Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Daniel]

And all these logical gymnastics have done nothing to improve your situation. You've merely defined special pleading.

It isn't Special Pleading...it's called Logical Reasoning. Moreover, coming from someone who believes the Mother of Mothers of Special Pleading Fallacies...Something from Nothing.

Pot meet Kettle.

You've made a claim that everything must have a creator except for this one thing.

I've made the claim that Space/Matter/Energy and Life need A Creator.

Does reality exists? Yes.

Define Reality....?

Can you point me to a time when reality did not exist?

Let's see how you define "Reality".

This is akin to asking you to point to a place where space does not exist, as they are one in the same.

It's not even in the same Galactic Zip Code.

What is one and the same...?

By your logic, since reality has always existed, it needs no creator.

Straw Man Fallacy: Please try and refute my actual arguments instead of the ones you conjure.

Pairs of particles pop into and out of existence without cause.

Really?? Please post 1LOT's "Pillar of Science" Obituary...?

Additionally, you make many logical leaps without any form of proof. For instance, we know that many events have no cause. Nuclear particles decay spontaneously without cause, etc.

Where'd you get Nuclear Particles...?

Additionally, why can't there be more than one CREATOR?

1. Creat "OR".

2. Occam's Razor Violation.

2. Because the 2nd-whatever would have to have existed prior to their existence.

At least now I know you aren't adhering to the God of the Christians, as there have always been 3 of them.

And you would be wrong; since all 3...are ONE. Jesus Christ is The CREATOR (SEE: John 1:1)

regards

 

[marplots]

Jesus is not my idea of a scientist. He didn't survive peer review.

 

[hecd2]

A heath? What the hell is a heath?

I thought everyone knew what a heath is. It's an area of open uncultivated land, typically on acid sandy soil, with characteristic vegetation of heather, gorse, and coarse grasses (Oxford dictionaries). It's where Paley supposed he was when he tripped over the watch.

 

[marplots]

I thought everyone knew what a heath is. It's an area of open uncultivated land, typically on acid sandy soil, with characteristic vegetation of heather, gorse, and coarse grasses (Oxford dictionaries). It's where Paley supposed he was when he tripped over the watch.
[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Heath.jpg[/qimg]

Let me guess. Paley was a Brit?

How the heck would you find a watch in that mess without a metal detector? And he claimed he tripped over a watch? He was lying.

I'm afraid I have to reject heath in favor of beach.

 

[hecd2]

Let me guess. Paley was a Brit?

How the heck would you find a watch in that mess without a metal detector? And he claimed he tripped over a watch? He was lying.

I'm afraid I have to reject heath in favor of beach.

Have you seen the size of 18th century watches? It was never a beach. Are heaths peculiarly British?

 

[hecd2]

It isn't Special Pleading...it's called Logical Reasoning. Moreover, coming from someone who believes the Mother of Mothers of Special Pleading Fallacies...Something from Nothing.
...
snipped to save electrons

regards

Isn't it past your bedtime, sonny?

 

[marplots]

Have you seen the size of 18th century watches? It was never a beach. Are heaths peculiarly British?

I think they must be. In the US we have prairies. And cow patties. No one is making a Creator God analogy with cow patties though. Might be worth exploring.

 

[hecd2]

I think they must be. In the US we have prairies. And cow patties. No one is making a Creator God analogy with cow patties though. Might be worth exploring.

Well knock me down wiv a fevver! I thought heaths were global. Hampstead Heath and all. You learn summat everyday.

Cow patties: irreducibly complex?

 

[marplots]

Cow patties: irreducibly complex?

Hard to say, but probably not. If the moisture and stink are removed, they still work pretty well for fire fuel.

 

[John Jones]

For the 3rd Time, I said there are NO Physico-Chemical Links between DNA and the Amino Acid or Instruction.

Speaking of 'Coherent': To refute my claim of ABSENCE, "YOU" need to show the PRESENCE...i.e., "LINK".

Somewhat like this scenario...

Daniel: duccolslopelgertz don't exist!!

Judge: very well, Prosecutor present your case.

hecd2: Start with whatever you like within the physico-chemical process of sequence translation but try to make your point coherently, because at the moment you are making no sense.

Daniel: duccolslopelgertz don't exist! I very well can't provide a process for duccolslopelgertz; Because...they don't exist!!

Follow?

regards

Quite well, but at a respectable distance. It's known as many things. Willful obtuseness is one.

 

[Daniel]

Of course you do.
Yes there is no direct physical or chemical link between the written English language symbols for a domestic feline and its referent.

But this is not a good analogy for DNA translation.

I never said it was. Try and refute my actual arguments instead of the ones you conjure.

DNA sequernce is copied to mRNA according to the physical and chemical rules of aligning nucleobases.

Woe Woe Woe there.

1. Copied...Why? Please post the Physical Law for Copying...?

2. Where'd you get the Motor Proteins...Helicases ("Functional Proteins"), Topoisomerases ("Functional Proteins") and RNA Polymerase (RNA + "Functional Proteins") Complex....??

You're attempting to make "Functional Proteins" when you need "Functional Proteins" to make "Functional Proteins"!!

Is this like the Space Shuttle birthing the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant?

3. And how on Earth do these Stupid atoms/molecules "KNOW" where to begin Transcribing, pray tell? Post that Physical Law...?

tRNA molecules bind at one end to mRNA and at the other to the appropriate amino acid.

1. Your attention to excruciating detail is OCD like. Where'd you get the tRNA's (mRNA is dealt with above)..it's NOT DNA? Do you recall my argument, by chance?

2. Where are the tRNA's in relation to mRNA just prior to starting Translation...? Where is mRNA...?

3. What Physical Law adds 17-20 AA's per second to the growing peptide chain?

4. Where'd you get the Two-Part/Subunit Ribosome (Another RNA + "Functional Protein" Complex)...?

5. Explain the process to get that "Appropriate Amino Acid" to BIND to tRNA and watch your World-View Implode!! Sorry this is redundant, it already did above (SEE everything after: Copied...Why?)

The process can be found in far more detail in any good molecular biology textbook. Or here. Or here. Go on - educate yourself.

This is tantamount to Mr. Magoo giving advice to Tiger Woods on his Back Swing.

But DNA isn't a language is it?

Yes, it's Digital.

There is a direct natural link bewteen the DNA sequence and the amino acid.

There isn't, as I've shown.

The DNA sequence causes the amino acid to be added to the protein via the translation machinery which itself is a natural chemical and physical process.

Here, try this...

To hold a Materialist Reductionist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive): mRNA, IF's/EF's/RF's, both sub-units of the Ribosome, all the tRNA's and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's... which then "hammered out" the convention (Software) and processes (1/1000th of which would make Einstein Blush) and any conflicts to make sure everybody was on the same page... so it and they could survive; because No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Of course, everyone attending "The Meeting" save for DNA/mRNA/tRNA, are in WHOLE or Part...."Functional Proteins"; which then Begs the Question...Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
Then they closed the meeting and went for cocktails. Then @ the Bar, they discussed HOW they were gonna handle WATER (75% of all Cells), especially the problematic BOND between the Amino Acid....that the aminoacyl tRNA synthetase's just forged with tRNA and "PROOF READ", that has a half-life of .5 seconds...IN WATER (where this particular process is all taking place) and the RF......THAT, with one itty bitty H2O Molecule in the "A" Site within the Ribosome, CAUSES the Entire Complex to BREAK APART...and STOP "TRANSLATION"!! SEE above: No "Functional" Protein-ee, No Life-ee.
Then, since there's no free lunch and since the DeltaG for Protein Synthesis is POSITIVE (for all you 2LOT fans out there), had to bring GTP and ATP into the mix (along with all the sub-process that MAKE THEM...."Coded" on DNA) because without the SPECIFIC ENERGY SOURCE/type/currency and Placement/Timing would be like watching the Space Shuttle Launch after they sprayed the outside with Diesel.

I'm just spit-balling here but, I think you may need a NEW "Just So" Story to "Blindly PARROT" and follow.

I think you are confused.

my word.


regards

 

[Reality Check]

Woe Woe Woe there.

Followed by lots of ignorance, gibberish, idiocy about "stupid atoms", etc., Daniel.
It is a biological fact that anyone can learn is hecd2 put it DNA sequernce is copied to mRNA according to the physical and chemical rules of aligning nucleobases.

This is called transcription.

These is "direct natural link between the DNA sequence and the amino acid.". The DNA sequence is read by RNA to create mRNA. The mRNA is read by tRNA. The tRNA builds proteins using amino acids.
Or in cartoon form: RNA is an intermediary between DNA and protein.

 

[Kid Eager]

I was starting to get the spooky feeling that Daniel's behaviour on this thread was to create the excuse to re-post previously used arguments from other fora.

Sure enough, found it. Hello, Enoch2021...

I now understand why so many of the posts were non-answers, deflections or redirections.

 

[Reality Check]

Hello, Enoch2021...

Do the posts from this Enoch2021 include the idiocy that atoms and molecules are intelligent? ("...Stupid atoms/molecules "KNOW" where to begin Transcribing...").

RNA starts transcribing at the start of a DNA strand !

 

[Pixel42]

It's pointless trying to argue about the details of DNA replication with someone who has yet to grasp the basic principle of evolution by natural selection.

First things first, Daniel. First demonstrate that you have now understood why living things which reproduce will inevitably change and evolve. Then we can go into the details of the mechanism. Get yourself up to the level of knowledge and understanding reached in the mid nineteenth century before trying to understand the discoveries of the 1950s.

 

[marplots]

Suppose I grant that DNA is information, a code, and must have been designed by some intelligence. That still doesn't mean evolution isn't a good and useful theory. Unless there's also a proposal that all the variation we see was designed piecemeal, we still need a mechanism to account for it. Evolution still comes up, no matter who the original author was.

I think this might be a step missing in the DNA-as-code argument. All the codes I am familiar with (like computer languages and regular spoken languages) vary over time through the more-or-less direct input of an intelligent agent. If DNA is a code too, and the code changes over time, it seems we'd need the constant input of an intelligent agent to direct the show. But I don't see that. Instead, the changes follow the kinds of things evolution by natural means requires.

This alone would have us accept evolution as a good description of how living things change over time. Hence, a one-off creation still needs evolution. Unless we now add in creation + husbandry. Do we get to put another cook in the kitchen?

 

[sphenisc]

Have you seen the size of 18th century watches? It was never a beach. Are heaths peculiarly British?

Moor or less.

 

[MikeG]

Well knock me down wiv a fevver! I thought heaths were global. Hampstead Heath and all.........

Hampstead Heath is a misnomer, as it isn't heathland. It is cultivated parkland.

You learn summat everyday........

Most do, but not everyone in this thread, it seems. Some people cling to mediaeval beliefs with great tenacity.

 

[Tolls]

So what, Daniel?
Some scientists describe DNA as language.
Some scientists describe DNA as digital information.
Some scientists describe DNA as software.
Some scientists describe DNA as blueprint.
I bet that it you look hard enough you can cherry pick quotes from scientists describing DNA as other things (machines?) .

We do not have a large number of scientists stating that this language/digital information/software/blueprint/etc. is designed. All we have is your repeated fantasy that information can only be designed.

This isn't the first time someone has pointed out to Daniel that these are analogies...and he's once again deigned to avoid the topic.

 

[steenkh]

It isn't Special Pleading...it's called Logical Reasoning.

So your Logical Reasoning is based on a logical fallacy? tsk, tsk!

Moreover, coming from someone who believes the Mother of Mothers of Special Pleading Fallacies...Something from Nothing.

Yet another fallacy of reasoning - unless you just wanted to make an ad hominem.

I've made the claim that Space/Matter/Energy and Life need A Creator.

That is certainly a claim, but it is not backed by reasoning. We already know that there are natural processes that have no cause, so a creator does not seem necessary. And why limit yourself to just one creator?

And you would be wrong; since all 3...are ONE. Jesus Christ is The CREATOR (SEE: John 1:1)

Why is John 1:1 an authority on creators? There are lots of religions that do not have the Christian God as the Creator, and they have just as much going for them as Christianity (you know miracles, holy books and so on). The real Creator could be one not known to any current religion.