem for you?
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 11:23 am
@Quehoniaomath,
TICKERTAPE TICKERTAPE TICKERTAPE TICKERTAPE TICKERTAPE
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 11:40 am
@Banana Breath,
Quote:
TICKERTAPE TICKERTAPE TICKERTAPE TICKERTAPE TICKERTAPE


So you don't believe DNA is an antena for receiving and sending em waves?
And THIS is your answer? fascinating!

0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 11:48 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
Actually, without DNA, there would be no tickertape, or parades, so you are correct.

Next


You still have to work on your logic ,mate!

For now it is terrible! To say the least!
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 12:32 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
My logic is purrfect.

Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 01:05 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:
My logic is purrfect.
     First of all perfect is usually with one 'r', and second can you prove that (that your logic is perfect):
    If the appearance of the DNA is a stochastic process result from abiogenesis, it must have probability distribution function ... throughout the whole Universe. Which is the probability distribution function of the DNA over the Universe? For the list of probability distributions you may use the reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probability_distributions
and for the probability density function - that one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_density_function
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 01:10 pm
@Herald,
My spellign is purrfect.

Dude, you do not know what is in my pockets, but you know about the rest of the universe. Precious
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2014 01:42 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
If the appearance of the DNA is a stochastic process result from abiogenesis, it must have probability distribution function ... throughout the whole Universe.

Yes. We would have a much better idea of the order of magnitude of that distribution function if we had a better grasp of its appearance on earth. If it has appeared here spontaneously many times, it would be quite different from conclusions one would draw from the "one magic moment" scenario.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 06:16:36