DNA, Where did the code come from?

SO youre a "RNA world" fan ??

I like the "RESPIRATION FIRST WORLD"

Leadfoot Quote:
..."I don't see any exceptions in the universe unless I take 'biology as natural' as an act of faith and I seem incapable of doing that with anything."


a) There's a shitload of evidence to support the "biology as natural" stance, so it's not even an issue of faith. Once you have abundant, unequivocal evidence, you have knowledge, the mortal enemy of Abrahamic faith.

"Without faith it is impossible to please [God], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

b) Show us how your belief in an undetectable divine creator not an act of faith. That is, show us the abundant, unequivocal evidence that you've accessed in order to take your god-claim out of the realm of faith and into the realm of knowledge, and on a scale comparable to the claims made in the field of biology. Show us your god in a way that's comparable to what's shown in biology.

OK then, you tell me what point you were trying to massage. I asked tha of you when you were done with yer posting and all I get is posing.

I can start posting about how philosophers are of "limited skills", but that would be redundant.

Put another way, I just don't think that a strictly materialistic, mechanistic, reductionistic, deterministic explanation for life is sufficient. There must be some type of "natural laws" which guide this process.

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
..."I don't see any exceptions in the universe unless I take 'biology as natural' as an act of faith and I seem incapable of doing that with anything."


a) There's a shitload of evidence to support the "biology as natural" stance, so it's not even an issue of faith. Once you have abundant, unequivocal evidence, you have knowledge, the mortal enemy of Abrahamic faith.

We can't tackle the whole range of 'biology' at once so I'm limiting the discussion to the subject of the thread OP, that of the ORIGIN of information in DNA, not how it was modified or built upon over time (evolution) but information required for the first self reproducing organism capable of passing on its characteristics which is the thing that makes evolution possible. The "shitload of evidence" for that first organism, by science's own admission, is exactly - Zero. 'It has been lost in the past' as they say.

When I say I am incapable of accepting anything on 'faith' I am using your conception of the term in order to make communication between us possible, that conception being 'something you accept with no evidence whatsoever', if I understand you properly. That would more accurately be called 'blind faith'.

Of course we all have faith in the true sense of the word.

I have faith, based on my past experience and understanding of the principles of electricity that when I turn on the wall switch in my room, electrons will flow through the filament in the bulb on the ceiling and light will come from it. This in spite of the fact that no one has ever seen an electron.

Quote:

"Without faith it is impossible to please [God], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

I try to avoid using scripture to prove anything but if you wanted I could show you many scriptures recommending 'reason' as a path to seek God and gain that faith that pleases him.
I like this particular one you quoted because it contains a sure test to see if that faith is justified. The rewards have been beyond description, or 'more than I can hold' as another scripture says.

Quote:

b) Show us how your belief in an undetectable divine creator not an act of faith. That is, show us the abundant, unequivocal evidence that you've accessed in order to take your god-claim out of the realm of faith and into the realm of knowledge, and on a scale comparable to the claims made in the field of biology. Show us your god in a way that's comparable to what's shown in biology.

Hopefully my answer to a) explained the issue of 'faith' and how the term is misunderstood. Over this and other threads I have tried to say how I have taken my beliefs from the realm of blind faith to that of knowledge though not to your satisfaction. That's not surprising since I don't think second hand experience is good enough for anyone. The reward of satisfaction is reserved for "Those who diligently seek him".

Microbiologist Carl R. Woese today won the $500,000 Crafoord Prize in Biosciences given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The annual prize marks accomplishments in scientific fields not covered by the Nobel Prizes in science, which the academy also selects.

Woese received a "genius" research award in 1984 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. He was elected into the National Academy of Sciences in 1988, and in 1992 was the 12th recipient of microbiology's highest honor, the Leeuwenhoek Medal, given each decade by the Dutch Royal Academy of Science.

In 1977, in collaboration with U. of I. microbiologist Ralph S. Wolfe, Woese overturned one of the major dogmas of biology. Until that time, biologists had taken for granted that all life on Earth belonged to one of two primary lineages, the eukaryotes...

In a June 1998 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Woese proposed a theory of the universal ancestor, based on a genetic annealing model in which lateral gene transfer played a major role. He wrote: "The universal ancestor is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community of cells that survives and evolves as a biological unit. This communal ancestor has a physical history but not a genealogical one.

In the same journal in June 2002, Woese refined his theory, arguing that life did not begin with one primordial cell. Instead, he said there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations swimming in a pool of genes, evolving in a communal way that aided one another in bootstrapping into the three distinct types of cells by sharing through lateral gene transfer their evolutionary inventions.

Woese proposed a theory of the universal ancestor, based on a genetic annealing model in which lateral gene transfer played a major role. He wrote: "The universal ancestor is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community of cells that survives and evolves as a biological unit.

Nearly 40 years ago the physicist-philosopher David Bohm exposed the fundamental flaw in the mechanistic reductionist perspective (5): “It does seem odd… that just when physics is… moving away from mechanism, biology and psychology are moving closer to it. If the trend continues… scientists will be regarding living and intelligent beings as mechanical, while they suppose that inanimate matter is too complex and subtle to fit into the limited categories of mechanism.”

...scientists will be regarding living and intelligent beings as mechanical, while they suppose that inanimate matter is too complex and subtle to fit into the limited categories of mechanism.”

Lewontin visited an economics class at the University of Massachusetts a few years ago to talk to the students. In a kind of neo-Darwinian jockeying, he said that evolutionary changes are due to the Fisher-Haldane mechanisms: mutation, emigration, immigration, and the like. At the end of the hour, he said that none of the consequences of the details of his analysis had been shown empirically. His elaborate cost-benefit mathematical treatment was devoid of chemistry and biology.

I asked him why, if none of it could be shown experimentally or in the field, he was so wedded to presenting a cost-benefit explanation derived from phony human social-economic "theory." Why, when he himself was pointing to serious flaws related to the fundamental assumptions, did he want to teach this nonsense?

His response was that there were two reasons: the first was "P.E." "P.E.?," I asked. "What is P.E.? Population explosion? Punctuated equilibrium? Physical education?" "No," he replied, "P.E. is `physics envy,'" which is a syndrome in which scientists in other disciplines yearn for the mathematically explicit models of physics. His second reason was even more insidious: if he didn't couch his studies in the neo- Darwinist thought style (archaic and totally inappropriate language, in my opinion), he wouldn't be able to obtain grant money that was set up to support this kind of work.

The neo-Darwinist population-genetics tradition is reminiscent of phrenology, I think, and is a kind of science that can expect exactly the same fate. It will look ridiculous in retrospect, because it is ridiculous...

I've been critical of mathematical neo-Darwinism for years; it never made much sense to me. We were all told that random mutations — most of which are known to be deleterious — are the main cause of evolutionary change. I remember waking up one day with an epiphanous revelation: I am not a neo-Darwinist!

If you have knowledge that your god exists, you don't have faith

Quote:

If you have knowledge that your god exists, you don't have faith

For an atheist, you sure have a lot of 'faith' in religious dogma.

Ooooh! Pretty electron! Who knew they were so colorful.

You'll have to forgive FBM, eh, Leddy. At one time he had great religious faith. He is now just as devoted to his new faith, scientism. The fervor had just had it's allegiance transferred, that's all.