Criteria for determining design

[ChetSinger]

Yes you do.

Sure, you can have reasons for reaching a certain conclusion, but if someone turns around and demonstrates that your reason isn't a very good reason...

In my opinion I don't think that's been demonstrated, so I think we're at an impasse. It happens.

 

[ChetSinger]

Interdependency is not a good way to determine design. After all, in an environment that would allow such a genetic structure to form, chances are it would also keep it stable. When those good conditions began to go away, DNA that contained a mechanism for self-repair would be naturally selected for, while all strains which did not have such a mechanism would have died off. It is entirely possible that the repair mechanism developed long before it was actually necessary for survival.

I've highlighted in red a portion of your post that must be demonstrated to me before I'll believe it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hilarious. It is about time you show not how it "would" be possible to form, chances are...but how it DID form etc. Until then fables are fables are fables.

I dislike the language of absolute statements because I always factor in the possibility that I might be wrong, even if that chance is less than .0000000000000000000000000000000000001%. And if that is all you can target in my statement, then I am pretty sure my statement still stands.

After all, chances are the sperm and egg that would later become you joined in an environment that could further sustain development (your mother's body). But someone my age could have had that event take place outside of a human body, through a different, artificial fertilization technique, in which that would not be the case. My assumption is that you are too old for that to be a possibility, but there is an extremely small chance that I am wrong, hence, I think I will feel better just saying "chances are".

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've highlighted in red a portion of your post that must be demonstrated to me before I'll believe it.

Sure, I can show you a multitude of experiments where proteins and other structures form while in a relatively stable environment and maintain existence without repair mechanisms. How complex of structures are you expecting though?

 

[dad]

I dislike the language of absolute statements because I always factor in the possibility that I might be wrong, even if that chance is less than .0000000000000000000000000000000000001%. And if that is all you can target in my statement, then I am pretty sure my statement still stands.

Well, the chances..whatever they may actually be that you admit to, or science admits to...still merit a woulda coulda.

In your mind it may be a small chance, in the minds of others a bigger chance. We can't go on chances are here.

After all, chances are the sperm and egg that would later become you joined in an environment that could further sustain development (your mother's body).

Funny, there is that chances are! relax. There was no chance involved. God knows our parents, our everything. We are not accidents even if our parents may think so. They just didn't know that chances are mostly just what they were too short sighted to see or know.

But someone my age could have had that event take place outside of a human body, through a different, artificial fertilization technique, in which that would not be the case.

Maybe God in this final wicked time of man has to sneak some in by extraordinary ways?

My assumption is that you are too old for that to be a possibility, but there is an extremely small chance that I am wrong, hence, I think I will feel better just saying "chances are".

When dealing in the real world, your chances increase on certain things. Yes, I am an old geyser.

 

[sandybay]

I dislike the language of absolute statements because I always factor in the possibility that I might be wrong, even if that chance is less than .0000000000000000000000000000000000001%. And if that is all you can target in my statement, then I am pretty sure my statement still stands.

I believe that's called "pussyfooting", afraid to answer in the affirmative just in case 1 person in a billion disagrees.

 

[ChetSinger]

Sure, I can show you a multitude of experiments where proteins and other structures form while in a relatively stable environment and maintain existence without repair mechanisms. How complex of structures are you expecting though?

DNA.

 

[PsychoSarah]

DNA.

A show that there are environments that can stabilize it without repair mechanisms being necessary, or it developing in an environment on its own?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I believe that's called "pussyfooting", afraid to answer in the affirmative just in case 1 person in a billion disagrees.

It is a personal quirk, but let it be known that it doesn't reflect my certainty.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, the chances..whatever they may actually be that you admit to, or science admits to...still merit a woulda coulda.

In your mind it may be a small chance, in the minds of others a bigger chance. We can't go on chances are here.




Funny, there is that chances are! relax. There was no chance involved. God knows our parents, our everything. We are not accidents even if our parents may think so. They just didn't know that chances are mostly just what they were too short sighted to see or know.




Maybe God in this final wicked time of man has to sneak some in by extraordinary ways?


When dealing in the real world, your chances increase on certain things. Yes, I am an old geyser.

I can go chances are as much as I like for situations in which alternatives are plausible.

Careful, I don't think you want to implicate god in the births of the likes of Hitler.

Glad that you don't view artificial fertilization as some abomination.

Precisely, but rarely do situations arise in which even the best educated guess has a 100% chance of being true.

 

[sandybay]

I believe that's called "pussyfooting", afraid to answer in the affirmative just in case 1 person in a billion disagrees.

It is a personal quirk, but let it be known that it doesn't reflect my certainty.

For myself I am very guilty of "broad brushing" but in my defence I always assume people will not be picky and realise I can not possibly be including "everyone".
If we need to qualify everything we say we could be here for hours just saying which people are not included.
Sometimes I forget to include the word "some".

 

[ChetSinger]

A show that there are environments that can stabilize it without repair mechanisms being necessary, or it developing in an environment on its own?

You tell me. One of the reasons I think life is engineered is because of the interdependency of our DNA and its repair mechanisms.

I've read that each of our cells suffers DNA damage between 10,000 and 1,000,000 time every day. There are various kinds of damage, including oxidation that damages the rungs, broken strands requiring repair, etc. Some of this damage is due to radiation. But other damage is apparently caused by nothing more than friction, as other cellular machinery bounces around against it.

I suppose one could construct an environment free of radiation, free of other molecules bouncing around, and the DNA would hang together as it sat there and did nothing. But could that lesson be applied to the real world?

Our DNA just happens (?) to have encoded within it the transcription specifications for multiple repair mechanisms that fix these kinds of damages. So DNA requires these repair mechanisms, but the manufacture of these repair mechanisms requires that very same DNA.

This is a well-known conundrum. Myself, I think it's an indicator of engineering. Good luck solving it. And if you think you have, then try tackling the other 200 or so functions that every cell must perform, the origin of each facing the same conundrum.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You tell me. One of the reasons I think life is engineered is because of the interdependency of our DNA and its repair mechanisms.

I've read that each of our cells suffers DNA damage between 10,000 and 1,000,000 time every day. There are various kinds of damage, including oxidation that damages the rungs, broken strands requiring repair, etc. Some of this damage is due to radiation. But other damage is apparently caused by nothing more than friction, as other cellular machinery bounces around against it.

I suppose one could construct an environment free of radiation, free of other molecules bouncing around, and the DNA would hang together as it sat there and did nothing. But could that lesson be applied to the real world?

Our DNA just happens (?) to have encoded within it the transcription specifications for multiple repair mechanisms that fix these kinds of damages. So DNA requires these repair mechanisms, but the manufacture of these repair mechanisms requires that very same DNA.

This is a well-known conundrum. Myself, I think it's an indicator of engineering. Good luck solving it. And if you think you have, then try tackling the other 200 or so functions that every cell must perform, the origin of each facing the same conundrum.

No, I am asking which kind of study you want, one that has DNA in an environment where repair mechanisms are redundant, or ones in which DNA forms. Also, radiation is significantly reduced in water-bound environments, and a certain level of radiation is required to do any damage.

 

[ChetSinger]

No, I am asking which kind of study you want, one that has DNA in an environment where repair mechanisms are redundant, or ones in which DNA forms. Also, radiation is significantly reduced in water-bound environments, and a certain level of radiation is required to do any damage.

I appreciate the offer, but I'm at a loss to answer your question.

As an aside, I've read that radiation isn't the only cause of damage. In here are a number of others: DNA damage (naturally occurring) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I appreciate the offer, but I'm at a loss to answer your question.

As an aside, I've read that radiation isn't the only cause of damage. In here are a number of others: DNA damage (naturally occurring) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Of course there are a number of others, but I think you might be overthinking how complicated DNA, and whatever stage in its development where repair mechanisms developed, happens to be. The bases of DNA naturally link up over time, and even if you remove a base on one side of the DNA, so long as bases are free floating, a replacement will get in there eventually.

Additionally, who says DNA is the component of life that developed first? Experiments seem to suggest that simple cell walls might have been first, and DNA could have developed within the safety of their confines. Seriously, in abiogenesis experiments thus far, we have ended up with ring like structures.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I don't think you do. The OP asked for criteria for determining design.

It would appear that the criteria are based on an argument from ignorance where design is the default assumption without any evidence to back it up, and the lack of any other explanation supports design.

Do I have that right?

And I then gave an example: DNA is easily damaged and requires regular repair, yet the repair mechanisms are themselves created using the help of that very same DNA.

It is the proteins and RNA that make DNA. DNA is nothing more than a stable form of RNA.

Also, you never showed that DNA has always needed repairing throughout the history of life.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I don't need to do anything. I'm satisfied that life was engineered by God and I've explained to the OP one of my reasons why.

Why are you satisfied with an argument from ignorance? That seems rather unsatisfactory to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

You tell me. One of the reasons I think life is engineered is because of the interdependency of our DNA and its repair mechanisms.

I've read that each of our cells suffers DNA damage between 10,000 and 1,000,000 time every day. There are various kinds of damage, including oxidation that damages the rungs, broken strands requiring repair, etc. Some of this damage is due to radiation. But other damage is apparently caused by nothing more than friction, as other cellular machinery bounces around against it.

I suppose one could construct an environment free of radiation, free of other molecules bouncing around, and the DNA would hang together as it sat there and did nothing. But could that lesson be applied to the real world?

Our DNA just happens (?) to have encoded within it the transcription specifications for multiple repair mechanisms that fix these kinds of damages. So DNA requires these repair mechanisms, but the manufacture of these repair mechanisms requires that very same DNA.

This is a well-known conundrum. Myself, I think it's an indicator of engineering. Good luck solving it. And if you think you have, then try tackling the other 200 or so functions that every cell must perform, the origin of each facing the same conundrum.

You are making the assumption that ancient DNA worked in the same was as modern DNA. It is widely suspected that the 3 base DNA codon evolved later on, and that the original codons could have been a single base with the other two bases serving as spacers between codons. This would mean that most mutations would be synonymous mutations, the opposite of what we see in modern DNA. Even more important, the earliest catalysts were thought to be run by RNA and only stabilized by proteins which would leave a lot of room for changes in both.

So you see, you haven't taken everything into account. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the earliest life had to have all of the features of modern life.

 

[ChetSinger]

Of course there are a number of others, but I think you might be overthinking how complicated DNA, and whatever stage in its development where repair mechanisms developed, happens to be. The bases of DNA naturally link up over time, and even if you remove a base on one side of the DNA, so long as bases are free floating, a replacement will get in there eventually.

As long as nothing but the right things are floating around, I suppose so.

Additionally, who says DNA is the component of life that developed first? Experiments seem to suggest that simple cell walls might have been first, and DNA could have developed within the safety of their confines. Seriously, in abiogenesis experiments thus far, we have ended up with ring like structures.

DNA isn't safe within the confines of cell walls right now. It requires regular repair, on the order of every second.

I really think you're content to gloss over the amount of effort required to repair these damages. Here's a paragraph from my earlier wiki link that describes the effort expended to fix a double-strand break.

Another indication that DNA damages are a major problem for life is that cells make large investments in DNA repair processes. As pointed out by Hoeijmakers, repairing just one double-strand break could require more than 10,000 ATP molecules, as used in signaling the presence of the damage, the generation of repair foci, and the formation (in humans) of the RAD51 nucleofilament (an intermediate in homologous recombinational repair). (RAD51 is a homologue of bacterial RecA.)

And guess what? The specifications for these things just happen to be encoded in that very same DNA. So which came first, the 10,000 molecules that fix those breaks, or the specifications for building them?

 

[ChetSinger]

It would appear that the criteria are based on an argument from ignorance where design is the default assumption without any evidence to back it up, and the lack of any other explanation supports design.

Do I have that right?

No.

It is the proteins and RNA that make DNA. DNA is nothing more than a stable form of RNA.

Also, you never showed that DNA has always needed repairing throughout the history of life.

I cannot speculate on a history that I don't believe occurred.