Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I've mentioned before the article in The Scientific American from 1970 about organic molecules forming in clay tubules in smectite clays, particularly in montmorolite. I read that in 1973, a little less than three years after it was published, and it was one of those "then the nickel dropped" moments. Not only is that not a random effect, it's inevitable. I guess the bible thumpers just don't understand that, although i suspect a lot of them are in the fingers in the ears, "La, la, la, la . . . i can't hear you" mode. Those elements have no choice about forming bonds. It's gonna happen, as sure as Dog made little green apples.

I don't buy panspermia, though. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that there's no evidence that it has happened. For me, that means i suspend judgment. I think that organics are seen in the spectra of stars because of the inevitability of the chemical bonds, and because we are seeing stars second generation or older. Even a second generation star is going to have carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen available--it's not like they're exotic elements.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I don't buy panspermia, though. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that there's no evidence that it has happened.

Thats an honest view, consistent with how science works. If we do find life on Mars, the next steps will be to attempt to see commonalities between it and maybe simple life on earth.

Id love to see that the isoprene polymer cell wall structures o the Flinders Hill and Isua Fm "chemical fossils" are related to any similar structures on mars

0 Replies

@Setanta,

The fact i that, every time Carbon and Nitrogen are in proximity so a to incite bonding or linking, there are about 4 to 6 different ways it can happen , due to the fact that C can make chains and rings and N has potential triple bonds to "link" .

0 Replies

I doubt that we will find life on Mars, at least on the surface. It would be like living in a microwave in a deep freeze, 30,000 feet above the summit of Mount Everest. If we find it, it will probably be deep underground. I would dearly love for them to find something, or unambiguous evidence that there was once life there, perhaps in the "warm, wet period." It might point to how inevitable the chemical attributes of life are, how inevitable the replication process as we know it from Terra is.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:

"But that happens in RANDOM order. "

Obviously youve not learned a thing. Bonding and linkages occur between these various biotic chemicals in a PREFERRED manner .

Bullshit. This 'inevitable process' that you and Setanta speak of does not exist.

The only natural combinations happen on a totally fixed, simple and predictable scheme. Like hydrogen bonds with oxygen to form a molecule of water. Sodium bonds with clorine to form salt, etc. Over and over, sometimes in crystalline form (like salt). It's a repetitive process that can form massive amounts of the end product but it has none of the encoded properties of DNA.

The 4 nucleotides of RNA/DNA have NO preference in the order in which they link up. You could potentially get endless chains of one type or random sequences, nothing more with natural chemical processes.

I challenge you to cite the 'PREFERED manner' which could explain the highly ordered sequences in RNA/DNA.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

well, ignorance is NOT bliss in your case.

Quote:

The 4 nucleotides of RNA/DNA have NO preference in the order in which they link up

. Bullshit,(A) and another bullshit (B) .
A. RNA has an additional nucleotide, URACIL

B. The 4 nucleotides do have a preferred bonding

A Bit of discussion about the 3D aspect of DNA (exclusively) to highlight my assertion of BULLSHIT (B)

Quote:

the double helix—arises from the chemical and structural features of its two polynucleotide chains. Because these two chains are held together by hydrogen bonding between the bases on the different strands, all the bases are on the inside of the double helix, and the sugar-phosphate backbones are on the outside . In each case, a bulkier two-ring base (a purine; ) is paired with a single-ring base (a pyrimidine); A always pairs with T, and G with C . This complementary base-pairing enables the base pairs to be packed in the energetically most favorable arrangement in the interior of the double helix. In this arrangement, each base pair is of similar width, thus holding the sugar-phosphate backbones an equal distance apart along the DNA molecule.

There are a whole dogs breakfast of nucleotides that occupy the "fuzzy reality" about the gene (the epigenetic fraction). At least 10 others. BUT ALL are either purines or pyrimidines.

I wish ta hell youd get a copy of Watsons DNA . Its readable, not beneath you, and has a better sense to dissuade you from your computer -like analogies an instead it instills a better understanding of bio systems.(Although Ill retain the similarity between it and bar coding (were bar-coding a preferred tetradecimal phenom)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Bullshit again. Red herring answer.

Just because uracil replaces thymine in RNA doesn't change a thing. There are still only 4 nucleotides used to encode the data.

I guess The 'preference' you are referring to relates to the helix shape of DNA which is again irrelevant to the order of the nucleotides.

Even if you were successful in coming up with your fictitious 'preference' that determined the complex coded order in DNA, that mysterious force would be just as indicative of an intelligent designer to account for that order. It would have nothing to with any recognized force in classical physics.

But again, there is no preference in science that accounts for that order.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

With regard to the computer analogies in DNA/RNA, they are inescapable if you are familiar with both. The start and end condones to mark where protein sequences begin and end are one to one equivalents to information technology use. Or just like CSV files used in things like Excel spreadsheets.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

In each case, a bulkier two-ring base (a purine; ) is paired with a single-ring base (a pyrimidine); A always pairs with T, and G with C . This complementary base-pairing enables the base pairs to be packed in the energetically most favorable arrangement in the interior of the double helix

You seemed to have missed (or ignored or rejected the above).

As I will say, get a cc of Watsons book . Then I can reccommend a number of books on ascending complexity regarding chemical bonding.

My first graduate degree was in chemistry. I can say without any doubt that you would have been fired somewhere in your first week of working in the lab.
PS, we learn how to "utilize" these preferred weaker bonds and ionic bonds, to create wonderful things. Many of which occur by pure dumb natural means.(Purines and pyrimidines being just one in 100's of thousands)

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

comparisons in format are "evidence" of creation by intelligence eh?

a buzz bait is similar to a dying minnow.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Didn't ignore it at all, it's just irrelevant.

The encoded meaning of the sequence has nothing to do with the complementary base pairs. The complements just make the storage of the data more robust and less prone to damage, (and makes for that compact shape as you mentioned). The meaning is the same when the complements are stripped off as they are in mRNA when building proteins in the cell.

Still waiting on that magical preference. Just referring to other books does not prove your point. If you can't explain it it means it isn't there or you don't understand it yourself.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

way to back into a corner. "irrelevant" says you.
"Youre ignoring the facts"
, says I.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

If you can't explain it it means it isn't there or you don't understand it yourself.

I try what I can. If you dodge and parry, without any understanding apparent, I think Id better hang up the chalk on this one. "assertively Ignorant" Id call you

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

way to back into a corner. "irrelevant" says you.
"Youre ignoring the facts"
, says I.

I gave specific reasons as to why the points you raised are irrelevant to the order in DNA. I addressed every 'fact' you brought up.

You, on the other hand, have failed to make good on providing the chemical 'preferences' that would explain the specific coding of nucleotides in RNA/DNA.

You sir, are the one in the corner.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The start and end condones to mark where protein sequences begin and end are one to one equivalents to information technology use.

Completely false. In protein coding, any non coding triplet will end the sequence. In information technology only very specific designated operations will end a program. The operation NOP will not end a program.

The fact that any non coding triplet ends the sequence for protein production lays further lie to your math about how every base pair has to be in a specific order for a gene to function.

1 Reply

@parados,

From Wiki:

Quote:

The Universal Genetic Code is the instruction manual that all cells use to read the DNA sequence of a gene and build a corresponding protein. Proteins are made of amino acids that are strung together in a chain. Each 3-letter DNA sequence, or codon, encodes a specific amino acid.

The code has several key features:
◾All protein-coding regions begin with the "start" codon, ATG.
◾There are three "stop" codons that mark the end of the protein-coding region.

Even if you were right, a none coding triplet would BE a STOP codon.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Even if you were right, a none coding triplet would BE a STOP codon.

Which allows for different orders of triplets to form this STOP codon.

That means you can't lay out math requiring only one specific order when you argue the math of how this couldn't happen. You keep making that same error over and over.

That would mean in assembly language there would have to be over 800 codes that stop the program for it to be similar to DNA. That doesn't occur in coding. It is much more structured. Your argument that they are the same is complete nonsense.

But as usual, you failed to address the 4 errors I pointed out about your math here.
http://able2know.org/topic/50511-1142#post-6152628

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I gave specific reasons as to why the points you raised are irrelevant to the order in DNA. I addressed every 'fact' you brought up.

There is so much you do NOT understand about biochem that Im not gonna waste much time

Tell me about Chargaff's Rule

what's this _-CO-NH-

whats an amide bond

describe polymerization of COOH or an isoprene monomer and why are they unique in the ascendance of life?

How many bonding modes exist for H2, H+, C, N2,

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I doubt that we will find life on Mars, at least on the surface.

Never sy never. Wed never find life in active hydrothermal fluid deposits or in waters of pH<2. Yet thereit was.

They routinely do science experiments of the flora that survive inside a microwave oven

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Following the rule of "anything's possible" we couldn't rule that out. But I think it is far more probable that we will find subsurface life on Mars.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know