Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Reality Check]

You don't even know what The Scientific Method is!

That is ironic from someone who is so ignorant that he thinks that scientific method does not include scientific theories !
4 March 2016 Daniel: Learn what the science and the scientific method actually are before making comments about them!

Lukraak_Sisser points out a central part of the scientific method (follow the evidence!) and all we get is Danielrant in return.
23 March 2016 Daniel: A null hypothesis is not a random fantasy that you assume to be true !

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 numerous items in the last couple of days !

 

[Jodie]

SHOW where and how it's "Out of Context" !!!! oy vey

Bless your heart! Look at post number 1768 at #3

It wasn't.

As above, there are more examples if you would like a list.

LOL. Begging The Question (Fallacy): "evolution", what's that? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

Why do people have different skin colors?

"Quote Mining" ------> WHERE and HOW ??

You took one small paragraph out of a paper that's outdated and used it out of context as validation for your point.

So 'covalent bonds' are "The Cause"??

More like a mechanism that would allow chemical reactions that would result in pre-cursor RNA. I don't think the gorilla typing on a typewriter can be compared to metabolic processes.

Michael Polanyi chairman of physical chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK)...

"As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning—a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content."
Polanyi, M., Life’s irreducible structure, Science 160:1308, 1968

I don't think anyone is arguing about DNA operating as a mechanism for transferring information. What the argument is about is whether it was designed that way or whether it was by chance.

So then you SUPPORT absolutely nothing by posting a PBS link?? (you think that's better than Wiki?)

If you can quote Provine from a 2005 conference I can't see how referencing the research discussed on a PBS website could be any worse.

You unwittingly Imploded your own Argument within the Quote you just posted Read real slow, the "GREEN Part"

No, that was intentional. To have only quoted the first part would have been quote mining

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

I hope you realize that the human body is 70% water,

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

No, you simply failed to understand.

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?

I don't think I'll be too upset about it.

So your Rebuttal is "Na'ahh"?? How Scientific of you.

I thought that was about all you could understand.

What on Earth??

1. Jodie (lol), didn't you say above... to more or less the same question: "evolution" and "covalent bonds"??
So which is it: "evolution", "covalent bonds", "a matter of TIME"....?

2. Argument to the Future Fallacy.


regards

Ma'am, look in the mirror for the answer to your question.

 

[Son of Inigo]

Re: Christian de Duve

As stated above, the article that Daniel quotes

Did God make RNA?
De Duve C. Nature. 1988 Nov 17;336(6196):209-10.

is behind a pay wall, so I am unable to read it at this time. So I am unable to see exactly what De Duve's actual argument in that was.

However, I did find the following when looking up who De Duve was.

http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/christian-duve-dies-0014834

In 1997, de Duve told the Nobel Foundation, "In the last few years, I have become increasingly interested in the origin and evolution of life." That interest was in display in his popular books; he insisted, in Genetics of Original Sin, "Evolution is no longer a theory, just as heliocentrism is no longer a theory; it is a fact" (p. 11). Unsurprisingly, he was dismissive of creation science and intelligent design. In Singularities, for instance, he wrote, with reference to "intelligent design" (pp. 4-5): "This mechanism postulates the occurrence of evolutionary steps that could not possibly have taken place without the intervention of some kind of supernatural guiding entity. Strictly speaking, such a possibility hardly deserves mention in a scientific context, as it can come into account only after all natural explanations have been ruled out, and, obviously, they never can be. Intelligent design has, however, been advocated in a recent years by a small minority of highly vocal scientists, who claim to have demonstrated that certain evolutionary steps cannot be explained in strictly natural terms. Loudly acclaimed in many fundamentalists and even more liberal religious circles, these arguments have failed to convince a significant number of scientists." De Duve was one of the seventy-eight Nobel laureates in science to endorse the effort to repeal Louisiana's so-called Science Education Act.

Hilited by me

So, even though I can't read the article in question, I can come to a couple of conclusions about it.

1. De Duve's answer to the question in the title is a solid 'No".

or

2. De Duve at one time espoused a creationist view of the origins of life, but then later changed his stance.

or

3. Daniel did not read the article himself, and just jumped on the title hoping it would help his cause.

I personally think it is 3. And that the actual answer in the article is a resounding 'No'.

 

[marplots]

Ouch.

@marplots

Yes, magical thinking.

Precisely.

Structure in lieu of content. Do not look behind the curtain; do not peek behind the facade; trouble me not with your inconvenient questions, for I am a good man, doing good works.

I remember this from my first year of "real" college - there were students who could memorize great gobs of stuff and give a good showing. They had the appearance of knowledge - a mile wide, and an inch deep.

You could usually spot them lined up at the professor's office after a big test, wanting to argue for their answers in the hopes of a passing grade. It was sad. They thought they were there to learn "stuff" when they were supposed to be learning how to think. We were told often enough: "You don't have to memorize if you know where to look it up. But you do have to understand the significance of what you find."

I would rather hear someone's authentic misunderstandings than pro forma parroting. Any damn day.

 

[Jodie]

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?

I don't think she knows how to answer the question.

 

[Daniel]

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

ROTFLOL hysterically.

Saying you will never be able to falsify this claim and saying a hypothesis is "Un-Falsifiable".... are ENTIRELY 2 different things professor.

Regards,
Common Sense.

 

[Darwin123]

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

regards

Okay, I understand you now. You are not really trying to 'prove' the existence of God. You are trying to prove that you understand physics and chemistry when you really don't. Your conclusion always comes down , 'Mathematically oriented people are always wrong.'

You have admitted not knowing any mathematics. You have said that you can't handle the quantitive aspects of physics, chemistry or any science at all. However, you are insisting that you know physics and chemistry better than anyone who knows mathematics.

Thermodynamics is a mathematically oriented subject. All applications of thermodynamics involve calculations. So you can't know that thermodynamics contradicts abiogenesis. There is no quantitative way to even state that hypothesis.

We could have been discussing baseball statistics with you and the same issues would come up. Your arguments are not aimed at atheism. Your arguments are aimed at statistics. You don't like anything discussed in terms of statistics.

.The second law of thermodynamics contradicts Yogi Bearers home runs. This has about as much meaning as 'the second law of thermodynamics contradicts abiogenesis.' Neither sentence really means anything without some quantitative analysis.

So I will refute your arguments based on this alone. You don't have the educational nor temperament to analyze anything mathematical. Your statements about quantitative evidence shows that you have no real evidence for any of your beliefs. If you really believed in God, then you would not present such arguments!

 

[Daniel]

As stated above, the article that Daniel quotes

Did God make RNA?
De Duve C. Nature. 1988 Nov 17;336(6196):209-10.

is behind a pay wall, so I am unable to read it at this time. So I am unable to see exactly what De Duve's actual argument in that was.

However, I did find the following when looking up who De Duve was.

http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/christian-duve-dies-0014834



Hilited by me

So, even though I can't read the article in question, I can come to a couple of conclusions about it.

1. De Duve's answer to the question in the title is a solid 'No".

or

2. De Duve at one time espoused a creationist view of the origins of life, but then later changed his stance.

or

3. Daniel did not read the article himself, and just jumped on the title hoping it would help his cause.

I personally think it is 3. And that the actual answer in the article is a resounding 'No'.

Oy Vey


1. The Question was Rhetorical.

To postulate an answer to a rhetorical question is mind numbing in it's own right, but THEN...you arrived @ his answer via an extrapolation from a completely different article which is....DRUM ROLL: TEXTBOOK....

"QUOTE MINE" Absolutely Priceless

2. Who cares??

3. I already know Christian De Duve is an evolutionist. (duh)

All I did was post Robert Shapiro's take on Christian's thoughts...

"The attractive features of RNA World prompted Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute to picture it as "the molecular biologist's dream" within a volume devoted to that topic. They also used the term "the prebiotic chemist's nightmare" to describe another part of the picture: How did that first self-replicating RNA arise? Enormous obstacles block Gilbert's picture of the origin of life, sufficient to provoke another Nobelist, Christian De Duve of Rockefeller University, to ask rhetorically, "Did God make RNA?""
Shapiro, Robert: A Simpler Origin for Life; Scientific American, Feb 2007.


my word and THANKS!

 

[Daniel]

Your conclusion always comes down , 'Mathematically oriented people are always wrong.'

I never said that, King of the Straw Man Argument (Undisputed!!)

Do you have a coherent substantive argument in lieu of the rest of your Op-Ed ? How bout the OJ Trial??


oy vey

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Scientific Theories don't contain 'maths'.

 

[Daniel]

I hesitate to recommend that anyone read Behe...

And....Why So?? Why not just ad hominem explicitly?

Go ahead and start a new topic "Irreducible Complexity is a farce"....and I'll stop by when I get a chance and take it to the Woodshed and Bludgeon it Senseless!! mmm K? (Even worse than the Bludgeoning in this Thread, if that's even possible).

You wanna make it REAL FUN ?? Since you haven't got a 5th Grade Science Acumen, email Kenneth Miller and tell him you have a Creationist here that's Pillaging the evolutionist brethren (a collosal understatement) and have him get all his ducks in a row...THEN post the THREAD!!!

I'll get Medieval !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...but I think Daniel's arguments might become significantly more sophisticated if he did.

pffft. Nothing but juvenile heckling with baseless sweeping generalizations from the rail, eh? Awe Inspiring!!

Ever here this before...

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.---
Teddy Roosevelt



regards

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: irreducible complexity is pseudoscience based on ignorance about evolution

And....Why So?? ...

Usual Danielrant - in this case ranting about irreducible complexity pseudoscience. The addition of insults does not make Daniel appear any more coherent.

Michael Behe is a biochemist who did not know what evolution is and thus created the pseudoscientific irreducible complexity. Even his colleagues at his own biology department recognized how bad the concept was! The examples Behe gave of his "IC" has been shown to have evolved. And whan Daniel tries the same argument we get
1 March 2016 Daniel: A strawman argument about bicycles and irreducible complexity.
Thus we do not need a new thread for more Danielrants.

1 April 2016 Daniel: irreducible complexity is pseudoscience based on ignorance about evolution, namely that the function of a structure can change.

 

[Reality Check]

ROTFLOL hysterically.....

ROTFLOL hysterically on reading yet another Danielrant that does not address his ignorance. 23 March 2016 Daniel: A null hypothesis is not a random fantasy that you assume to be true !

 

[Reality Check]

Scientific Theories don't contain 'maths'.

Ignorance followed by a Danielrant , Daniel :!
You go onto deny what primary children learn - how to count using math that describes how many fingers they hold up!

Established scientific theories are generally based on "Math/Equation". That is how they make testable, falsifiable predictions. Read a physics textbook sometime. Less math in biology but it is there!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Scientific Theories don't contain 'maths'.

Where does one go from here? This is like trying to describe the color blue to a person blind from birth.
For example: Does he not know that the theory of GR is the mathematical equations that define it? Verbal descriptions of GR only provide vague and generalized descriptions and analogies. Does he really not known that?
Daniel's lack of mathematical training and distain for real science and the methods of science make this discussion hopeless.

:

 

[Reality Check]

It's called DeltaG, ...

It is called parroting an ignorant assertion over and over again, Daniel.
8 March 2016 Daniel: Cite the value of DeltaG for reaction of Nucleosides forming from bases and sugars (and you need to learn what Gibbs free energy actually means!).

Gibbs free energy

In thermodynamics, the Gibbs free energy (IUPAC recommended name: Gibbs energy or Gibbs function; also known as free enthalpy[1] to distinguish it from Helmholtz free energy) is a thermodynamic potential that measures the maximum or reversible work that may be performed by a thermodynamic system at a constant temperature and pressure (isothermal, isobaric).

The need for a decrease in Gibbs free energy for spontaneous processes looks like a reason why abiogenesis theories have cycles and external energy sources - so that the process are not isothermal or isobaric !

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Citing of a 1972 Prigogine et. al. article as if science stopped in 1972

I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”
8 March 2016 Daniel: Is this Prigogine et. al quote a lie by quote mining as hinted at by its use on creationist web sites?

ETA: Thermodynamics of Evolution

In famous publications, “Thermodynamics of Evolution” is a noted 1972 cover-story article, in Physics Today, by Belgians thermodynamicist Ilya Prigogine, physicist Gregoire Nicolis, and neuroscientist Agnes Babloyantz, in which nonequilibrium thermodynamics, in conjunction with ideas on “nonequilibrium order”, is used to explain the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest in the context of the pre-biotic stages of evolution. [1]
...
Curiously, to note, in laying out this argument they choose to utilize Helmholtz free energy (constant volume processes) rather than Gibbs free energy (constant pressure processes), which can explain the formation of biological structures. It is likely that Prigogine chooses his presentation in this manner so as to not effect a weakening in his later arguments; in the sense that he wants to discredit any detail not in alignment with his view that nonequilibrium thermodynamics is the key to explain biological evolution.

1 April 2016 Daniel: The idiotic citing of a 1972 Prigogine et. al. article as if science stopped in 1972!
Even if we accept that their assertion was correct, it is not true now because there is at least 1 abiogenesis theory at low temperature (ice)!

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: It is a lie to state that General Relativity is not a scientific theory

It's NOT a Scientific Theory

You think that an insanely wrong statement about the scientific theory of general relativity is an argument, Daniel?
A scientific theory makes testable, falsifiable predictions. GR predicts gravitational waves. We have detected gravitational waves. That is the latest of an almost complete passing of the predictions that GR has made !
1 April 2016 Daniel: It is a lie to state that General Relativity is not a scientific theory since it matches the real properties of a scientific theory.

1 April 2016 Daniel: It is a lie that a link to a rather incoherent post that ignores GR invalidates GR.
That post is just is the ignorant assertion that time is based on a day !
A day varies (leap second)!
Time is "based" on the count of transactions between atomic states

It is quantitatively defined in terms of a certain number of periods – about 9 billion – of a certain frequency of radiation from the caesium atom: a so-called atomic clock. Seconds may be measured using a mechanical, electric or atomic clock.

From 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 we also have
4 March 2016 Daniel: It is a lie to state that the scientific theory of evolution does not exist since textbooks on TOE exist, etc.!

 

[turingtest]

ROTFLOL hysterically.

Saying you will never be able to falsify this claim and saying a hypothesis is "Un-Falsifiable".... are ENTIRELY 2 different things professor.

Regards,
Common Sense.

Yes, I'm sure there's some creationist semantic nitpickery that can distinguish between "nobody on the planet can ever falsify this hypothesis" and "unfalsifiable hypothesis," but we'll skip that, mmmkay? In the meantime, I can't help but notice you skipped the next question. So... how would you falsify it? Do you really think you have no burden at all to propose a test for your "hypothesis"?

 

[hecd2]

As stated above, the article that Daniel quotes

Did God make RNA?
De Duve C. Nature. 1988 Nov 17;336(6196):209-10.

is behind a pay wall, so I am unable to read it at this time. So I am unable to see exactly what De Duve's actual argument in that was.

However, I did find the following when looking up who De Duve was.

http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/christian-duve-dies-0014834



Hilited by me

So, even though I can't read the article in question, I can come to a couple of conclusions about it.

1. De Duve's answer to the question in the title is a solid 'No".

or

2. De Duve at one time espoused a creationist view of the origins of life, but then later changed his stance.

or

3. Daniel did not read the article himself, and just jumped on the title hoping it would help his cause.

I personally think it is 3. And that the actual answer in the article is a resounding 'No'.

This interview with de Duve in which he discusses the background to that letter to Nature, and his views about the origins of life (he agrees by the way that RNA preceded DNA) is very interesting. Go here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...legend-christian-de-duve-11-09-09/?print=true