17
   

DNA, Where did the code come from?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 08:21 am
@fresco,
Yeah, I know all about 'eddies in the stream'.

I love the leap (of faith? :-) in this excerpt from your source.
Quote:
Examples in everyday life include convection, turbulent flow, cyclones, hurricanes and living organisms.
You really don't see the disconnect in going from 'hurricane' to 'living organisms'?

Reminds me of the cartoon of the scientist at the chalkboard with 'then a miracle happens' in the middle of his mathmatical proof.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 08:45 am
@Leadfoot,
http://necsi.edu/events/iccs/2002/Mo09_Melamede.pdf
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 11:13 am
@fresco,
You will likely deny it (either here or in your most private thoughts) but I have sufficient education and intellect to see that the following excerpt from your source could be used just as effectively for evidence of why God could exist as it could be for biological life existing.

Furthermore, I can recognize it as a desperate attempt of an individual to justify his or her believing that there is no need for a God to explain our existence.

Not many will take the trouble to parse it but FWIW, here is the excerpt.

Quote:
3 Time
Recent work from Prigogine’s group provides a resolution to the “time paradox”, the problem of an irreversible world that is typically described by physics in which time
is reversible [Prigogine 1997] Time is manifest in the movement of a system towards equilibrium, at which point it is lost. A system at equilibrium has no events that may be used to measure time. Both the equilibrium “steady state” of generation and destruction of chemical species, and the stable, dynamic, steady state that exists far from equilibrium, are characterized by time independent molecular distributions. The meaning of time in the two systems cannot be the same since a continuous degradation of potential due to the presence of an organized system is required only in the latter case. Thus, a dissipative structure requires that a portion of the energy flowing through it be used to maintain the far from equilibrium, stable, steady state, while the entropy of the universe increases at a more rapid rate than would occur if the dissipative structure did not exist. It seems that the degree of organization within either system, equilibrium or dissipative, is timeless. Essentially, time is dependant on a system’s distance from equilibrium. Hence, time is made when a system moves away from equilibrium and time is lost when a system move towards equilibrium. A system may move from equilibrium in a linear (near equilibrium) or nonlinear manner (dissipative structure formation). A dissipative structure existing in a stable steady state may be seen as storing time.
4 Evolution
Biologically speaking, evolution is the process by which species develop from earlier forms of life. More generally, evolution is the gradual development of something into a more complex form. In the following sections, physical processes will be described that result in the increasingly complex forms that become biological species.
4.1 Evolution Phase I: The Generation of Chemical Diversity
Both nonequilibrium (but not dissipative) and equilibrium processes generate chemical diversity by conventional chemical mechanisms that are driven by photodynamic, geothermal and electrical potentials.
4.2 Evolution Phase II: Dissipative Structures First Appear
The chemical diversity created in Phase I is sufficient to add chemical potential as a gradient producing source that, in addition to the energetic sources mentioned above, lead to the formation of dissipative structures.
4.3 Evolution Phase III: Simple Interactions between Dissipative Structures Form
Relationships (source and sink) developed between dissipative structures composed of prebiotic chemical pathways such that they became dependant on each other. The prebiotic precursor pathways are what will evolve into to carbohydrate, lipid, amino acid and nucleic acid pathways. The primodial genetic code need not have been between proteins and nucleic acids, but could have been between prebiotic dissipative
structures that would evolve into the biochemical pathways of carbohydrate, nucleic acid and amino acid synthesis. This line of thought provides an abstract mechanism that allows for the evolution of the genetic code to occur in the absence of cells, membranes, triplet codons, or life.
4.4 Evolution Phase IV: Complex Interactions between Dissipative Structures Form
Just as large collections of molecules existing far from equilibrium can spontaneously undergo rearrangements to form organized flow dependent structures, so can collections of interacting dissipative structures. This mechanism can account for the formation of a precellular environment that could have many of the attributes of a living cell, but need not have all of them. In turn, these systems could continue to evolve until livings system resulted. With this model, some interesting possibilities naturally arise. Did different versions of prelife/life first occur from which a founding organism was selected that became the tree of life? Alternatively, did many prelife/life forms appear out of the prebiotic incubator that were very similar and essentially represented a dynamical system that was an attractor, and this form became the founding organism?
The meaning of time again arises when considering the concepts presented in this section. Is there a relativity of time that corresponds to the dynamic hierarchies?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 01:46 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:

Environmentally forced evolution is plausible and happens on the 'micro' scale but the scale of macro evolution is still beyond what mutation and natural selection can accomplish. Yeah, I know, lots of tiny changes over time. I've baked that into my conclusion as well.
Thats sad that you deny and avoid the scientific literature. The "micro" v "MAcro" evolution argument is just plain lame and void of any common sense. Its merely a ploy by the IDers to deny the entire museum of evidence from the fossil record and the vast expanse of time.


As far as the origin of life, the evidence seems to support what I sid as opposed to "intelligence" WE can LOOK for evidence of the origins of life and then test some of them in a lab. You cant do that with ID its just there . It requires a leap of faith, not any discovery.
SCience has changed its directions in understanding life ascendency. Its accomplished by "Wide swings" of discovery the period of which are getting ever nd ever finer.

ID is totally based on a statement of incredulity ."Life is too complex to have risen without intelligence"

Qs I said, I really dont care what you believe, just dont try to push it into school science curricula , unless its a career path in legerdemain.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 01:55 pm
@Leadfoot,
You say you are familiar with whats going on inscience. I have to admit that Im unaware of the mountains of research thats going on in ID. Can you fill me in?

Quote:
the scale of macro evolution is still beyond what mutation and natural selection can accomplish.
another Baseless assertion . Merely look at geographic isolation via cave organisms or island organisms. We can measure MACRO evolution of the genomes of LIVING organisms whose means of isolation via cavern living or geographic isolation as islands , once connected to the travel of parent species has resulted in genomic differences above the species and often the genus level (clearly a display of MACRO evolution as defined independently by Dobzhansky,Mayr, and Goldschmidt.

As I said above the ID drivvel "asserting a vast argument among scientists " on this and other facts is just a ploy to create turmoil where none exists.


In otherwords its a bullshit story
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 02:02 pm
@farmerman,
Just a point needing clarification:
Has any one identified a case where offspring is no longer capable of mating with parent? I realize this may be obtuse. But is that not what is involved in speciation?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 02:04 pm
@Leadfoot,
Obviously 'evidence' lies in the eye of the beholder. My only comment is that Prigogine required no 'God' to demonstrate the spontaneous phenomenon of dissipative structures. By Ockham's Razor your ad hoc 'God' hypothesis is at best superfluous.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 02:23 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Obviously 'evidence' lies in the eye of the beholder.

True. Until the reality is made obvious to all.
Quote:
My only comment is that Prigogine required no'God' to demonstrate the spontaneous phenomenon of dissipative structures.
You question my use of 'design', I question your use of 'demonstrate'. So it's still a matter of 'eye of the beholder'.

We'll all find out soon enough.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 02:30 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
ID is totally based on a statement of incredulity .
Perhaps for some. I have science to thank for my incredulity though. So never fear, Science is all right by me.

Just keep it straight, don't preach it as religion.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 03:19 pm
@Leadfoot,
Ostensibly an attempt at closure,your last post to me is transparently a self-reinforcing exercise with respect to your faith. It is, of course, vacuous to an atheist who would certainly smile at your final sentence.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 03:40 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Just keep it straight, don't preach it as religion
Again, I dont have to "preach", I rely on the judicial precedent available on the statement.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 03:47 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
Has any one identified a case where offspring is no longer capable of mating with parent?
cases, not merely "a case". However, derived species may produce "hybrids" with the parent species.Such was the case with the polar bear and brown bear. I just looked up for a single area in the world that would display endemic or princetive speciation, the African Rift valley. In this area there are 42 paleoendemic species of mammals ALONE. It is kinda hard to see about interbreeding of paleoendemic species


layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 05:38 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
However, derived species may produce "hybrids" with the parent species.Such was the case with the polar bear and brown bear.


If they can produce offspring, then they aint different species, is they, Farmer? Says here:

Quote:
Over the years, scientists have uncovered an evolutionary path suggesting that polar bears are a relatively new species, and actually a subspecies, of Ursus arctos, more widely known as the brown bear.... It is this reproductive viability that establishes that an animal belongs within a given species...


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/arctic-bears-how-grizzlies-evolved-into-polar-bears/777/
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 05:40 pm
As far as I can tell, no one is really addressing the question asked, i.e., where did the information in DNA come from.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 05:59 pm
@layman,
Evolution.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 06:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Evolution.


Well, Al, I think we done been through that mistaken claim, eh? Evolution aint got nuthin to do with abiogenesis. And even the broad topic of abiogenesis don't address the question of where the information came from.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 07:19 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
It is, of course, vacuous to an atheist who would certainly smile at your final sentence.
Whaaat? No confidence that science will eventually find the answer? You guys are always telling ME that.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 07:42 pm
I've always wondered why some.
(Present company excepted, of course)
Have a mind concept of evolution as an entity with a force of it's own. . .
Not unlike (shudder) . . .
god!. ..
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 07:44 pm
@neologist,
Reification, an unpleasant side effect of language. Not unlike *shudder* god.

j/k Wink
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jan, 2016 07:45 pm
@FBM,
Brrr! Shudder!
Unseasonably cold here in Seattle.
 

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 0.16 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 04:59:03