Creationist argument about DNA and information

steenkh · Apr 15, 2016

annnnoid said:
If an event occurs, it must have a cause. This is…as they say… the sine qua non of Science and the basis of Logic.

I do not know why this is claimed all the time. Quantum Mechanics has events that happen without a cause; nothing that we know of is triggering the event at that moment.

Nature does not care if causation is the sine qua non of Science and the basis of Logic. Perhaps we should just demote Science and Logic, and spell them without capitalization?

tsig · Apr 15, 2016

annnnoid said:
“…in a very specific, and carefully defined, sense.”

…you have seriously got to be kidding!

“Reality behaves as if it follows laws.”

This conclusion is falsified literally trillions of times every day…perhaps even every second of every day.

…and if anything that is an understatement.

…and we’re not talking about trivial issues either. Quite apart from the incalculable scientific issues involved…billions of people literally trust their lives to the accuracy of this conclusion.

Do you see buildings collapsing…planes falling out of the sky…medical devices malfunctioning…cars falling apart…etc. etc.

Nope. Everything works…all-the-time (and when it doesn’t…it is NOT because the laws were wrong…it was because the engineering was wrong)!

Just like I said…you folks will do just about everything you can to avoid facing up to this simple fact! Your position essentially boils down to…”we haven’t figured out how EVERYTHING works…so not only can we not trust what does work…it must all be a coincidence!”

Newsflash: The laws we have not only work…but they work so well that you and just about every single person on this planet trust their lives to these very laws.

…so…if something works so well that YOU trust your entire life to it (every time you turn on your car…every time you board a plane…every time you step into an elevator…etc. etc.), how accurate / reliable a metric would you describe that as???????

It is true that no one has a clue why the laws work so well…but the word coincidence seems unlikely…especially given the indisputable fact that the l.o.p. are derived directly from the l.o.n. (not just metaphorically).

(…and BTW…running away from ‘why’ is nothing more than a feeble excuse; change it to ‘how’…and you still run away cause you can’t even begin to answer that question either… but it is still just as certainly a relevant question!)

It is thus reasonable to conclude that the l.o.p. are somehow instantiated in reality (since they not only describe it and predict it…they are also derived directly from it). ALL the available evidence generates this conclusion.

…and according to every normative paradigm…the ONLY thing that creates ‘laws’ is intelligence!

Why did this intelligence create these laws?

turingtest · Apr 15, 2016

steenkh said:
Actually, I said all that was needed to be said, but if you did not get the meaning, I am partly to be blamed for the terseness.
What I want to say is that "law" (like "code") has several meanings, and one of them is the laws that we use in our legal system, another is the laws of physics. When we are using the term "law" in the meaning of a law of physics, we are not implying that an intelligence has created it.

To put it in a cruder way, if you hear an authority calling something a "law" you cannot take that as a proof that the law has been created by an intelligent being - even if your authority meant it.

This is the same fallacy that Daniel used. He pointed to someone calling DNA "code", and then he thought that this was proof that DNA was created by an intelligence.

Theoretically it could be true that the laws of physics (and code of DNA) is created by an intelligence, but not because somebody has used the term "law" (or "code").

Nothing at all wrong with terseness, or blameworthy for you in annnnoid's inability to get a short point. In fact, terseness is to be preferred when dealing with someone who continually mistakes volume for substance. After all, if someone lets an annoying balloon filled with nothing but hot air loose in your living room, there's no need to fill another balloon to knock it down with when a terse little point will do the job better.

tsig · Apr 15, 2016

turingtest said:
Nothing at all wrong with terseness, or blameworthy for you in annnnoid's inability to get a short point. In fact, terseness is to be preferred when dealing with someone who continually mistakes volume for substance. After all, if someone lets an annoying balloon filled with nothing but hot air loose in your living room, there's no need to fill another balloon to knock it down with when a terse little point will do the job better.

Donn · Apr 15, 2016

Be not averse to terse, for it only gets worse.

Jodie · Apr 17, 2016

Annnoid not everything works all the time.

I just did a presentation on birth plans that led to research about interventions that may decrease the C/S rate. That said, when you looked at women who had birth plans using alternative interventions versus their counterparts that didn't, there was no difference in the overall C/S rate.

I bring this up, not to defend Daniel, but to use it as an example of why you shouldn't necessarily throw common sense out of the window as unreliable. If you depend solely on research results to define a life approach, such as realism, you might want to reconsider that. Most of what I read over the last two weeks had so many design flaws I'm not sure how these studies got published.

We did have a space station blow up, planes do fall out of the sky once in awhile, stuff happens. Research i.e. using the scientific method might be better than throwing darts at a dart board but it is by no means perfect.

annnnoid · Apr 24, 2016

Jodie said:
Annnoid not everything works all the time.

I just did a presentation on birth plans that led to research about interventions that may decrease the C/S rate. That said, when you looked at women who had birth plans using alternative interventions versus their counterparts that didn't, there was no difference in the overall C/S rate.

I bring this up, not to defend Daniel, but to use it as an example of why you shouldn't necessarily throw common sense out of the window as unreliable. If you depend solely on research results to define a life approach, such as realism, you might want to reconsider that. Most of what I read over the last two weeks had so many design flaws I'm not sure how these studies got published.

We did have a space station blow up, planes do fall out of the sky once in awhile, stuff happens. Research i.e. using the scientific method might be better than throwing darts at a dart board but it is by no means perfect.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

The l.o.n. implicate intelligence. That is the argument. I didn’t create it. It is YOUR argument…I’m just connecting the dots.

How we define ‘laws’ is irrelevant…the fact that some stuff does not work all the time is also irrelevant. The conclusions are ALWAYS the same.

The laws of physics inevitably implicate something equivalent in nature. This implicates intelligence. Elementary logic. So far Marplots is the only one who had the simple intellectual integrity to admit the obvious. The rest simply say nothing or complain that the argument is not fair.

Perpetual Student · Apr 24, 2016

The l.o.n. implicate intelligence. That is the argument.

Why? Explain the logic of this implication.

Lukraak_Sisser · Apr 24, 2016

Perpetual Student said:
Why? Explain the logic of this implication.

As far as I understood his explanation when I asked the same, it boils down to:

Because the laws of nature are universal, unbreakable, unambiguous and unchangeable in time they are the same as laws made by intelligent beings (us being the only example) which happen to have none of these properties.

And no, even though a LOT of words were used, I did not understand the logic how the laws of nature are like normal laws despite having the opposite traits.

steenkh · Apr 24, 2016

I thought the argument was that we call them laws, and we all know that laws are made by people, then the laws of nature are logically also made by people. But because this sounds stupid, we correct "people" to "an intelligence". This sounds much cleverer.

JeanTate · Apr 24, 2016

While I agree that both Lukraak_Sisser and steenkh have accurately summarized at least part of annnnoid's argument, and some of its illogicality, I think there's a piece missing. One that appears only sometimes in annnnoid's posts, but is at least important to the argument (the extent to which it is logical is left as an exercise to the reader).

It's the role of consciousness: the l.o.n. - whatever they may be - give rise to entities (us) which declare that consciousness exists. Such conscious entities can - consciously - observe nature and note regularities and patterns. After some time, these get distilled to l.o.p. (laws of physics). A full application of those l.o.p.'s can 'explain' consciousness. As consciousness is essential for there to be l.o.p.'s, so intelligence is essential for there to be l.o.n.'s.

No, it makes no sense to me, and I've gotten nowhere in asking annnnoid to clarify.

Jodie · Apr 25, 2016

annnnoid said:
This has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

The l.o.n. implicate intelligence. That is the argument. I didn’t create it. It is YOUR argument…I’m just connecting the dots.

How we define ‘laws’ is irrelevant…the fact that some stuff does not work all the time is also irrelevant. The conclusions are ALWAYS the same.

The laws of physics inevitably implicate something equivalent in nature. This implicates intelligence. Elementary logic. So far Marplots is the only one who had the simple intellectual integrity to admit the obvious. The rest simply say nothing or complain that the argument is not fair.

Are you talking about Bohm's implicate order? Yeah, that does go along with how I think things really are but I don't think you can define it as intelligence, it's the essence of being.

Jodie · Apr 25, 2016

Feynman stated the argument well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sAfUpGmnm4

RussDill · Apr 25, 2016

Meanwhile, back at the lab....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425095115.htm

Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160425/ncomms11328/full/ncomms11328.html

The RNA World hypothesis presupposes that abiotic reactions originally produced nucleotides, the monomers of RNA and universal constituents of metabolism. However, compatible prebiotic reactions for the synthesis of complementary (that is, base pairing) nucleotides and mechanisms for their mutual selection within a complex chemical environment have not been reported. Here we show that two plausible prebiotic heterocycles, melamine and barbituric acid, form glycosidic linkages with ribose and ribose-5-phosphate in water to produce nucleosides and nucleotides in good yields. Even without purification, these nucleotides base pair in aqueous solution to create linear supramolecular assemblies containing thousands of ordered nucleotides. Nucleotide anomerization and supramolecular assemblies favour the biologically relevant β-anomer form of these ribonucleotides, revealing abiotic mechanisms by which nucleotide structure and configuration could have been originally favoured. These findings indicate that nucleotide formation and selection may have been robust processes on the prebiotic Earth, if other nucleobases preceded those of extant life.

Dancing David · Apr 26, 2016

Lukraak_Sisser said:
As far as I understood his explanation when I asked the same, it boils down to:

Because the laws of nature are universal, unbreakable, unambiguous and unchangeable in time they are the same as laws made by intelligent beings (us being the only example) which happen to have none of these properties.

And no, even though a LOT of words were used, I did not understand the logic how the laws of nature are like normal laws despite having the opposite traits.

Shades of Franko

TLOP!

Daniel · Apr 26, 2016

RussDill said:
Meanwhile, back at the lab....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425095115.htm

Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160425/ncomms11328/full/ncomms11328.html

The RNA World hypothesis presupposes that abiotic reactions originally produced nucleotides, the monomers of RNA and universal constituents of metabolism. However, compatible prebiotic reactions for the synthesis of complementary (that is, base pairing) nucleotides and mechanisms for their mutual selection within a complex chemical environment have not been reported. Here we show that two plausible prebiotic heterocycles, melamine and barbituric acid, form glycosidic linkages with ribose and ribose-5-phosphate in water to produce nucleosides and nucleotides in good yields. Even without purification, these nucleotides base pair in aqueous solution to create linear supramolecular assemblies containing thousands of ordered nucleotides. Nucleotide anomerization and supramolecular assemblies favour the biologically relevant β-anomer form of these ribonucleotides, revealing abiotic mechanisms by which nucleotide structure and configuration could have been originally favoured. These findings indicate that nucleotide formation and selection may have been robust processes on the prebiotic Earth, if other nucleobases preceded those of extant life.

Remember when I said about 30 times (in this thread alone):

"...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. 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.

Straw Man Fallacy #1: (From Your Source)...

"Materials:
Melamine and BA were purchased from Acros Organic, D-R5P disodium salt and D-ribose were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. All chemicals were used as received."

KaBooM!! We could just stop there but where's the fun in that...

Remember when I said about 25 times (in this thread alone)...

"The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is "POSITIVE" as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides; along with 50 or so other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, Oxidation, Mono/Bi-Functional Molecules, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT."

Straw Man Fallacy #2, #3, #4:

#2. They started with D- Ribose 5 Phosphate (See above Materials) i.e., already D-Ribose, AND "Phosphorylated" in the right position! Was Sigma-Aldrich incorporated on Pre-Biotic Earth?

#3. Ahhh, can you show where the Canonical RNA Bases (Adenine, Guanine, Uracil, and Cytosine) are in this Fairytale Experiment...? :boggled:

#4. I suppose since they were playing with "Proto-Bases" (whatever they are) it would be the acme of foolishness to ask you how they got the Canonical Bases...since they were MIA.

r-ya-kiddin me with this? This is just a cursory review of your presentation here. Oh yea, just for kicks... what happens when barbituric acid and melamine (From Acros Organic) are in the same solution before reacting with D-Ribose (From Sigma-Aldrich) ??
Essentially, this is showing proof of concept for Checkers when we're looking for Actual Chess. Great! Thanks :thumbsup:

It's all academic anyway...

“DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.” {emphasis mine}
Paul Davies PhD Physics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk

regards

jimbob · Apr 26, 2016

A PhD in physics doesn't make one an authority on abiogenesis. As such, it is lame even as an argument from authority, which tends to get short shrift here anyway.

Reality Check · Apr 26, 2016

Daniel: Lies by quote mining; some actual lies; cherry picking; ignorance; etc.

Daniel said:
Remember when I said about 30 times (in this thread alone):

We remember "about 30" lies by quote mining, etc., Daniel, and crazy highlighting as in this post. From 1st April 2016: Lies by quote mining; some actual lies; cherry picking; ignorance; unsupported assertions; and begging the question is all we have from Daniel since he started posting.
17 items in the first list, 21 added in that post and more items for the list:

Darwin123 · Apr 27, 2016

Daniel said:
Remember when I said about 30 times (in this thread alone):

"...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. 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.

Straw Man Fallacy #1: (From Your Source)...

"Materials:
Melamine and BA were purchased from Acros Organic, D-R5P disodium salt and D-ribose were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. All chemicals were used as received."

KaBooM!! We could just stop there but where's the fun in that...

Remember when I said about 25 times (in this thread alone)...

"The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is "POSITIVE" as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides; along with 50 or so other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, Oxidation, Mono/Bi-Functional Molecules, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT."

Straw Man Fallacy #2, #3, #4:

#2. They started with D- Ribose 5 Phosphate (See above Materials) i.e., already D-Ribose, AND "Phosphorylated" in the right position! Was Sigma-Aldrich incorporated on Pre-Biotic Earth?

#3. Ahhh, can you show where the Canonical RNA Bases (Adenine, Guanine, Uracil, and Cytosine) are in this Fairytale Experiment...?

#4. I suppose since they were playing with "Proto-Bases" (whatever they are) it would be the acme of foolishness to ask you how they got the Canonical Bases...since they were MIA.

r-ya-kiddin me with this? This is just a cursory review of your presentation here. Oh yea, just for kicks... what happens when barbituric acid and melamine (From Acros Organic) are in the same solution before reacting with D-Ribose (From Sigma-Aldrich) ??
Essentially, this is showing proof of concept for Checkers when we're looking for Actual Chess. Great! Thanks

It's all academic anyway...

“DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.” {emphasis mine}
Paul Davies PhD Physics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/dec/11/highereducation.uk

regards

Please share with us your fifth grade experiences in science.
1) Did the teacher give you a star for reciting the Scientific Method?
2) Did you go on field trips?
3) Did she tell the class stories about Thomas Bacon?
4) What did you learn about Galileo?

Daniel · Apr 27, 2016

jimbob said:
A PhD in physics doesn't make one an authority on abiogenesis. As such, it is lame even as an argument from authority, which tends to get short shrift here anyway.

Wrong-o-Rama...

"If you want to see my work as PI of ASU’s Center for Convergence of Physical Science and Cancer Biology, it’s here.
My profession is theoretical physics, especially applied to quantum physics, astrophysics and cosmology. In the last 20 years I have also worked in astrobiology, a subject that addresses the origin and evolution of life, and the possibility of life beyond Earth. In 2009 I embarked on something completely different – applying concepts from physics and astrobiology to the problem of cancer. Although these research topics seem very disparate, in my own mind they link up deep down."
http://cosmos.asu.edu/about

Anything on the other (90% of the post) that preceded your failed appeal to argument from authority?

regards

Creationist argument about DNA and information

Philosopher

a carbon based life-form

Mistral, mistral wind...

a carbon based life-form

Philosopher

Philosopher

Banned

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Uncritical "thinker"

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Muse