Creationist argument about DNA and information

Daniel said:
Oh goodness gracious.

Scientific Theories don't contain 'maths'. :rolleyes:

Math is Immaterial "Abstract" and @ BEST, merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada/Niente.

Scientific Theories EXPLAIN by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.

Show me a Scientific Theory based on Math/Equation and I'll show you a Married Bachelor!!

Scientific Theories ---"Explain"....The How (Mechanisms/Process).

Scientific Laws "Describe"....The What/Is and are often Expressed Mathematically.

See the difference?

Post the Equation for Germ Theory...? :dig:
Click to expand...

With all the respect that is due to you, your argument is nothing more than sophistry.

Einstein's theory of General Relativity is rather heavy on maths. The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution is rather heavy on maths. String theory (whether it is useful or not) is rather heavy on maths. There might be a descriptive framework to put the equations in context, but the theories are often full of maths.

I suggest that you are trying to play a gotcha in order to not think about the simplicity of the theory of evolution, which has been stated without maths many times in this thread.
 
So, I've asked twice for the Scientific Law of Biogenesis, and got nothing but obfuscation in response. I'll try a third time.

Please post the Scientific Law of Biogenesis.
 
Daniel said:
Much snipped

And, Jodie...

"I then spent decades running a laboratory in DNA chemistry, and so many people were working on DNA synthesis — which has been put to good use as you can see — that I decided to do the opposite, and studied the chemistry of how DNA could be kicked to Hell by environmental agents. Among the most lethal environmental agents I discovered for DNA — pardon me, I'm about to imbibe it — was water. Because water does nasty things to DNA. For example, there's a process I heard you mention called DNA animation, where it kicks off part of the coding part of DNA from the units — that was discovered in my laboratory." --- Dr. Robert Shapiro
https://www.edge.org/conversation/robert_shapiro-robert-shapiro%E2%80%94life-what-a-concept






This is Incoherent. Dr. Shapiro was the one that brought it to light. :boggled:

This is Dr. Shapiro's follow on conclusion to Christian de Duve, the Nobel laureate's comment...

"Because it's hard to think of any other manner in which RNA out of purely abiotic chemistry would assemble itself on the early Earth".

This is so mind numbingly tedious, post a coherent substantive argument or take this as my last reply to you. mmm K?
Click to expand...

Daniel has not responded to any of my posts in a long time, but I have to address this mined quote anyway. If not for him, the others.

First, I had to search for the source of the quote, as the link above is not working. Here is an active link to it:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/robert_shapiro-robert-shapiro—life-what-a-concept

Christian de Duve, the Nobel laureate, once wrote a letter to Nature which was headed, 'Did God Make RNA?' Because it's hard to think of any other manner in which RNA out of purely abiotic chemistry would assemble itself on the early Earth.
Click to expand...

Please see the hilited part. As I read the article, and I did read it, Dr. Shipiro is not intending the hilited part to be his opinion, but that of Christian de Duve's opinion.

Also, I have read every post in this thread, I do not see where anyone other than Daniel, is saying that RNA spontaneously originated on earth.

Also from the quoted article above:

In planets from the Earth are subject to a sort of tension because the inside, which is pure iron, is very electron-rich, while the outside, due to continual escape of hydrogen into space because water gets broken up by radiation, is electron-poor, so that at various places on the Earth there will be interfaces where electron-rich molecules are interfaced with electron-poor molecules. These are then prominent sites for the origin of life. Everyone can have his own favorite site. Some argue for the interiors of volcanoes, some argue for vents, some argue for the monolayer of the space of the ocean.

The idea is that this is inherent in the laws of chemistry and physics. One doesn't need a freak set of perhaps a hundred consecutive reactions that will be needed to make an RNA, and life becomes a probable thing that can be generated through the action of the laws of chemistry and physics, provided certain conditions are met. You must have the energy. It's good to have some container or compartment, because if your products just diffuse away from each other and get lost and cease to react with one another you'll eventually extinguish the cycle. You need a compartment, you need a source of energy, you need to couple the energy to the chemistry involved, and you need a sufficiently rich chemistry to allow for this network of pathways to establish itself. Having been given this, you can then start to get evolution.
Click to expand...

Hiliting by me

So, later in the article, quote minded by Daniel, we see the above. Dr. Shipiro is NOT saying that god had to create the world, he is giving a simplified version of how it could have happened through entirely natural processes.

Some more from the Daniel mine of quotes:

And the other part of life that involves giant molecules are the enzymes, which are wonderful catalysts, but at the start of life you may have been able to get by without wonderful catalysts — you don't need to speed things up a million-fold, which is what enzymes can do. Small molecules can in instances speed things up a thousand-fold, and if you have the right system a thousand-fold may be enough. The picture that emerges is that in a planet like Earth there may have been dozens or hundreds of separate starts of Earth — we are all the children of the most successful one, which as far as we know, dominates on the Earth. We need not be the only life form present on the Earth.

Instead of looking for elaborate new ways to make ribose or to connect nucleotides, if an equal amount of money were invested into telling people to just look at coupled reactions where energy is discharged in matter.
Click to expand...

Hiliting by me.

Again, not seeing Dr. Shipiro evoking god to explain how life was created. Instead he is presenting a theory that relies on totally natural processes, that are inherent in the laws of chemistry and physics.

I am guessing one of those inherent laws of physics would be the Law of Thermodynamics?

I truly recommend you read the entire article. If anyone other than Daniel comes to different conclusion, please let me know.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
And, as I'm sure you know, he can't. Because it doesn't.
Click to expand...


Sure.


Various life forms on earth form all the chemicals necessary to life from raw ingredients all the time.
Click to expand...


My word, Straw Man Fallacy: we're talking about BEFORE you have LIFE!! Of course there's no problem when you already HAVE LIFE.
You already have the Cellular Structures... SPECIFIC Energy Converter (Mitochondria/ Chloroplasts/Metabolic Pathways) and INFORMATION Program (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING so as to capture, convert, and use the Energy meaningfully.

Without those Metabolic Pathways (Read ENZYMES, "Functional Proteins") already existing, The sun and every other energy source is like a Bull in a China Shop!

Mid Summer in Texas, the sun is destructive. It will burn the tires clean off a tractor if left in the field long enough. And it will eventually do the same with the roof on your house and your car if not protected. Why? Because there is no "Pre-Existing" mechanism to capture the heat of the sun and an information program to direct its use. Now let's put solar panels on the roof, to capture the sun's energy and add an information program (computer) to direct it to produce electricity. Now the sun is no longer destructive. But-----and this is important, the sun will NEVER build the solar panels or write a program to convert the heat to usable energy!!

See the "Specific" Energy Converter and Information Program in the above example?

Or do you ascribe to the Sun sending Intelligent Messages or Instructions to "Stupid" Atoms so they can build it? :boggled:


That has no bearing on the thermodynamics of it.
Click to expand...


Oy Vey


TIP: It's often beneficial to refute the actual arguments presented... in lieu of the one's you conjure.

regards
 
I am learning a lot by looking up the quotes Daniel steals and reading the full text. For that I am thankful.
 
MikeG said:
So, I've asked twice for the Scientific Law of Biogenesis, and got nothing but obfuscation in response. I'll try a third time.

Please post the Scientific Law of Biogenesis.
Click to expand...

Righto, we'll go for a fourth time:

Please post the Scientific Law of Biogenesis.
 
I appreciate your efforts in putting the quotes back in context, Son of Inigo.

It's also worth restating the point that someone upthread made about Daniel's arguments and quote mining being a (I'll be kind, misguided) attempt at an appeal to authority, whilst everyone else (including other creationists) are arguing about the reasoning, which stands or falls regardless of the person proposing it.
 
Daniel said:
...
Here it is, for the 164th time in this thread...

The "Null Hypothesis"...

Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Life.

If you can't FALSIFY the NULL (which Nobody on the Planet can/will EVER do), then Ya hear that Sound??? ...that's you and your World-View circling the Drain at Light Speed !!

"To do a hypothesis test, you will actual have two hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, which are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive (you can’t have both hypotheses be true). The null hypothesis is the conclusion that is considered the default – you will accept this hypothesis if you fail to find sufficient support for the alternative hypothesis."-- csun.edu
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/ECON309lect7Bhypotesting.doc

Here's the Alternative Hypothesis (The Basis of your 'World-View)...

Nature/Natural Law CAN create Life.

Go ahead....? :thumbsup:


regards
Click to expand...

Dear Daniel:

This is where you fail. Any hypothesis, null or not, must be falsifiable; for you to say your hypothesis can't ever be falsified is to make of it, not a hypothesis in science, but a proclamation of faith.

Regards,
Actual Science

PS- Here's another, related principle that DanielScience probably will never admit- the burden for proposing a test of a hypothesis (null or not), how to falsify it, rests on the proponent of it. So, in fact, it isn't up to anyone but you to say how you would test your "hypothesis." So, "goddidit!"- how would you test it? Go ahead....? :thumbsup:

And, no, simply thinking you've disproved the TOE (you know what it is, stop pretending, it's childish) won't do it- because, no matter how hard you try to set up your false dichotomy by way of mushing the TOE together with abiogenesis, evolution doesn't, in fact, necessarily exclude "goddidit!" and isn't meant to. It's just an explanation of mechanisms- there's nothing to say that free will isn't universal, given by god to nature as well as to man- and the only one here who thinks one thing must exclude the other is you.

Why is that? Arrogance? You either believe that god couldn't have used evolution (in which case you question his omnipotence), or you believe he wouldn't have (in which case you're presuming to dictate to him his mind). A true dichotomy there, which still seems only to resolve itself in arrogance on your part. What kind of Christian questions the evident workings of his god? Millions of Christians worldwide have no problem reconciling their faith with science. You apparently cannot...why? Hmmmm- d'ye put sugar on your porridge, laddie? I'd bet you do... :D
 
Daniel said:
It's NOT a Scientific Theory!!!!!!! goodness gracious. SEE Here for Complete Annihilation of it...: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11203936#post11203936


regards
Click to expand...

And? Theories can be disproved, but they are still theories. There is also the fact that a rant on an obscure corner of the internet is not actually disproving either of Einstein's theories of relativity.

It also has nothing to do with evolution.

You are still avoiding answering the fact that whether you like it or not, various posters have produced their own paraphrases of the theory of evolution and they all agree - because the basic idea is so simple.

In case you missed it, here's a different version:

In a finite environment, self-replicating systems where the self-replication is prone to error, will tend to optimise for self-replication in that environment over many generations, as those which reproduce are, axiomatically, sufficiently optimised to reproduce.
 
turingtest said:
Dear Daniel:

This is where you fail. Any hypothesis, null or not, must be falsifiable; for you to say your hypothesis can't ever be falsified is to make of it, not a hypothesis in science, but a proclamation of faith.

Regards,
Actual Science

PS- Here's another, related principle that DanielScience probably will never admit- the burden for proposing a test of a hypothesis (null or not), how to falsify it, rests on the proponent of it. So, in fact, it isn't up to anyone but you to say how you would test your "hypothesis." So, "goddidit!"- how would you test it? Go ahead....? :thumbsup:

And, no, simply thinking you've disproved the TOE (you know what it is, stop pretending, it's childish) won't do it- because, no matter how hard you try to set up your false dichotomy by way of mushing the TOE together with abiogenesis, evolution doesn't, in fact, necessarily exclude "goddidit!" and isn't meant to. It's just an explanation of mechanisms- there's nothing to say that free will isn't universal, given by god to nature as well as to man- and the only one here who thinks one thing must exclude the other is you.
Why is that? Arrogance? You either believe that god couldn't have used evolution (in which case you question his omnipotence), or you believe he wouldn't have (in which case you're presuming to dictate to him his mind). A true dichotomy there, which still seems only to resolve itself in arrogance on your part. What kind of Christian questions the evident workings of his god? Millions of Christians worldwide have no problem reconciling their faith with science. You apparently cannot...why? Hmmmm- d'ye put sugar on your porridge, laddie? I'd bet you do... :D
Click to expand...


I hesitate to recommend that anyone read Behe, but I think Daniel's arguments might become significantly more sophisticated if he did.
 
Daniel: Lying by quote mining a 2008 Orgel essay

Daniel said:
Orgel LE (2008) The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060018
Click to expand...
  1. Argument by insane irrelevant highlighting!
  2. Argument from ignorance - this is not an abiogenesis thread!
  3. Argument from ignorance - this is an essay expressing a personal opinion.
  4. Argument from ignorance - this is an essay about Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth - "metabolism first"!
  5. Lying by quote mining the last sentence in the last paragraph in the essay :jaw-dropp.
The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth by Leslie E Orgel (2008)
The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.
Click to expand...
This posthumous essay from Leslie E Orgel is pointing out the obvious situation in science - there has to be experimental evidence for anything rather than hypothetical chemistry.

1 April 2016 Daniel: Lying by quote mining a 2008 Orgel essay.

1 April 2016 Daniel: Lying about his quote mine - the sentence is not a "summary of both".
 
jimbob said:
I appreciate your efforts in putting the quotes back in context, Son of Inigo.

It's also worth restating the point that someone upthread made about Daniel's arguments and quote mining being a (I'll be kind, misguided) attempt at an appeal to authority, whilst everyone else (including other creationists) are arguing about the reasoning, which stands or falls regardless of the person proposing it.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the encouragement jimbob.

I know Daniel is not reading those posts. But I hope others are, and that they find them useful.

I also do it to learn, like Marplots said up thread. By reading the original text, in context, I am learning more about the subject. Most of my science "education" was YEC centered, though I did a semester of Biology 101 for my associates degree. I might not be able to argue the scientific merits of the papers, but I can understand enough of them to know that they are in no way helping Daniel's cause.

I tried to find a source so I could read the "Did God make RNA? by Christian De Duve, but I can only find it behind pay walls. I would like to read it, to see exactly what he said. Hard to argue a point, when you don't even know what the point being argued is. And I ain't taking Daniel's word for it ;)
 
Daniel: Creationist delusion that the 2LOT contradicts abiogenesis

Daniel said:
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "Pillar of Science" contradicts Abiogenesis...IAW: ...
Click to expand...
1 April 2016 Daniel : The insanity of the creationist delusion that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts abiogenesis (and evolution and sliced bread!) :jaw-dropp!
CF001: The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible. Response: The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing.

Obviously Daniel does not know where babies come from :p! An ordered system of a fertilized cell becomes an ordered system of millions of cells. This is possible for the same reason as abiogenesis and evolution - entropy input from an external source (the mother for babies, the Sun for abiogenesis and evolution).

1 April 2016 Daniel : Makes up a fantasy of "The Law of Biogenesis".
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of the Freeman on the Land people.

"I don't have to understand the issues, all I have to do is put the right words in the right order, with the right font."

It's actually the same recipe used when praying in public. Performance.
 
Daniel - based on your track record I will assume you'll run from the question again (could be a lack of courage with respect to his faith, could be he just can't make up his mind, could be he hasn't been told what his answer should be), but given your position re abiogenesis and evolution -

Of the hundreds of gods and creation stories, which is the correct one, and why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom