DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

[Mirrorglass]

I understand that the SAB may not be the most useful site but talkorigins? You seem to think there is an actual debate between evolution and creationism? Why?

Because there are millions of supporters for each view, and discussion on the subject rages unstopping?

Just because one side cheats doesn't mean there's no game.

 

[Mirrorglass]

What debate?
Atheist? Why is linking to a science site a problem?
Would you like me to link the the UC Berkeley Evolution or the Smithsonian site instead or is that too biased and "atheist" for bystanders?

Sheesh. Another one. What do you call this, if it's not a debate?

Don't get me wrong; I like talkorigins. But linking to it when arguing with creationists is really not much better than them linking to godandscience.

Berkeley or Smithsonian would be better, sure. But even better would be to link to the actual data supporting your claim. I know the links invariably contain those links; however, not all bystanders do.

 

[noreligion]

Because there are millions of supporters for each view, and discussion on the subject rages unstopping?

Just because one side cheats doesn't mean there's no game.

Discussion does not by any means mean there is a valid debate. Evolution is a fact and one that has been observed. I am not referring to just what the creotards call microevolution but full on speciation has been observed in a human lifetime. So please explain in more detail how there is a debate about the validity of evolution.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

The Einstein Gulf is located on the Bay of Fundy in the Ocean of Ignorance.

Oh hey, I grew up there. There weren't any good colleges, so I left.

 

[Foster Zygote]

wrong. the evidence lets already conclude firmly, that a natural origin of the first cell can be excluded, with a great certainty. What you express, is just blind wishful thinking.

No biologist thinks that abiogenesis involves the random formation of anything as complex as a cell. Once again, you betray your gross ignorance of the science in question.

As can be seen from the above table and information, the atheist's position is becoming more extreme and less reasonable as more knowledge is gained through scientific studies. Atheists are becoming desperate and are now offering $1 million for an explanation that "corresponds to empirical biochemical and thermodynamic reality, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s)." In contrast, the revelation of creation from the Bible is being confirmed with the advancement of science.

Once more, with feeling: Evolution theory is not atheistic. Many evolutionary biologists are theistic, even Christian.

And monetary prizes for achieving specific goals are common in science and engineering. Ever heard of the X Prize?

And please name one scientific advancement that supports biblical creation.

 

[paximperium]

Sheesh. Another one. What do you call this, if it's not a debate?

An attempt to educate lurkers.

There is no debate and I don't call these farcical exercises debates. They are good at learning about slapping down false arguments and a great way to actually learn about the nonsense and lies being perpetrated by Creationists and ID-iots. Many of their arguments are so bad, they are incinerated within a few posts, even the most neutral lurker can see that.

These can be done with well linked post, well reasoned arguments and ridicule. This is not a formal debate with rules. This is changing people's minds, and showing how stupid, dishonest and idiotic Creaotards and ID-iots are, has its uses.

Don't get me wrong; I like talkorigins. But linking to it when arguing with creationists is really not much better than them linking to godandscience.

I get your point but I'm not deluded enough to believe that hardcore Creationists will be swayed by any link even to the elite universities. My issue is, I respect talkorigins' well done and well resourced articles and it is a shame to even lump them in with Creaotard sites.

Berkeley or Smithsonian would be better, sure. But even better would be to link to the actual data supporting your claim. I know the links invariably contain those links; however, not all bystanders do.

Despite by contrariness, I agree with you. I've tried to move away from posting directly from talkorigins and tried to post from more "neutral" and well respected sites of late.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Discussion does not by any means mean there is a valid debate. Evolution is a fact and one that has been observed. I am not referring to just what the creotards call microevolution but full on speciation has been observed in a human lifetime. So please explain in more detail how there is a debate about the validity of evolution.

Well, if you insist on going by a formal definition, then I suppose it isn't debate. I was using a more general definition. I'm quite aware of the fact that the evidence for evolution is quite overwhelming. I am also aware of the fact that many people are not aware of this fact. And I believe poorly founded arguments, or even just arguments that look poorly founded (in this case, they look the same as creationist arguments) aren't really helpful in any way.

That's just my opinion, of course. You're free to continue presenting your arguments unconvincingly, satisified with knowing your claims are still true. But it won't help anyone but yourself.

 

[noreligion]

Well, if you insist on going by a formal definition, then I suppose it isn't debate. I was using a more general definition. I'm quite aware of the fact that the evidence for evolution is quite overwhelming. I am also aware of the fact that many people are not aware of this fact. And I believe poorly founded arguments, or even just arguments that look poorly founded (in this case, they look the same as creationist arguments) aren't really helpful in any way.

That's just my opinion, of course. You're free to continue presenting your arguments unconvincingly, satisified with knowing your claims are still true. But it won't help anyone but yourself.

I bolded the most revealing part of your post. It isn't my argument you have a problem with. It is talkorigins.org. If you can't understand that everything they present is valid scientific data and not just opinion you are not even worth arguing with.

 

[Dancing David]

Who told you that in abiogenesis random selection gets in place ?

Oh there was something about a airplane...a painting, then there were some silly numbers about Mycoplasma genitalium...
"Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code. "

It was stated repeatedly, so maybe you should state your position more clearly, ALL those statements apply to abiogenesis and the ToE, and they are strawmen, one and all.


"uselessness of chance"
"The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10451"

So you did?

 

[noreligion]

Oh there was something about a airplane...a painting, then there were some silly numbers about Mycoplasma genitalium...
"Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code. "

It was stated repeatedly, so maybe you should state your position more clearly, ALL those statements apply to abiogenesis and the ToE, and they are strawmen, one and all.


"uselessness of chance"
"The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10451"

So you did?

Besides the 'oddness' of the chance argument I never quite understood the concept. For clarity let's look at a 1 in a 100 billion chance for the formation of the first cell. Life began between 700 and 1000 million years after Earth formed (that is anywhere between 3.5-3.8 Billion years ago). Given the sheer immensity of the number of chemical reactions that took place in the 700-1000 million years before life, the odds are much closer to even if not heavy on the positive side. Considering there is life, there was an origin (at least once) and that means the odds of it happening were 100%. So why does the argument by improbability even exist?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The subject of this thread is whether the DNA molecules, in a living cell, function as a Code....in the same way that the Binary Code in a computer functions....(or any code, for that matter)....carrying intelligently encoded information....or, if DNA functions purely as a simple, straight-forward chemical reaction. ......

Seems to be another version of the, "it must be designed", argument. These arguments are typically based on a lack of understanding of evolution theory. If you don't understand the theory, it's easy to think you've discovered some "aha!" reason why the theory fails without a god intervening.

Understanding codons and protein synthesis is not a guarantee you understand evolution theory. I suggest you spend the hour watching this program, Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices. You don't have to understand the science to understand the point of the lecture.

The DNA blueprint evolved through natural selection pressures and random mutations. We know this. There is no doubt beyond the standard scientific caveat that one never closes the door to new information that might change current 'facts'.

The processes involved in creating each and every organism on the planet are well explained through evolution theory with no designer necessary to explain any part of the theory at all, be it how DNA works or how it evolved to do what it does. And the process of abiogenesis is close to being understood as well.

Proteins are fascinating extremely complex molecules. How they fold is part of how they end up doing what they do. The human genome has ~3 billion base pairs. It's not the largest genome of all species. Some microorganisms have more genes than humans have. The Universe is nearly incomprehensibly large. The singularity is nearly incomprehensibly small. Infinity is nearly incomprehensible.

None of those things requires a designer or a god just because the concepts are immensely difficult to comprehend.

 

[tsig]

I haven't been able to bring myself to read anything in that forum for a very long time.

On reflection, I think this forum has several participants that are more delusional.

You're right BF believers think there's a big hairy monster in the woods, god believers think there's a big hairy monster that made the woods.

 

[tsig]

Well, if you insist on going by a formal definition, then I suppose it isn't debate. I was using a more general definition. I'm quite aware of the fact that the evidence for evolution is quite overwhelming. I am also aware of the fact that many people are not aware of this fact. And I believe poorly founded arguments, or even just arguments that look poorly founded (in this case, they look the same as creationist arguments) aren't really helpful in any way.

That's just my opinion, of course. You're free to continue presenting your arguments unconvincingly, satisified with knowing your claims are still true. But it won't help anyone but yourself.

Maybe you could show us by example. Please show an example that you would consider a well founded argument.

 

[GIBHOR]

The DNA blueprint evolved through natural selection pressures and random mutations. We know this.

How do we know this ? Please explain..... i thought evolution started only with the first living beings being able to self replicate.

 

[GIBHOR]

Besides the 'oddness' of the chance argument I never quite understood the concept. For clarity let's look at a 1 in a 100 billion chance for the formation of the first cell. Life began between 700 and 1000 million years after Earth formed (that is anywhere between 3.5-3.8 Billion years ago). Given the sheer immensity of the number of chemical reactions that took place in the 700-1000 million years before life, the odds are much closer to even if not heavy on the positive side. Considering there is life, there was an origin (at least once) and that means the odds of it happening were 100%. So why does the argument by improbability even exist?

How did life arise on earth ? has Abiogenesis a valid explanation ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/ori...-arise-on-earth-f2/the-origin-of-life-t59.htm

The major links in the molecules-to-man theory that must be bridged include (a) evolution of simple molecules into complex molecules, (b) evolution of complex molecules into simple organic molecules, (c) evolution of simple organic molecules into complex organic molecules, (d) eventual evolution of complex organic molecules into DNA or similar information storage molecules, and (e) eventually evolution into the first cells. This process requires multimillions of links, all which either are missing or controversial. Scientists even lack plausible just-so stories for most of evolution. Furthermore the parts required to provide life clearly have specifications that rule out most substitutions.

We now realize that the Urey/Miller experiments did not produce evidence for abiogenesis because, although amino acids are the building blocks of life, the key to life is information (Pigliucci, 1999; Dembski, 1998). Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines and similar) abound in nature, but this does not help us to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespear’s plays) because this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to translate that information into symbols. What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, the information contained in the genome must be explained (Dembski, 1998).

what was the minimum requirement for prebiotic life ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/ori...nimum-requirement-for-prebiotic-life-t104.htm

Chance is now out of favor in part because it has become clear that even the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years (Spetner, 1997). Furthermore, natural selection cannot operate until biological reproducing units exist. This hoped for “law,” though, has no basis in fact nor does it even have a theoretical basis. It is a nebulous concept which results from a determination to continue the quest for a naturalistic explanation of life. In the words of Horgan:

Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has calculated the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 10 to 75. 56 Given this probability, Yockey calculated that if the hypothetical primordial soup contained about 1044 amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product).57 The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life.

you might consider this one as well:

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

How do we know this ? Please explain..... i thought evolution started only with the first living beings being able to self replicate.

And as I explained to 154 in a post in another thread about this subject and to radbrook and david henson in a post in another thread about this subject, forming an RNA(like) molecule using chemical reactions possible on pre-life earth is easy.
You need a random string of about 150-200 nucleotides to get a self replicating RNA molecule which has already been shown in various laboratories. And evolution can start.
This does not require DNA or protein, thus severely increasing the odds of such a thing happening (especially since the self replicating molecules found so far are all different from each other and from what we currently see, indicating that there is more than one way to Rome)

As for linking, all of this research can be found on pubmed, but reading it requires actual knowledge about the subject, which is why sites like talkorigins are useful as someone too the time to condense it for laymen.

 

[GIBHOR]

And as I explained to 154 in a post in another thread about this subject and to radbrook and david henson in a post in another thread about this subject, forming an RNA(like) molecule using chemical reactions possible on pre-life earth is easy.
You need a random string of about 150-200 nucleotides to get a self replicating RNA molecule which has already been shown in various laboratories. And evolution can start.
This does not require DNA or protein, thus severely increasing the odds of such a thing happening (especially since the self replicating molecules found so far are all different from each other and from what we currently see, indicating that there is more than one way to Rome)

As for linking, all of this research can be found on pubmed, but reading it requires actual knowledge about the subject, which is why sites like talkorigins are useful as someone too the time to condense it for laymen.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

We see no grounds for considering it ( the rna world ) established, or even promising,

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl04.html#orgnlfnclccdfrstrn

"Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of help from the scientist, says Joyce of the Scripps Clinic, an RNA specialist. " It is an inept molecule," he explains, "especially when compared with proteins." Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who has probably done more research exploring the RNA-world scenario than any other scientist, concurs with Joyce. Experiments simulating the early stages of the RNA world are too complicated to represent plausible scenarios for the origin of life, Orgel says. "You have to get an awful lot of things right and nothing wrong," he adds." (Horgan, John [science writer], "In The Beginning ...," Scientific American, February 1991, p.103. Elipses in original)

"DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. `Catch-22,' say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: `In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves.' Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences." (Dover, Gabriel [Professor of Genetics, University of Leicester], "Looping the evolutionary loop," Review of "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, Oxford University Press: 1999, in Nature, 399, 20 May 1999, pp.217-218)

"tthe RNA world hypothesis is still far from being proved"
"Nevertheless, despite the fact that most scientists working in this field accept the validity of the idea, the RNA world hypothesis is still far from being proved. For one thing, in almost 20 years only seven types of natural ribozymes have been discovered: two remove introns (parts of RNA that don't code for proteins) from themselves; four cut themselves in two; and one trims off the end of an RNA precursor." (Evans J., "It's alive - isn't it?" Chemistry in Britain, Vol. 36, No. 5, May 2000, pp.44-47. http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2000/evans_may00.htm).

 

[GIBHOR]

http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2...the-chance-hypothesis-for-the-origin-of-life/

The problem facing protein formation is similar to the problem of having to spell “I am going to Disney Land in California next Saturday with some friends and family who will be coming to stay with me for a couple of weeks from the venerable city of Venice, Italy” by randomly pulling letters out of a large pot one at a time. Inside the pot, however, is an equal number of English letters and Chinese characters. If I pull out an English letter that is not appropriate for the sequence, whatever portion of the sentence I was able to form purely by chance has to be discarded. Likewise, if I pull out a Chinese character from the pot, whatever portion of the sentence I was able to form purely by chance has to be discarded. The chances of being able to pull out the exact English letters in the exact sequence without ever pulling out a Chinese character is nearly impossible. And yet that is what would be required for even the simplest life form to begin.

What, then, is the likelihood that 150 L-handed amino acids would bond together without a single R-handed amino acid interfering, when there are an equal number of L-handed and R-handed varieties available? It is equal to the odds of flipping a coin and it coming up heads 150 times in a row: 1 in 1045. Add to this the odds of sequencing the 150 L-handed amino acids into a biologically meaningful/functional order (1 in 1074), as well as the odds of forming only peptide bonds between amino acids (1 in 1045), and we discover that the odds of forming a single, small protein are reduced to 1 in 10164 (a 1 followed by 164 zeros).[3] That’s 1 chance in 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. To put this in perspective, there are only 1080 number of protons in the entire observable universe! That means the chances of finding a specified particle in the observable universe are a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times greater than the chances of producing a functional protein consisting of only 150 amino acids. And these are the odds of forming just one protein. Since the simplest living cell requires at least 250 different proteins, the chances of forming the necessary proteins by chance alone is 1:1041,000!

But wait, you say, given enough time, couldn’t the odds be met? No. Given a liberal estimate, there have only been 10139 events in the entire universe since the Big Bang.[4] So even if every event in the history of the universe was devoted to building a single functional protein, the number of sequences produced thus far would be less than 1 out of a trillion trillion of the total number of events needed to give it even a 50% chance of success! And that’s just one protein! The other 249 would still need to be accounted for. Anyone who believes chance can succeed with these odds is being irrational.

Random chance cannot explain the origin of life, but what about necessity? Can natural law explain it? We’ll take up this possibility next time.

[1]Using knock-out experiments, the scientists who mapped the genome of M. genitalium concluded that 381 of the 482 genes/proteins are essential to its survival. Of extant cells, then, the minimal complexity for life is 382 genes/proteins.
In even the simplest of cells approximately 20 proteins are needed to transcribe DNA, more than 100 proteins are needed to translate RNA into proteins, and more than 30 are needed for replicating DNA during mitosis.

[2]The chances of forming a protein by chance are roughly equivalent to the chances of forming the gene that codes for the protein by chance (the information content is equal as well), but most OOL researchers choose to calculate the odds of forming proteins because it is simpler.

[3]This figure does not take into account additional factors such as the odds of all 20 amino acids being produced in enough quantities and being in close enough proximity to form a protein.

One might wonder why the odds of forming a functional sequence of 150 amino acids is not 1:10195 since that is the sum of 20 multiplied by itself 150 times. While that number does represent the odds of obtaining a specific amino acid sequence, we are only interested in the odds of obtaining a functional protein (and there are a number of sequences that will lead to a functional protein). The odds of obtaining a sequence of 150 amino acids that can perform a biological function, while astronomical, are considerably better than the odds of obtaining a specific amino acid sequence.

 

[Hokulele]

The problem facing protein formation is similar to the problem of having to spell “I am going to Disney Land in California next Saturday with some friends and family who will be coming to stay with me for a couple of weeks from the venerable city of Venice, Italy” by randomly pulling letters out of a large pot one at a time. Inside the pot, however, is an equal number of English letters and Chinese characters. If I pull out an English letter that is not appropriate for the sequence, whatever portion of the sentence I was able to form purely by chance has to be discarded. Likewise, if I pull out a Chinese character from the pot, whatever portion of the sentence I was able to form purely by chance has to be discarded. The chances of being able to pull out the exact English letters in the exact sequence without ever pulling out a Chinese character is nearly impossible. And yet that is what would be required for even the simplest life form to begin.

Wrong. Stuff that is technically non-functional doesn't invalidate the rest of the stuff, it is just stuff. For example, I used to work as a computer programmer, and I cannot tell you how many lines of code I have bypassed in my life. The code was left in, just in case I missed a necessary definition or operator, but a lot of it didn't contribute to the final result, nor did the end user ever see a single line of that code.

Having a "Chinese character" in your sequence doesn't invalidate the rest of the sentence any more than the line of ....................................... periods I just put there makes this sentence less intelligible.



OK, maybe the grammar I used isn't the greatest, but that just goes to show how something that isn't perfect can be good enough to get the job done.

ETA: Ths exmaple is ewen beter at showng how imprefectoins do not mkae soemting compltely usalss or unreedible. Most people can read imperfectly formed sentences almost as fast as perfect ones. There was a study that showed that if the first and last characters are correct, most people can understand meaning very quickly.

 

[Brainache]

I wonder how many chemical reactions could happen in an environment the size of all the oceans in about a billion years? I'm guessing it might be more than just a few...