Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Silly logic. They also are only read by humans, so God can't exist.Recipes also require a mind and intelligence to write out the series of steps that must be performed to create a meal - so your little analogy disproves absolutely nothing.
Now you are jumping from a false analogy to argument from incredulity. Try again!No, it’s a complex biological programming code language that is the operating system that runs cells, and not an inorganic electronic computer programming code language , but the analogy is right on the money - as has been stated by many people, such as those researching how to synthesize DNA and reprogram a cell, by inserting a new gene sequence into a cell to make it do something new.
Computers use a two letter binary programming code language that runs hardware, and cells are run by a four letter programming code - both contain specified complex information that takes intelligence and a mind to write.
What happens following steps (i) to (iii) in post #1624, is that a much larger collective autocatalytic set emerges spontaneously as a phase transition. (This is called 'constraint closure’, which is more or less historically analogous in meaning with the more mystic term: ‘life force’ .. as metabolism forms from sets with subsets within them, catalysing shorter parts of ever lengthening and ligating molecules).
What all this means is that:
-molecular reproduction simply need not be based on template replicating RNA .. (that claim is outright false).
Template replication from an RNA 'information' source, may be one way to molecular reproduction .. but it is not a necessary way. There is no 'programmer' of the template. It forms as the most stable/efficient set .. consuming the available resources of 'the soup' .. creating its own niche .. and continues replicating and becoming more complex.
Professor A E Wilder-smith with three earned doctorates in chemistry, still has lectures and books available online wherein he shows that DNA consists of complex information, and that there is no natural mechanism whatsoever that can create and write information.
If the early atmosphere was oxygen reducing, UV radiation would destroy any primordial soup forming.
If the atmosphere was oxygen present, it would oxidize and destroy any such primordial soup.
And ocean hydrothermal vents are also untenable, as DNA cannot form in water - key components are hydrophobic and destroyed in water.
And forming on clay still has the problem of oxygen reducing or oxygen present atmosphere being destructive.
You obviously have no clue concerning the difference betweenWaves sort pebble on a beach, with no gods to help them.
i) small protein#1 catalyses the formation of protein #2 from protein #2 parts and;
ii) small protein#2 catalyses the formation of protein #1 from protein #1 parts.
iii) Nothing catalyses its own formation.
Waves sort pebble on a beach, with no gods to help them.
What makes you think (molecular) oxygen was present in the atmosphere of pre-biotic Earth?
The geological evidence is that life exist for about 1 billion years before free oxygen existed in the atmosphere.
The preboiotic soup hypothesis is an archaic theory of spontaneous generation.The entire prebiotic soup hypothesis has been shown to be impossible in reality.
Depends on how you calculate the odds. The best one I have come across comes from a Quora discussionThe odds of a living cell arising naturally is 1 to the 97 billionth power - not just impossible but ridiculously impossible.
See aboveIf the early atmosphere was oxygen reducing, UV radiation would destroy any primordial soup forming.
If the atmosphere was oxygen present, it would oxidize and destroy any such primordial soup.
See: Life's Building Blocks Form In Replicated Deep Sea VentsAnd ocean hydrothermal vents are also untenable, as DNA cannot form in water - key components are hydrophobic and destroyed in water
And forming on clay still has the problem of oxygen reducing or oxygen present atmosphere being destructive..
They are entitled to their opinions.After decades of research you now have scientists like Professor Dean Kenyon, who went from writing a book promoting chemical evolution to eventually becoming a creationist, and others like Paul Davies who admit the evidence of design is overwhelming.
As far as I know, Christian clergy earn a living by taking money and donations from their parishioners, many clergy ignore anything that conflicts with their biblical interpretations.Of course you have an entire industry of scientists and Professors making careers and taking research grants to continue research, who have a vested interest in continuing, and therefore hype and exaggerate their findings as much as possible while ignoring anything counter indicative - which others have to point out.
We ask again, for a quantifiable definition of information as regards DNA so that we can actually discuss what is or is not possible beyond gut feelings. So far you are just repeating assertions that something exists and we should think about it.Wow, you show that you have no clue about the difference between order as is found in crystalline structure, (or your rocks on the beach scenario), and specified complexity and information as is necessary for formation of a living cell.
Quote:
The tendency to confuse the qualitative distinction between “order” and “information” has characterized self-organizational research efforts and calls into question the relevance of such work to the origin of life. Self-organizational theorists explain well what doesn’t need explaining. What needs explaining is not the origin of order (whether in the form of crystals, swirling tornadoes, or the “eyes” of hurricanes), but the origin of information–the highly improbable, aperiodic, and yet specified sequences that make biological function possible.
To see the distinction between order and information, compare the sequence “ABABABABAB ABAB” to the sequence “Time and tide wait for no man.” The first sequence is repetitive and ordered, but not complex or informative. Systems that are characterized by both specificity and complexity (what information theorists call “specified complexity”) have “information content.” Since such systems have the qualitative feature of aperiodicity or complexity, they are qualitatively distinguishable from systems characterized by simple periodic order. Thus, attempts to explain the origin of order have no relevance to discussions of the origin of information content. Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content–that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.
Yet the information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium.
"specified complex information"
Still haven't defined those terms in a useful fashion. Metric? Objective method of measurement?
Depends on how you calculate the odds. The best one I have come across comes from a Quora discussion
See: How close are scientists to developing a working theory of abiogenesis (other than random happenstance)?
The odds of a living cell arising naturally is 1 to the 97 billionth power - not just impossible but ridiculously impossible.
Wrong,I just knew I was wasting my time...
Now come on, Chad. It's been explained to you twice why the figures you are scattering about like so much confetti are nonsensical. Ignoring that explanation doesn't make make you right. Keep making the same mistake and I'll keep pointing out that you are wrong. Maybe you want to discuss it?
And while I'm here...
You're making another mistake in starting with a specific outcome and then trying to work out the odds of it happening. Which is not how an evolutionary process works. There is no aim. So that in itself knocks your figures into a cocked hat before we even start to consider how the process doesn't rinse and repeat but builds on what has already happened.
But again, I feel that's a couple of mintues I've wasted typing that. But we live in hope...
We ask again, for a quantifiable definition of information as regards DNA so that we can actually discuss what is or is not possible beyond gut feelings. So far you are just repeating assertions that something exists and we should think about it.
I’m not trying to do anything other than cite what evolutionists such as Hubert Yockey, and Fred Hoyle, Dean Kenyon, who was a famously huge proponent of chemical evolution, and many others have computed as to the odds.
And that’s the odds for the simplest organism that could be classified as being life.
And how much is that, if you claim that it is to much for a given process you should be able to demonstrate why.Since you’re so hung up on the quantifiability of DNAs specified complexity and information - the specified complexity of coded information in DNA for the simplest cell would fill 1,000 encyclopedia sized volumes,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?