Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
And yet again, Daniel has come and gone with nary a peep toward my question. I feel sad and lonely.
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Again, which of the multitude of gods are you referring to and why should we prefer that one over another?
This time, give your reasons and do not run from the question.
ComfySlippers
Banned
Come now. keep it simple.
How come China is older than The Earth?
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
https://deae89a72d2f97fc67dc-851283...d24bf&theme=Five Seven Five&imageFilter=false
So the fact that a piece of mathematics known as the Fibonacci sequence explicitly describes what is in this picture (among piles of other things)…
…..means nothing. It’s not even a coincidence.
…according to you.
The fact that there is something in nature that is equivalent to the laws of physics (do you want links to the skeptics who have made this claim)…
…means nothing. It’s not even a coincidence.
…according to you.
Quite obviously…the issue is not there are not issues. There is hardly a mathematician (or student of physics) alive who doesn’t wonder about what you insist are not issues. What the issue is…is that you just can’t deal with the issues.
In the real world it’s called denial.
The issue is simply that you like your little hole in the dirt. Nice and safe there. No need to bother with the world around you and what it means. Just pull your head out long enough to lob a few insults at anyone who threatens your little hole…then stick it back in real quick.
So...like I said...get back to me when you want to actually deal with the issues. I'm sure if you close your eyes (or stick your head in the dirt) that picture (the "issue") just isn't there anymore...but guess what...
...it still is.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a great deal of room betwixt "means nothing" and "intelligent design."
To me, it means that the plant, through the process of evolution, has discovered an efficient way to produce leaves (or petals or whatever they are). The fact that we can (partially) capture this pattern with a neat bit of math only illustrates what a cool tool math is.
In my opinion, mathematics holds no special or mysterious property in this regard. I could do much the same thing with vision. How is it that so much of the world around me is described by "green?" Surely, green must have been placed in the world for me to find by some intelligent agent? It can't just be coincidence that so many things are accurately described by "green."
If we were dogs, we'd be astounded at how the world is designed to be understood with smell. Our great doggy scientists would have illustrated the prevalence of "dusky, but only a bit fishy, amine" in our surroundings, and the claim would be that smells aren't discovered, but invented by dogdom, and only a dog is capable of such deeply mysterious connections to nature.
Woof.
The wise cat now enters the conversation (unbidden, as usual) to inform us that finding meaning around us is no surprise, since we too are part of the system we want to describe. "Of course you understand the world in the ways you do: you are as much a part of the scenery as anything else. You come pre-matched, constructed of the same stuff with the same general recipe. Get me some tuna."
Annoid, you whitter on about the Fibonacci sequence, but can you show us how any sort of spiral doesn't include the Fibonacci sequence?
You are seeing a pattern and ascribing it to a creator. The rest of the world sees the most efficient way of crowding seeds into a circle, and notes that an interesting pattern emerges. Parsimony.
You are seeing a pattern and ascribing it to a creator. The rest of the world sees the most efficient way of crowding seeds into a circle, and notes that an interesting pattern emerges. Parsimony.
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,051
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Ribozymes exist and exhibit the properties of both proteins (biological function) and DNA (the information to replicate that function in subsequent copies)
Step 2: Lit Review
PubMed : Search terms Ribozyme
Step 3: Hypothesis
Ribozymes can form without design from random ribonucleotide polymers
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
PubMed : Ribozyme
I've mentioned this before but just making random strings of ribonucleotides will give functional ribozymes. Sure, in the 4200 possible there won't be many, but given that they can be selected for and then replicated using their own code as a template, that is not an issue.
Step 5: Analyze Data
PubMed: Ribozyme
Randomly stringing nucleotides together gives rise to a thus far immense amount of functional ribozymes that function as both their own genetic code and biological activity.
The chemistry needed to achieve this is basic ester linkage, which itself is well understood.
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Ribozymes can form without intelligent guidance from simple nucleotides via simple chemistry.
Hypothesis : if such nucleotides or similar analogues existed on pre-biotic earth they could have easily formed a basis for life from self replicating molecules
Step 7: Report Results
PubMed ; RNA world, further suggested research, start looking into how on a pre-biotic earth nucleotides might form.
All of this has been fully documented and reported and repeated. And no matter how many times Daniel cries "Where do the nucleotides come from!!11!" (which I've answered, for these experiments, you buy them), it is one of the many experiments that disproves his statement that from simple molecules complexity cannot from trough simple chemistry.
Ribozymes exist and exhibit the properties of both proteins (biological function) and DNA (the information to replicate that function in subsequent copies)
Step 2: Lit Review
PubMed : Search terms Ribozyme
Step 3: Hypothesis
Ribozymes can form without design from random ribonucleotide polymers
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
PubMed : Ribozyme
I've mentioned this before but just making random strings of ribonucleotides will give functional ribozymes. Sure, in the 4200 possible there won't be many, but given that they can be selected for and then replicated using their own code as a template, that is not an issue.
Step 5: Analyze Data
PubMed: Ribozyme
Randomly stringing nucleotides together gives rise to a thus far immense amount of functional ribozymes that function as both their own genetic code and biological activity.
The chemistry needed to achieve this is basic ester linkage, which itself is well understood.
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Ribozymes can form without intelligent guidance from simple nucleotides via simple chemistry.
Hypothesis : if such nucleotides or similar analogues existed on pre-biotic earth they could have easily formed a basis for life from self replicating molecules
Step 7: Report Results
PubMed ; RNA world, further suggested research, start looking into how on a pre-biotic earth nucleotides might form.
All of this has been fully documented and reported and repeated. And no matter how many times Daniel cries "Where do the nucleotides come from!!11!" (which I've answered, for these experiments, you buy them), it is one of the many experiments that disproves his statement that from simple molecules complexity cannot from trough simple chemistry.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Daniel, I am impatiently awaiting my "checkmate".
How do parrot fish violate the First Law of Thermodynamics?
How do parrot fish violate the First Law of Thermodynamics?
@annnnoid: as you know - because I said so - I've been re-reading what you've posted, at least in this thread and the other, related, one.
I'd like to share something with you; it's some advice.
I have found that you quite often write things like this (several examples can also be found in the post of yours that I am quoting):
…once again…that is not what I have argued.
R E A D!
And, after a further exchange on ~the same topic, a repeat. Sometimes it's accompanied by things like this (likewise, several examples in the post of yours that I am quoting):
…this is just plain embarrassing! I honestly cannot bring myself to even attempt to reply to this. I have encountered more substantive reasoning in a turtle.
It seems that, to you, what you write is clear, and you often get frustrated that other ISF members do not seem to 'get' your message. Further, in attempting to clarify, you rarely succeed. And so the cycle repeats.
What should one do, when one's intended message is clearly not being understood? Assuming that you are not merely posturing, trying to get 'hits' for your website (etc), venting, etc*, and are genuinely interested in a discussion of your ideas, then the following may be helpful.
First, does your intended audience (which I assume is primarily those ISF members who are sufficiently interested in what you post to reply) seem to be merely 'baiting' you? If so, anything you post will only contribute to a 'flame war', albeit one of low intensity (given the ISF rules). In this case, best to simply bow out; your intended message will not be understood, no matter what you do.
Second, if at least some of those who respond seem to have even a small degree of interest, consider WHY your repeated attempts to communicate your meaning seem to fail. Perhaps the problem is not your audience, but your own writing? Here's a concrete suggestion: seriously consider writing something like this:
= = = = =
Dear fellow ISF members,
I have been trying, for quite a long time now, to communicate some ideas of mine. To me, they are both obvious and deep. However, as I review your responses to my posts, I realize that I have failed, pretty spectacularly, to convey my meaning in a way that you understand.
Part of the reason for my failure likely lies in HOW I have presented my ideas, and how I respond to those whose posts, to me, clearly show a failure to understand.
For this, I must take full responsibility; I am trying to convey my ideas, you are not actively seeking to ask me for them.
Starting now, I'd like to change the way I write, and respond, in a genuine effort to get my ideas at least understood (if they are accepted that'd be super, but I'm really aiming for understanding, not acceptance).
Staring now, I will cease the snark in my responses, ditto the condescension (and, as so many of you find this device at best annoying, my use of "....").
I will also, from now, often respond by asking for clarification, by addressing the content of your responses - ALL your responses - seriously (yes, I know some of them will contain snark and condescension; however, I will rise above that, and focus on the content .... and ASKING).
And I will - above all else - ask for your help in how I might present my ideas in a more coherent form, one that you will have much less difficulty understanding.
Thank you in advance,
annnnoid
= = = = =
* as I have noted earlier, Daniel's posting behavior, in this and the other thread(s), seem to me indistinguishable from spamtrolling; your posting behavior seems to me quite different
That you feel sad is understandable.
However, you shouldn't feel lonely.
If you go through this - and the other - thread carefully, you'll see* that Daniel NEVER responds to a question (or post) where he'd have to admit to an error, mistake, etc. Even - or especially - where that mistake is an internal inconsistency/incompatibility within Danielscience itself. Ditto where that response would require allowing/admitting that Danielscience is inconsistent with science.
Or even that his post contained a typo, or a mis-statement.
Oh, and I think the reason for Daniel's non-response is not - as many have conjectured - that he has them on Ignore.
The number of ISF members who have written such posts, ones that Daniel has not responded to, is quite large, possibly even almost every other ISF member who has posted in this (or the other) thread.
So you cannot be lonely (I'll leave it to you to decide whether the company is good, or not
)* At least, that's what I have found, from my own research. This conclusion - a public one - can be checked by anyone (i.e. it is independently verifiable), and objective. I note that huge parts of Danielscience are not objective and/or independently verifiable. That alone makes Danielscience not science. As several of Daniel's quotes attest.
How do you know? Post the Method you used to arrive @ your conclusion.
Ahhh, where'd you get the Krebs Cycle? 
We're talking about how you got the First "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins, You skipped pages 1 - 2875.This is Page 1...
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...
"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.
Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?
Go ahead....?
Wholesale Dodged the Core Argument via Red Herring Fallacy is more like it.
And you 'dumbing down' metabolic pathways for me is a tear jerkin belly laugher.
1. "evolution"?? Are you referring to the Scientific Theory of evolution? If so, can you post por favor...?
2. Ipse dixt Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bald' Assertion Fallacy.
1. Ergo...it's not "SCIENCE".
2. Begging The Question Fallacy; where'd you get Reality?? Start here...: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11166324&postcount=1
How/Why so...?
Wha ha ha ha, If you only knew.
And how do you know?? Post the "Method" used to reach your conclusion here??regards
1. Begging The Question...Where'd you get Ribozymes??
2. Ribozymes aren't a Phenomenon, they're 'Nouns'/end results...
It "appears" the First Step in the Scientific Method is somewhat confusing to most. It's not just "Make an Observation" or "Conjure a Phenomenon"; it's "OBSERVE A PHENOMENON". It's an "ACTION" that you OBSERVE, that must be based in " Reality " so as to afford the ability to TEST it. It's also NOT just "OBSERVE" as in Observe "Nouns" (rock, fossil, ribozymes, et al)...you have to OBSERVE a "Phenomenon", an Action/Verb Tense. And it has to be repeatable, it can't be a "One-Off" event...if so, How can you TEST it?
"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon."
Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality; Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209
If you try and circumvent The Scientific Method and Hypothesize Observations of Nouns/Make an Observation, this is what you're reduced to (an example)...
I Observe a Tree "Noun". What's the Hypothesis...? ...
How did this Tree Form? (Invalid, not Observed)
What circumstances led to this Tree growing in my backyard? (Invalid, not Observed)
The Tree formed by evolution. (Invalid, not Observed). And, you have a Begging The Question Fallacy in the Hypothesis.
* btw, these are not Scientific Hypotheses.
OK what's the TEST? Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis, then please elucidate...
The Independent Variable and what are you measuring (Dependent Variable) ?
"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."--
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm
OK lets Hypothesize an Explanation which accounts for ALL the Observations.... So with our Tree:
Since we just "Observe the Tree", how do we account for all the Observations? THIS IS YOUR ONLY RECOURSE (Each and every Time you just "Make an Observation" of Nouns): Your Hypothesis from the Train-wreck Observation...
[In the daytime] Open your Eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic)--- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Biochemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions.
Viola, A Tree! The Independent Variable here... is YOUR EYELIDS !!
It's OBSERVE a PHENOMENON, not just "Make an Observation"--- of Nouns!
Since your First Step is in Error, everything downstream is Erroneous. But let's take a couple...
1. Begging The Question Fallacy; (for the 1878th Time)--- Where'd you get Ribonuleotides??
2. This is not a Scientific Hypothesis...
"Forming Testable Hypotheses:
The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables.
Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.
If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.
Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis.
Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.
The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.
Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment. An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm
Now that is absolutely hilarious
regards
I am now confused - My recollection of that part of Genesis is that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all humans. Cain was one of their sons - Abel and Seth being the others, one of whom had been murdered and the other of whom hadn't been born.
All that one would need would be to say to Seth's offspring was "don't kill the only other man on Earth who isn't one of your family".
Last edited:
Thanks!
(If there's stuff in your post which I do not respond to adequately, or any other questions you'd like to ask me, on relevant topics, please don't be shy in letting me know)
First, let me compliment you on your posts. One aspect in particular: you seem very open to learning new things, to understanding aspects of DNA, information, etc which you had previously been unaware of, or not fully grasped. This is a refreshing difference from what I see in (almost?) all of Daniel's posts here; e.g. display of the virtue of humility vs the nis of pride (it seems that dog isn't too happy with snis).
Second, thanks to you, I learned something new about GR (and, to be honest, my research was also triggered by what Daniel wrote on this).
SR (Special Relativity), as it is most often described (so it seems to me), has two "postulates" (re "the laws of physics" being the same everywhere and everywhen - this is NOT a fully accurate statement! - and the speed of light being the same, everywhere and everywhen). Postulates are often also called axioms (though there may sometimes be some subtle differences), with a deliberate nod to mathematics.
And ~a century ago, the mathematician Hilbert included "the axiomatization of physics" as one of his greatest unsolved challenges in mathematics (WP). Obviously, the axiomatization of SR and GR would contribute to this challenge being met.
I had known that there are several different - equivalent - ways to write SR's postulates, but was unaware of work done to do the same for GR. What I found is - at least to me - really interesting!
"First-Order Logic Investigation of Relativity Theory with an Emphasis on Accelerated Observers" is the title of Gergely Sz ́ekely's PhD thesis (link to the PDF). I hope you too find it interesting (and I'm going to PM one of my ISF heros - W.D. Clinger - about this. Of course, he may not post anything about this in this thread, or even anywhere in ISF).Something since the post of yours I was responding to: the exchange between you and Daniel on Danielscience's insistence (?) that only 'experiments in a lab, here on Earth' are acceptable, therefore that astronomy, geology, ecology, etc are not - and can never be - part of Danielscience. Given what Daniel wrote about how GR is viewed in Danielscience ("time cannot bend, therefore GR is total nonsense" is my paraphrase), I very much doubt that he knows of lab-based tests of GR, and even less interest in learning about them.
However, others may be interested to learn that at least some of GR's aspects have been tested 'in the lab' (and shown fully consistent with GR). Perhaps the hardest for Daniel to ignore (assuming he is intellectually honest, for which there is heaps of objective, independently verifiable evidence that he is not) might be Pound-Rebka (WP), followed by some of the Eöt-Wash ones (an Eöt-Wash Group webpage).
Lastly, I have a question or three for you, if I may: do you have any insight into why Danielscience seems so internally inconsistent? Do you think there's a recognition - certainly open admission is not on the cards - by proponents of Danielscience that much, perhaps even most, of the quote mining is intellectually dishonest? Willfully deceitful? Given the apparent source of Daniel's ethical and moral values, how to understand the arrogance (pride) etc?
post 1653 is one of mine:
Perhaps I've been reading too many of annnnoid's posts, ...Daniel said:
Fallacy of False Dichotomy ([expletive]! now I'm Capitalizing Like Daniel!).
Let's look at some alternatives which Danielscience has, apparently, not considered ("the Necessary Condition for the Existence of Life", the Universe can wait a bit):
* FSM, .... an Intelligent Agency
* long ago aliens, .... as part of a (failed) experiment
* AIs from the future which went ... rogue, and created/discovered/built/produced/made/... (I think they're synonyms, in anol) time travel, and seeded life on Earth, ~3 billion years' ago (Note: per anol, AIs are not ... Intelligent Agents)
* present-day aliens; we are in a giant Petri Dish (these aliens are not Intelligent, merely Very Clever)
* ~4 billion years' ago, Earth was an interstellar garbage dump; we are the spawn of the equivalent of maggots (most certainly not an Intelligent Agent)
* as the Universe is infinite, anything which is not forbidden is compulsory (ergodic principle), no matter how improbable; we are the result of one such astonishingly improbable event (pace Daniel, DNA can form spontaneously^) (in fact, as the universe is infinite, there are an infinite number of "Earths", and on an infinite number of them, an infinite number of Daniels and annnnoids exist)
Anyone want to join me in a late-night session (in a college dorm room? Nah, we need to get out under the stars!), to hash (wine?) this out? Sure would be more interesting that try to understand Danielscience, right?
^ OBVIOUSLY ... how else could we have been created/excreted/42-ed/... ?
Yes, it was written a somewhat light-hearted way.
But I - deliberately - introduced several elements which I think highlight Danielscience's poverty of imagination and sterility. By postulating that there are just two choices, Daniel seems to be declaring that Danielscience is not open to question, cannot be challenged, etc (at least in this regard). And the insistence on the Fallacy of False Dichotomy also points to Danielscience being barren. (Of course, it would be trivially easy to show that Danielscience is not sterile, not barren: point to papers published in relevant journals reporting work, based on Danielscience, which could lead to new vaccines, antibiotics, treatments for cancer, hardier rice strains, ....).
(the rest of this post is for ISF members other than Daniel, who likely won't even read it)
In my list of possible alternative explanations, "FSM" has the same status as "GOD": both are supernatural, both utterly beyond any controlled experiments (in the lab or elsewhere), both 'causes' impossible to test. Etc.
A couple explore what "Intelligent Agency" might mean (other than as an alternative phrase for "GOD").
Several point to a deep failure of Danielscience, namely that in the future we may know much more than we know today, so ideas based on what sorts of things we might know should at least be considered (e.g. time travel).
And several also contain something which Danielscience is blind to: that there's a distinction between what can never be tested (e.g. supernatural causes) and what might, in principle, be testable in future (even if it's not today). For example, the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe, interstellar garbage dumps on other planets, extinct alien civilizations (and some of their failed experiments).
HE didn't, you're conjuring them.
Go ahead and post the "Scientific Evidence"....? That is, Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis and Experiment for Each Claim that Validates it....?
Highlight the "Independent Variable" Used in the TESTS for each....?
Oh and just in case you're wondering...Ipse Dixits from people with 'alleged'---- Scientific Initials behind their names don't count as "SCIENTIFIC Evidence".
regards
Why are you hung up on experiment? You can make predictions and see if observations match them without experiment.
If the Earth was 10,000 years old and had been covered in a flood, you would expect to see certain characteristics of sedimentary rocks. The water would have to have been flowing very quickly to cover the Earth up to the height of Everest and to have receded within the 40-days or 150 days that are mentioned in separate parts of Genesis. I think that is obvious.
You would not expect to see fossils of fragile organisms like jellyfish formed in such a situation. You would not expect to see mudstones form. You would not expect to see lots of different strata in the Grand Canyon as the flood was one short event. You would expect to see the same sedimentary rocks covering the entire Earth, except where subsequent volcanic action has occurred.
If all the animals had been on the Ark, then land animals couldn't get to islands. You wouldn't expect to see Kangaroos in Australia (or any animals that couldn't cross the Wallace Line). Similarly, New Zealand would have to be completely devoid of all animals that couldn't swim or fly there.
Instead we see animals there that are found nowhere else. How did they leave the ark, cross thousands of miles of ocean and all end up there?
We also see Marsupials in Australia and South America - which makes perfect sense when we look at continental drift, but makes little sense if you believe an ark.
We can see the evidence in this map of the Atlantic on Wikipedia
Note how the coast of Africa and of South America follow the shape of the Mid Atlantic Ridge.
We can measure the growth of the Atlantic with GPS measurements - it is growing at about 25 millimeters a year, and it 2,848 km wide at its narrowest, which alone gives an estimated age of about 100-million years for that ocean. This is a very simplistic sum, but shows that there is plenty of evidence for the Earth being at least hundreds of millions of years old.
My understanding of geology is very superficial, so someone with more expertise could give you far more examples. However the basic ideas *are* simple, as are the problems that the 19th Century geologists found with the biblical account of creation.
In favour of your preferred view, you have a flood story that is younger than others that have been written down, and which differs from them in various details, but which is obviously related. You have two different accounts of creation, which does show that the compilers of the Torah did respect their oral traditions... but they aren't terribly easy to reconcile with each other.
AdamSK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,952
We're talking about people living for hundreds of years and quickly generating enough offspring to found and populate cities. Adam had more than three sons; Seth is only named because he's Noah's patrilineal ancestor. And Cain went elsewhere and intermarried, so it's not as though you'd necessarily know him without the Mark.
RussDill
Philosopher
Geez, his response is to yet again trot out the Orgel quote. Does he really think he's doing to sway anyone? Usually I see people on the forum evolve their arguments, no matter what thesis views. He's just stagnant.
Thanks for the correction - presumably it's OK to kill your uncles if they aren't the first murderer?
Oy Vey1000000000...... Marlpots this isn't a personal indictment, everyone is doing it.
This is so mind numbingly Stupefying, it's difficult to put into words.
Over 1700 posts and nobody can get past The Narrative and are Not Dealing with The Argument!!!!
Ready...
Where'd you get the PLANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where'd you get LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Over and Over and Over and Over again....what's the retort:
Ribozymes, The Krebs Cycle, Prions, la la la. These are the Consequent, the questions are....The Antecedent.
I'll give you all the 'Building Blocks', save for the 20 Essential Alpha AA's and Cytosine.
Go...
1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...
"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.
Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room...
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?
That wise cat is entangled in a Fallacy
...The Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis - arguing a point that's irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Your implication above is tantamount to...
You're a reporter and you asked a sole survivor of a plane crash HOW/WHY is it that he was able to survive, and he answered: "Because, if I hadn't survived, you wouldn't have been able to ask me the question".
This is a Fallacy, a Type of Red Herring...What he said is very true; however, he didn't answer the question: HOW/Why he survived?? ....not How/Why he is able to answer the question.
Why is it 'No Surprise' the Cat found meaning around him. Just coincidence?
Why/HOW do we come 'Pre-Matched'? Coincidence? What Law of Physics governs this 'Pre-Matching'?
regards