DNA, Where did the code come from?

@Leadfoot,

purines and pyrimidines have been found in spectra from interstellar space, on spectrographs of the gaseous expulsions from Titan, AND its been confirmed that the Murchison meteorite has quantities sufficient to serves a "nuclei" for a batch of pre-biotic reactions.
As we see from the paleo- record, prior to Oxygen becoming the ubiquitous "contaminant" of earth's methane, nitrogen, and CO2 atmosphere that eventually produced to spurthe rise of more complex life, At least 3 ( or maybe even more) events of initial life happened (Separated only by time since most of the sites were joined in a pre Gondwanan supercontinent called Rhodinia.

Titan, interstellar spectra, and the Murchison meteorite are valid evidence sources that need to be countered if you wish to maintain the "ID" tale with any cred.

0 Replies

Ran across two excellent explanations of why abiogenesis is not a plausible scenario. The book by Johnson (who is a Bio-chemist and knowledgable in computer science) is short (~200 pages) and very concise.

"Programming of Life” by Donald E. Johnson

For those who like info in video form, this one from Discovery Institute is pretty good at covering the same subject.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/introducing_the_1099951.html

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

well, summarize.please.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Ran across two excellent explanations of why abiogenesis is not a plausible scenario.

As compared to what?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

As compared to what?

That lame 'science has explained it all' video that Jpsy linked to for one. (which I summarized and critiqued)

You guys are great at dismissing ID arguments out of hand or attempting to discredit the source but I don't hear anything in the way of a critique of the actual arguments.

@farmer
Jeez man, I have to summarize in every post now? Weren't you paying attention the first time? The two sources I mentioned basically parallel my previous arguments but give more background and details from people with better education credentials than I have.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

NO, YOU are great at embracing ID with such a paucity of data and evidence. If you look at all of ID's "evidence" its merely a gainsay of what science has already compiled.

Quote:

Each cell of an organism has millions of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science. Both domains are critical for any life to exist, and earth must be investigated using that domain's principles. Yet most scientists have been attempting to use physical science to explain life's information domain, a practice which has no scientific justification.

WHO SAYS? Theres several different directions of science and each is equally valid when NO EVIDENCE EXISTS. Saying that "information directs the creation of life" is an equally unscientific assertion. Its easy to say, easy to dismiss other views and totally ignnores several approaches.
He may be a chemist but hes actually being a "carpenter" who sees all the answers s a nail.

Hed fit in with Dembski's "bar code crew" at Discovery Institute.

Internally, science is a lot more honest critic of itself than is his ID driven conclusions.

What are his arguments against abiogenesis??

About every year at least 2 books are published with this theme. I just want to hear oif he has anything new.

If th chemistry makes no sense or is too vague for me, I will let you know.

Right now the IDerss seem to ignore all the abiotic chemical bases of nucleotides and nucleosides.(calling their existence impossible?)

kinda like saying that a bumblebee cant fly

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Right now the IDerss seem to ignore all the abiotic chemical bases of nucleotides and nucleosides.(calling their existence impossible?)

Are you hoping that if you repeat this fallacy often enough everyone will believe it? Or is it possible you really have not understood the argument?

It is difficult, but not impossible, to see all the necessary nucleotides coming about naturally.

As clearly argued in both examples I posted, the improbable to the point of being not plausible part is arranging them in the necessary order (The CODE). THAT, and not the existence of the building blocks themselves, is the core of the ID argument.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Itss not a fallacy. Its chemical reality. e can look on CRC tables and LOOO, there it is. What data has ID been able to cobble hmmmm?
Assertion absent a base in fact is just yelling that the "ALIENS DID IT".

0 Replies

I was out to the junkyard a few days back, lookin for a workin tranny that would fit in my pick-up. There were hundreds of old, broke-down cars there, and I asked myself---where did all these come from?

So I got to lookin at one. The rubber in the tires can be found in tropical rubber trees. The cotton in the seat cushions can be grown in the Mississippi Delta. The metal in the pistons and axles can be processed in Pittsburgh from natural elements, found all over earth. The gasoline in the tanks can be made from processes at refining plants.

And so on. There's a natural explanation for the source of every bit of material in them cars. That **** don't just come into being by magic.

Then I asked myself this: OK, but how did all these things come together in one vehicle to make a running car?

I studied on it for a spell. It took awhile before the obvious solution hit me with crystal clarity. It's simple, eh?

Random accident, that's how.

2 Replies

@layman,

It all started with Henry Ford.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

well, summarize.please.

Leddy didn't take the time to imbed the video he was talkin about for ya, eh, Farmer. What a lazy ass he is. Here ya go:

Your favorite non-scientist, Steve Meyers is in it, so I'm sure you'll love it. For some reason, they don't talk about molecular structures discovered in distant stars, like you do, eh? They keep talkin about "information." What's up with that, I ask ya?

1 Reply

@layman,

yada yada yada "Dont **** with looking for any answers, just default to GAWD"
. IDers are some of the laziest bastards in their sciences but some of the best hucksters dont you think?

Stevie didnt pose one thing new and, naturally, wound up on ID street. Dayum I want my 20 minutes back.

If they would look at all the nucleosides and tides in stellar spectra and trace that into quadrants of the universe (IT would cost a lot I know) and then they could report out something about some REAL EVIDENCE for a subordinate connectivity of life in the Galaxy or nearby universe. NOO, its much easier to make up these "scientistic" bullshit skrees about how OBVIOUS is the concept of a universal creative intelligence. Tell you what, when youve got something really convincing with something other than talking heads with British accents and Discovery Institute haircuts, then Id love to hear it .
Right now, its the same old same old with you guys. You wont discuss down anything Ive posed to you and you just post Youtube Bible Thumping "Biology".
Thats no discussion, your posting artsy scored commercials from a minority Fundamental worldview.

Later Lamont, why not go and bitch about the new format

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

As clearly argued in both examples I posted, the improbable to the point of being not plausible part is arranging them in the necessary order (The CODE). THAT, and not the existence of the building blocks themselves, is the core of the ID argument.

Your insistence that DNA is just like computer code is pretty ridiculous in light of your other arguments.

How many different ways can a "hello world" program be written? I propose that it can be written an infinite number of ways. Admittedly most of those ways would have extraneous code that does nothing but it would still be a "hello world" program. Now. How many different ways could life have started if it is like a computer program?

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

I was out to the junkyard a few days back, lookin for a workin tranny that would fit in my pick-up. There were hundreds of old, broke-down cars there, and I asked myself---where did all these come from?

Cars don't reproduce.

* Reproduction
* Variation
* Selection

Those are the requirements for Biological Evolution. The old "junkyard" analogies don't apply.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

The good Reverend Paley lives on in Lamont

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The good Reverend Paley lives on in Lamont

He's just yankin' our chain. It's too lame an argument to be taken seriously.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

yada yada yada "Dont **** with looking for any answers, just default to GAWD"

Are you some kinda FUNDY, or something, eh, Farmer? Nobody here, not Meyers or the other scientists in that vid, is talking about God except YOU. You always bring up God. Are you obsessed with religion?

There's a simple claim being made here: To wit: mere "random mutation" is insufficient to account for what we see. Get it? That's it, no more. Many scientists (non-IDers) agree.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

.Cars don't reproduce.

* Reproduction
* Variation
* Selection

Those are the requirements for Biological Evolution. The old "junkyard" analogies don't apply.

Exactly. Stupid-ass cars can't even reproduce. The "machinery" of a toad is about a million times more complex and more finely organized that the most complicated car.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

If they would look at all the nucleosides and tides in stellar spectra and trace that into quadrants of the universe (IT would cost a lot I know) and then they could report out something about some REAL EVIDENCE for a subordinate connectivity of life in the Galaxy or nearby universe.

"Real evidence" of what, exactly? If I found a rubber tree in Costa Rica what would that tell me about the tire on a '53 Studebaker at the junkyard?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
yada yada yada "Dont **** with looking for any answers, just default to GAWD"

Are you some kinda FUNDY, or something, eh, Farmer? Nobody here, not Meyers or the other scientists in that vid, is talking about God except YOU. You always bring up God. Are you obsessed with religion?

There's a simple claim being made here: To wit: mere "random mutation" is insufficient to account for what we see. Get it? That's it, no more. Many scientists (non-IDers) agree.

Quote:

The Scientific Dissent from Darwin." It goes like this ...

Quote:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

Many atheist scientists, including me, would agree with the statement.

Only an IDiot would claim that supporters of this statement are also creationists.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-purpose-of-scientific-dissent-from.html

Is Moran calling you an IDiot, ya think, Farmer?

3 Replies

DNA, Where did the code come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know