Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Please cite the scientific literature that RNA Polymerase has a mndi

2. How does RNA Polymerase "KNOW" where/when to start??

10 March 2016 Daniel: Please cite the scientific literature that shows that RNA Polymerase has a mind that KNOWS facts .

More seriously, learn some science: RNA Polymerase
My (limited) understanding is that a protein shape in the RNA matches part of the DNA and triggers transcription. This is physics and chemistry.

RNA Polymerase actually floats around and spits out millions of Transcripts per day according to the laws of physics and chemistry. There are no little green aliens or angels sitting on a RNA Polymerase molecule picking where/when the transcription starts .

 

[MikeG]

........Yea, Just like the New England Patriots left the Chicago Bears 'in tatters' during Super Bowl

Is this a baseball reference?

 

[RussDill]

Another debate tactic seen here and commonly elsewhere is when arguments on evolution fail, switch to abiogenesis (Well, that and insults against people who have died tragically, at least in this case). And again, this just highlights a problem for creationists. The evidence for evolution is simply too overpowering and they must at some point switch gears and try to attack a weaker field, abiogenesis. A field for which we have no fossils and for which any precursor organisms have long since died out.

And actually, the generation of the initial RNA sequences may have actually been themselves a form of evolution. It could have evolved from simpler forms of self replicating molecules, so his insistence on the spontaneous creation of self replicating RNA chains is really an attack on a whole lot of nothing.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

An analogy: We have balls that are white and define them as "white balls". This does not stop the white balls from also being bouncy balls!

Finally you get it. In fact - as the model below shows - DNA is ACTUALLY bouncy white balls with colored sticks between them! And those colors are LITERALLY the color code of life!

 

[Darwin123]

And actually, the generation of the initial RNA sequences may have actually been themselves a form of evolution. It could have evolved from simpler forms of self replicating molecules, so his insistence on the spontaneous creation of self replicating RNA chains is really an attack on a whole lot of nothing.

Before the self replicating RNA there were most likely self replicating minerals. Minerals may have provided the scaffolding for RNA.

One of the lies often repeated by Creationists and their ilk is that crystals, including minerals, have information in them. Every time someone gives an example of complexity developing in crystals, they reject it as not really being complexity. Obviously if a crystal can't be complex, then the structure can't contain a 'code' of any sort.

Since crystals can't be 'complex', any theory involving a crystal scaffold must be wrong. Any model that involves a crystal substrate must be rejected because 'crystals are not be complex'. Or they can't 'naturally' be complex.

This is a false statement.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Before the self replicating RNA there were most likely self replicating minerals. Minerals may have provided the scaffolding for RNA.

One of the lies often repeated by Creationists and their ilk is that crystals, including minerals, have information in them. Every time someone gives an example of complexity developing in crystals, they reject it as not really being complexity. Obviously if a crystal can't be complex, then the structure can't contain a 'code' of any sort.

Since crystals can't be 'complex', any theory involving a crystal scaffold must be wrong. Any model that involves a crystal substrate must be rejected because 'crystals are not be complex'. Or they can't 'naturally' be complex.

This is a false statement.

And the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry cuts us a cheque for such speculation.

Young earth creationism became a delinquent account and was closed long ago.

 

[I Am The Scum]

If DNA is software, is it Android compatible?

 

[abaddon]

Before the self replicating RNA there were most likely self replicating minerals. Minerals may have provided the scaffolding for RNA.

One of the lies often repeated by Creationists and their ilk is that crystals, including minerals, have information in them. Every time someone gives an example of complexity developing in crystals, they reject it as not really being complexity. Obviously if a crystal can't be complex, then the structure can't contain a 'code' of any sort.

Since crystals can't be 'complex', any theory involving a crystal scaffold must be wrong. Any model that involves a crystal substrate must be rejected because 'crystals are not be complex'. Or they can't 'naturally' be complex.

This is a false statement.

Snowflakes must present somewhat of a problem.

 

[Reality Check]

Snowflakes must present somewhat of a problem.

For that matter the Creationist definition of information is so flexible and vague that we could look at the properties of a fundamental particle such as an election and call that information.
Hmmm ... the possible ways of combining spin could be called a code - atoms are computers !

 

[marplots]

For that matter the Creationist definition of information is so flexible and vague that we could look at the properties of a fundamental particle such as an election and call that information.
Hmmm ... the possible ways of combining spin could be called a code - atoms are computers !

It's pretty obvious that elections produce spin. I've seen the debates.

 

[MetalPig]

"evolved", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Isn't there a quote attributed to Einstein about trying the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result?

Daniel, if you don't get a satisfactory answer here, go look somewhere else. I hear "the Google" can be useful for finding answers.

You look silly trying to argue against something while pretending you don't even know what that something is.

 

[ThunderChunky]

That's cool. Can you form a "Functional" RNA Polymerase "Naturally" spontaneously from it's respective "Building Blocks" outside a living cell/organism....?

Are you an Intelligent Agent? Did you study the mechanisms of replication, transcription, and translation et al as a knowledge base or did you fall *** backwards into it?

How are any of these questions at all relevant to what determines transcription start sites?

So RNA Polymerase just floats around and spits out millions of Transcripts per day "all accidental like", eh? sheesh

Depends on what you mean by "accident." It's a catalyst, it doesn't have a mind or know what it's doing. That's why it often starts transcription in the wrong spot.

Astonishing. Yes, there's lots of "accidents".

Indeed. Start site selection is far from perfect.

"evolved", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

regards

If you have a better theory for how proteins came to be to specifically to clean up the mess created by imperfect transcription start site selection, go ahead and post it.

 

[EHocking]

Isn't there a quote attributed to Einstein about trying the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result?

Obviously he never went fishing.

 

[Tolls]

...or they are actually metaphors.

Daniel doesn't understand metaphors or analogy.
Or should I say, he can't allow himself to understand them as his entire argument is based on them not being analogies or metaphors.

I've seen a number of people try and point this out to him since this whole "DNA is software/information/code" thing started and he just pointedly ignores it. So I can only assume it's willful.

Is this a baseball reference?

American Football. I think it was the third or fourth one that Channel Four showed it live here in the UK, and it was also (up to that point) the biggest win in a SuperBowl. The Bears hammered the Patriots, so Daniel is implying that his arguments are as much in tatters as Chicago were...as in not.

 

[Agatha]

The derail into particle physics has been split to a new thread here.

Please would all participants in this thread endeavour to stick to the topic, to be civil and polite, and to refrain from copy/pasting the same things over and over again lest they fall foul of rule 6.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Daniel]

Before the self replicating RNA

Begging The Question Fallacy x 2:

1. where'd you get "Functional" RNA 'Naturally' spontaneously from it's building blocks (for better than the 5 TIMES now!)....?

2. "self-replicating"?? Can you identify the "self" in the "self replicating"?

Why would it Self Replicate?

"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a particular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 10⁵⁴ RNAs and weighing 10³⁴ grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 11. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993
https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/monographs/article/view/3786/3003

there were most likely self replicating minerals. Minerals may have provided the scaffolding for RNA.

What on Earth sir??

One of the lies often repeated by Creationists and their ilk is that crystals, including minerals, have information in them.

1. Stereotype Fallacy.

2. I've never made this Nonsensical Claim; In Fact...made the opposite claim , that there is NO INFORMATION in them...@ ALL.

Every time someone gives an example of complexity developing in crystals, they reject it as not really being complexity. Obviously if a crystal can't be complex, then the structure can't contain a 'code' of any sort.

You must be reading another thread/forum and posting here.

And, we reject "Crystals"... because they don't speak to Functional Sequence/Specific Complexity; Ergo...Straw Man Fallacy, as I've explained to you more than once.

"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity"
Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973

Please post "The Crystal CODE"....?


regards

 

[Daniel]

Another debate tactic seen here and commonly elsewhere is when arguments on evolution fail

1. Thanks for the Color Commentary.

2. "evolution", what's that?? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

3. Fail?? Like, for instance...?

...when arguments on evolution fail, switch to abiogenesis

Well...when you post the Scientific Theory of evolution, we will THEN Compare and Contrast to see if there's a difference. mmm K?

(Well, that and insults against people who have died tragically, at least in this case)

oh brother.

The evidence for evolution is simply too overpowering

Evidence for what??

a weaker field, abiogenesis. A field for which we have no fossils and for which any precursor organisms have long since died out.

So you have no fossils for Life from Non-Life?

And actually, the generation of the initial RNA sequences may have actually been themselves a form of evolution.

Really? Show those initial RNA Sequences....?

Do you know the difference between "Science" and Fairytale "Just So" Story Telling?? ...

Science: Method -- The Scientific Method.

Fairytale Story Telling: Method -- Imagination.

Reconcile, the Re-Compute.


regards

 

[Sideroxylon]

Evolution is our best (by pragmatic predictive measures) origins narrative.

Your alternative young earth creationism with a recent mass extinction event and respawning of life centred around a point in the Middle East is rendered absurd by observation. You know this and will never defend it. You are the fairy tale subscriber, Daniel.

 

[Daniel]

How are any of these questions at all relevant to what determines transcription start sites?

How is your Intelligent manipulation of it in a TEST TUBE, RELEVANT to this discussion in the First Place ?? i.e., it was a Straw Man and Red Herring to the discussion from Jump Street.

If you have a better theory for how proteins came to be to specifically to clean up the mess created by imperfect transcription start site selection, go ahead and post it.

1. You can't have a "Scientific" Theory for an Unobserved Past Event sir, because you have no viable "Independent Variables" to TEST. i.e., it's falls in the Scientific Law category.


2. "Functional Proteins" sir and Yes, The Only other Choice Left: they were Intelligently Designed, you surely aren't getting them "Naturally"...


First of all, The Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) Research is an INVALID Scientific Inquiry; UNLESS...somebody has OBSERVED Life from Non-Life. Why?? Well... they skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: "Observe a Phenomenon"!! It's not "Conjure a Phenomenon" (lol).
It's Tantamount to Observing a Torch Mark on my Garage Wall; then Speculating that an Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon caused it. And what's this??...
This is a Complete Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) and has the Quintessential Characteristic that "it"...can NEVER be Disproved!! (How convenient).

But OOL is a special case, because what they're essentially saying with Abiogenesis is: NATURE/Natural Laws can Create Life from Non-Life.
This is still a Fallacious Argument, **and Scientific Law Violating (SEE: Law of Biogenesis) heresy, but has only ONE Category that is accessible "Nature DID IT", so it's not a COMPLETE Argument from Ignorance ( as our Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon above). That is, we have ACCESS to the "alleged" CAUSE..."Nature". Well...

"Functional" Proteins First:

Of the ~500 Amino Acids (AA's) known, 23 of them are Alpha Amino Acids. All Life requires and exclusively uses 20 Essential Alpha AA's.
1. Please show (CITE Source) of the "Natural" Formation of ALL 20 Essential Alpha AA's from their "Building Blocks"....? (This is ONE of the dirty little secrets you never hear about, it's really quite mind numbing...but they know they can 'Whistle Past The Graveyard', because of the utter ignorance and "Blind" Faith of their target audience).
2. We could in-effect stop right here, but where's the fun in that.
3. Once you get all of the Alpha AA's "Naturally" (and...you won't), they exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed. But LIFE exclusively uses Left-Handed Amino's (There are Exceptions but not material and outside the scope of our discussion). To be "Functional" Proteins, you not only need their Primary Structure (Proper Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif. ONE "right-handed" AA in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat.
In EVERY SINGLE OOL Paper with AA's/Proteins (and SUGARS---we'll get to that), take a look @ "Materials and Methods" Section ... their other dirty little secret, you'll find EVERY-SINGLE TIME the word "PURIFICATION" or equivalent (or start with them outright). Because they **sequestered**---if Proteins, then left-handed AA's are chosen...if Sugars, then right-handed ones are chosen, before they even start on their "a priori" fairytale.
**This is Investigator Interference and PROVES the need for Intelligent Agency!
4. The DeltaG for Polymerization of AA's to form Polypeptides is "Positive" i.e., Non-Spontaneous.
5. Peptide Bond Formation is "Condensation Reactions". Ahhh, That is....Peptide Bonds won't form IN WATER, from both a Thermodynamic and Kinetic point of view... Peptide Bonds won't form between two AA zwitterions, this is the form AA's are found in Aqueous Environments.

You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than attempting even a cogent explanation of how this could be in the Galactic Universe of Possibility, let alone actually Physically/Chemically forming a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein, "Naturally"!!
AND...This is even before we discuss: Primary Structure, Sunlight which destroys AA's (and Nucleo-Bases), pH, Cross Reactions, Brownian Motion, Hydrolysis, and Oxidation.

I suppose this is what the Grand Poobah of Origin of Life Research (Dr. Leslie Orgel) was referring to, when he said...

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008) The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.



regards

 

[Sideroxylon]

We have overwhelming evidence for common ancestry which gives us licence to speculate on abiogenesis.

Unlike bankrupt young earth and recent global flood beliefs.