DNA, Where did the code come from?

@anthony1312002,

anthony1312002 wrote:

I appreciate your point. But what still has to be addressed is, how were the rules that govern the order in which DNA operates established? Natural selection does not address this.

I think the most intellectually honest thing a person can ever say is "I don't know". The most gutless, immature, small minded crap that any human can ever spew up is "God did it". Truly pathetic.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

lets say that the earth is 4.55 B years old. If the Jqck Hills specimen is 4.1 Byers old. THATS WHAT? 350 million years?

And what do you think happened during those 350 million years, eh, Farmer? Says here:

Quote:

Scientists reveal new vision of Earth 4 billion years ago

The Hadean and Eoarchean epochs were the real hell on Earth. For millions of years, our planet was heavily bombarded by millions of asteroids with "existing oceans repeatedly boiled away into steam atmospheres"until its crust finally solidified....Existing oceans would have repeatedly boiled away into steam atmospheres as a result of large collisions as late as about 4 billion years ago.

The following is a reconstruction "that illustrates land masses, mountain ranges, and seas shaped by impact cratering events, some of which significantly heated portions of the surface" created by Simone Marchi for a new research paper just published in Nature:

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/scientists-show-of-earth-4-000-million-years-ago-1613591779

Take a little gander at them pics there, eh? It don't look like nuthin nice.

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Quote:

The most gutless, immature, small minded crap that any human can ever spew up is "God did it". Truly pathetic.

Ya think? Sheeit, I could think up a gazillion things more gutless. A gazillion things more immature. A gazillion things more small-minded. Ya don't seem to have much imagination, there, know what I'm sayin?

0 Replies

@layman,

so then maybe that zircon is not a "fossil"?

Or are you still trying to make believe that 350 million years is a very short time?

Dont you have some hour long videos to send?

Do you make pillows outta your hoodies?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

so then maybe that zircon is not a "fossil"?

Yeah, maybe not. It's only science, after all.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Or are you still trying to make believe that 350 million years is a very short time?

Depends on your POV. That's a long time to wait for life in the hellish conditions of early earth that layman was talking about, and it's more that 10 times the length of the Cambrian Explosion where life went from gooey worms to most (or all, depending on source) of the basic body plans we have today.

But it's no time at all to a cockroach who looks just the same today as he did 350 million years ago.

Well, this has been a good discussion but I haven't seen any new arguments in awhile so FWIW, here's my guess, assertion, prediction, divine revelation, whatever - about the OP question.

The anti ID side by will never definitively prove that the universe is capable of generating intelligent life from natural forces nor will the pro ID side be able to prove that intelligence was required. Until an intelligent designer chooses to reveal him or her self, absolute proof will, by design, (sorry :-) be out of our reach. We will continue to have complete free will choice in the matter.

By looking around themselves and seeing that we are indeed here, that will be sufficient proof to the anti ID side. By knowing and looking within themselves, the pro ID side will have their own proof which is, again by design, not transferable.

But carry on, I still hope to see something new.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

The anti ID side by will never definitively prove that the universe is capable of generating intelligent life from natural forces...

Within the realm of science it is already proven because there are only natural forces (which is a given by Naturalism upon which the scientific methodology is based) and we believe we are intelligent. So it is proved by demonstration.

It sounds to me like you simply don't agree with the basic premise of science, which is that everything derives from natural forces, not supernatural forces.

If that's the case then this should be a philosophical discussion related to how we choose to perceive our reality, not a discussion of chemicals and molecules and how they behave within physics, because you're not limiting your viewpoint to physics. You are willing to allow possibilities which are outside of it. And that is perfectly fine if everyone is on the same foundation, but it makes for a disjointed discussion when we base answers in science and you base them in metaphysics.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:
The anti ID side by will never definitively prove that the universe is capable of generating intelligent life from natural forces...

Within the realm of science it is already proven because there are only natural forces (which is a given by Naturalism upon which the scientific methodology is based) and we believe we are intelligent. So it is proved by demonstration.

It sounds to me like you simply don't agree with the basic premise of science, which is that everything derives from natural forces, not supernatural forces.

If that's the case then this should be a philosophical discussion related to how we choose to perceive our reality, not a discussion of chemicals and molecules and how they behave within physics, because you're not limiting your viewpoint to physics. You are willing to allow possibilities which are outside of it. And that is perfectly fine if everyone is on the same foundation, but it makes for a disjointed discussion when we base answers in science and you base them in metaphysics.

I think you're now confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism, eh, Ros? You're the one talking metaphysics, when you say things like this:

Quote:

...is that everything derives from natural forces, not supernatural forces.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But why would you would you think the discussion should be limited to ONLY ONE basis for possible answers to an open question.

And what is "outside of physics?" Is intelligence outside of physics? Is it outside of all science, or just physics?

1 Reply

Adherents of scientism, as distinguished from scientists, often seem to think that have no metaphysical commitments or beliefs. That only OTHERS rely on "metaphysics." Wrong.

0 Replies

@Wilso,

Quote:

I think the most intellectually honest thing a person can ever say is "I don't know".

I 100% agree, many people forget that we are all exercising our best guess and talk in absolutes, ignoring any consideration that we could be wrong about everything we think we know

Quote:

The most gutless, immature, small minded crap that any human can ever spew up is "God did it". Truly pathetic.

Or indeed "God didn't do it." who knows *shrug* Wink

2 Replies

@Smileyrius,

good honest science has really done just that but with an additional"yeh but I wonder what it could show us if we...?"

0 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Not knowing means not knowing, eh? What's good for the goose and all that.

Still, there has been no credible evidence, to my knowledge, that a supernatural deity is either suggested or required by observations and necessary inference. And seeing as how the origin of the universe is arguably the most profound question there is, the demand for evidence should be proportional.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

hellish conditions of early earth that layman was talking about, and it's more that 10 times the length of the Cambrian Explosion where life went from gooey worms to most (or all, depending on source) of the basic body plans we have today.

Once again ignorance stands NOT in the way of a good opinion from your brain to your typewriter .

Hadean and Eoarchean times appear to have several segments of millions of years each, wherein ice, water, and other "tools" comfortable with facultative anaerobic life were evidenced. Could life have sporung up in say 1/10? 1/100? of the time that laymn's clipped article spoke? It appears that, at least from temporal stratigraphic evidence, the answer is gotta be yes.
ALSO, As far as the Cambrian "explosion" rapid evolution Estimates for its extent. vary from 20 to almost 45 million years. WIthin that time , paleontologists have been able to identiifiy sequential stratigraphic levels in which many of those "Exploding fossils" first appeared.

Ediacaran fauna from Namibia, Greenland , Canada Ukraine ,South America, and of course Oz, were hardly "gooey" (another popular press thing to engage ignorance and stifle learning) Go look up Swartpuntia sp,Mawsonites, sp,Dickiinsonia, Beltinellformis sp, and Pteridinia (which may have been a candidate for earliest early notochord) All these are pretty much NON GOOEY shelled animals from the time BEFORE the Cambrian Explosion.

I gotta tell you leadfoot that SCience keeps moving on while you seem to be stuck in the science-book textual age of maybe 1950-1960. Thats ok, we are used to gungasnakes "science -blasts from the past" being presented as new thinking. I have to admit that you and layman seem to celebrate the joys of having a clean slate mind wherein details of knowledge dont get in the way of your opinions.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Still, there has been no credible evidence, to my knowledge, that a supernatural deity is either suggested or required by observations and necessary inference.

Aint that the truth. I started asking Frank that several years ago and just got his mobile message back. laymn just posts ID tracts, and Leadfoot makes believe he wears a lab coat.

Still, its a cold Monday, Ive enjoyed my eggs over on toast and Im ready to go and do my morning rounds with the newborn lambs in the barn.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Some people try to find traction in obfuscation. I suppose that's all but unavoidable when the product you're trying to sell is undetectable.

Hope the newborns are nice and cozy! Maybe post a pic in the Beautiful Animals thread? Cold Monday night...nope, Tuesday morning now...here, and I just missed the Quadrantids this year. They have such a short peak.

2 Replies

@FBM,

when are the next biggy meteor showers ? Do I have to wait for summer??
Give me time to screw around with larning photoshop (I do a little with Elements but not the real badass program)

1 Reply

@layman,

My apologies if I phrased that poorly. I was of course only referring to the standard basis for the scientific methodology (methodological naturalism).

As for the scope of the discussion, I was replying specifically to the statement from Leadfoot which I quoted.

In general I feel that discussions of this type are hampered by people taking different philosophical positions from which to make their points. And while I don't mind people having different philosophies on things, it makes no sense to try to have a discussion in which the basic assumptions haven't been agreed upon. Until that happens all responses are always slightly off the mark.

1 Reply

@FBM,

actually its MONDAY MORNING-my eggs were for breakfass

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

when are the next biggy meteor showers ? Do I have to wait for summer??
Give me time to screw around with larning photoshop (I do a little with Elements but not the real badass program)

Without a bright moon screwing things up, it looks like the Perseids in August. But before that Mercury is going to transit the sun in early May, if you have a welding mask or solar filter handy.

Edit: Come to think of it, I don't thing the welding mask would help. You'll need some magnification to see it.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

In general I feel that discussions of this type are hampered by people taking different philosophical positions from which to make their points. And while I don't mind people having different philosophies on things, it makes no sense to try to have a discussion in which the basic assumptions haven't been agreed upon. Until that happens all responses are always slightly off the mark.

Well, you certainly have a point there. One only read a small portion of this thread to see that in play.

0 Replies

DNA, Where did the code come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know