The Genetic Code

[SelfSim]

Irreducible complexity in the context I raised it is undeniable.
It is Simple logic.

Who cares?
.. Its just bad science!

There are a minimum number of structures needed 1/ to have an inheritable genetic code 2/ for the cell to use that to be self evolving 3/ to be self replicating 4/ to transpire , since all the previous processes use energy.

Then a cell is God then!
I mean, as stated previously by @Kylie, God is irreducibly complex.
I mean, it's just 'simple logic'!

The minimum cell we know is fabulously complex.

You mean the minimum cell you know is fabulously complex .. Quit projecting!
For the umpteenth time: Abiogenesis is a testable hypothesis.

Prior to the minimum self evolving and replicating cell , whatever existed didn’t evolve, ..

How do you know that? Prove that with your 'simple logic'!

The more complex that minimum cell the more unlikely it is it happened by accident. Simples.

Garbage in garbage out conclusion. Argument from incredulity fallacy.

There is only conjecture for abiogenesis from chemical soup. No actual evidence it ever happened or how , or where.

Repeating your own nonsense will never make it right, y'know. ..

 

[Mountainmike]

So, argument from incredulity is all you've got.



Please provide a valid scientific source for these claims. Don't tell me to read a book about it unless you are offering to purchase it and send it to me. I'm not going to spend money to do your homework.

And there is plenty of evidence that this "chemical soup" you speak of was around very early. There's evidence for amino acids all through the universe, so there's no justification for saying they couldn't have existed on an early earth. First evidence that amino acids formed soon after the Big Bang

You need critical thinking

An argument on minimum complexity of structures for a set purpose is not an argument from incredulity. There is a minimum complexity for a living cell just using the definition of life .

And that attempt to invoke incredulity s of itself a false argument . It’s up to adherents of the atheist faith in abiogenesis to prove it to me. All you have is conjecture.

You are very ill informed . Amino acids by nobodies definition are life.

As for Eucharistic miracles pathologists accept the evidence. You have no basis to disagree ,other than your argument from incredulity. The evididencwexists for you to doutor homework whether or not you do your homework.

whatever the evidence there is far more evidence for life from Eucharistic miracles than for abiogenesis happening for which there is none except conjecture .

 

[Mountainmike]

.. Its just bad science!

Arguing that complex function does not have a minimum complexity is bad science.
It’s Your bad science.

if abiogenesis is testable why has nobody succeeded in doing it?

Start with the fact that they dont have a structure fora minimum complexity cell to test , that appeared from random chemistr from non living things. No structure - no Hypothesis - no experiment .


All you have is faith it happened, and a lot of blather and conjecture about how bits of it might have happened. Even if they are correct, they are not evidence it happened or happened that way. Just conjecture or might have happened

it’s critical thinking . In your case wishful thinking . There is a very short supply of critical thinking amongst atheists with faith in abiogenesis here

 

[Larniavc]

I have actual forensic evidence of human heart tissue from eucharistic host. Life from no life Several times.

No you haven’t.

 

[Kylie]

God created everything, no big bang happened.

Citation required.

 

[Kylie]

You need critical thinking

An argument on minimum complexity of structures for a set purpose is not an argument from incredulity. There is a minimum complexity for a living cell just using the definition of life .

And that attempt to invoke incredulity s of itself a false argument . It’s up to adherents of the atheist faith in abiogenesis to prove it to me. All you have is conjecture.

You are very ill informed . Amino acids by nobodies definition are life.

As for Eucharistic miracles pathologists accept the evidence. You have no basis to disagree ,other than your argument from incredulity. The evididencwexists for you to doutor homework whether or not you do your homework.

whatever the evidence there is far more evidence for life from Eucharistic miracles than for abiogenesis happening for which there is none except conjecture .

Did I say amino acids were alive? I said amino acids can form self replicating molecules and need no cell membrane or any of the other stuff you think something needs.

And despite your repeated claims that you have evidence, you yet again fail to provide any. So I'll believe it when I see it. And I doubt I will ever see it from you.

 

[Astrid]

God created everything, no big bang happened.

So you believe you are infallible.

 

[Mountainmike]

In which case amino acids were an utterly irrelevant reference in a discussion about abiogenesis.

if you want a hypothesis for abiogenesis then define the minimum living cell,( that is self replicating self evolving) according to standard definitions of life. Then explain how that arose from non life as a chemical accident from non living precursors.

But you can’t. Other than conjecture. You don’t have a structure for the irreducible minimum living cell. If it was reducible it would not be the minimum cell.

Isnt atheist illogic interesting. “ there is no evidence of Eucharistic miracles because I refuse to look for it”. They behave like the mythical bears. “Hear no evil , see no evil” . It’s not “ my evidence ” it’s forensic lab evidence, multiple labs and continents and it exists whether or not you refuse to look for it.

Did I say amino acids were alive? I said amino acids can form self replicating molecules and need no cell membrane or any of the other stuff you think something needs.

And despite your repeated claims that you have evidence, you yet again fail to provide any. So I'll believe it when I see it. And I doubt I will ever see it from you.

 

[Mountainmike]

No you haven’t.

A faith statement of yours?

Because yes the world really does have forensic evidence. Lots of it, all you have to do is look for it, or stay ignorant. Take your pick.

 

[ottawak]

In which case amino acids were an utterly irrelevant reference in a discussion about abiogenesis.

if you want a hypothesis for abiogenesis then define the minimum living cell,( that is self replicating self evolving) according to standard definitions of life. Then explain how that arose from non life as a chemical accident from non living precursors.

But you can’t. Other than conjecture. You don’t have a structure for the irreducible minimum living cell. If it was reducible it would not be the minimum cell.

Isnt atheist illogic interesting. “ there is no evidence of Eucharistic miracles because I refuse to look for it”. They behave like the mythical bears. “Hear no evil , see no evil” . It’s not “ my evidence ” it’s forensic lab evidence, multiple labs and continents and it exists whether or not you refuse to look for it.

You're getting off track here, directing your discourse only towards atheists. For my part, I am convinced that a fully naturalistic abiogenesis is not only possible but consistent with essential Christian doctrine--and as a believer in the Real Presence I expect that no physical evidence will ever be found for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Citation required.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

 

[JohnPaul88]

So you believe you are infallible.

I believe in God the father.

 

[Astrid]

I believe in God the father.

Terrif. But that is belief.
You made a statement of fact about big bang.
Which is it, a belief or a fact?

 

[Mountainmike]

-and as a believer in the Real Presence I expect that no physical evidence will ever be found for it.

Myanswer on amino acids was in connection of a specific reference - not yours.

On Eucharistic miracles I suggest you study that is there. It is a massive surprise to most who do. Few Catholics are aware of it. The forensic pathology of . Tixtla. Buenos airies . Sokolka. Legnica. Are All determined as traumatized cardiac tissue ,recently live, in two cases so intermingled with bread that no fake is possible.

Different teams , labs and continents, so not a conspiracy.
The ( atheist ) pathologist Robert Lawrence stated that these and the statue of Cochabamba were “ credible evidence of creation of life”

The best way to do that is read Serafinis book which contains many references also a dialogue about the finding of MtDNA haplotype, but no identifiable human genetic code ( that’s not the same as no DNA - DNA human identification uses redundant parts)

I am not against life from soup. I’ve been reading about protocell since for FIFTY years now.

I’m against the hyping of what is at very best conjecture on how or where or whether it happened. Unlike the supposition of abiogenesis from The Eucharistic miracles on the other hand actually happened at known times and places. Evidence actually exists.

 

[ottawak]

Myanswer on amino acids was in connection of a specific reference - not yours.

On Eucharistic miracles I suggest you study that is there. It is a massive surprise to most who do. Few Catholics are aware of it. The forensic pathology of . Tixtla. Buenos airies . Sokolka. Legnica. Are All determined as traumatized cardiac tissue ,recently live, in two cases so intermingled with bread that no fake is possible.

Different teams , labs and continents, so not a conspiracy.
The ( atheist ) pathologist Robert Lawrence stated that these and the statue of Cochabamba were “ credible evidence of creation of life”

The best way to do that is read Serafinis book which contains many references also a dialogue about the finding of MtDNA haplotype, but no identifiable human genetic code ( that’s not the same as no DNA - DNA human identification uses redundant parts)

I am not against life from soup. I’ve been reading about protocell since for FIFTY years now.

I’m against the hyping of what is at very best conjecture on how or where or whether it happened. Unlike the supposition of abiogenesis from The Eucharistic miracles on the other hand actually happened at known times and places. Evidence actually exists.

If you need physical evidence to believe in the Eucharist, then I'm glad you think you have found it.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you need physical evidence to believe in the Eucharist, then I'm glad you think you have found it.

A red herring. I don’t need it.

But that has no bearing on whether evidence exists.
It supports actual transubstantiation in those cases.
I suggest you find out what evidence is there. You clearly don’t from other answers.

 

[ottawak]

A red herring. I don’t need it.

But that has no bearing on whether evidence exists.
It supports actual transubstantiation in those cases.
I suggest you find out what evidence is there. You clearly don’t from other answers.

I don't care; I don't need it either. But I still don't see the relevance to a discussion of abiogenesis. I may be wrong, but I see you taking the line that there is physical evidence of the Real Presence which atheists ignore, yet they assert abiogenesis as absolute truth without any evidence at all. I'm not saying that you are so stupid as to make a fatuous argument like that, but whether you intend it or not, that's the argument you seem to be making.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did I say amino acids were alive? I said amino acids can form self replicating molecules and need no cell membrane or any of the other stuff you think something needs.

Though you didn't claim it, there *have* been self-replicating amino acid/polypeptide systems found in the lab.

 

[ruthiesea]

In which case amino acids were an utterly irrelevant reference in a discussion about abiogenesis.

if you want a hypothesis for abiogenesis then define the minimum living cell,( that is self replicating self evolving) according to standard definitions of life. Then explain how that arose from non life as a chemical accident from non living precursors.

Chemical accident? I don’t think so. It involved matter and energy. That would mean the applicable laws of science, both chemistry and physics. If you believe that G-d created the universe then you must believe that He created those laws. So, He either created life by saying so (rabbit/hat kind of thing) or by creating the conditions that resulted in its formation. Either way life came from G-d.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't care; I don't need it either. But I still don't see the relevance to a discussion of abiogenesis. I may be wrong, but I see you taking the line that there is physical evidence of the Real Presence which atheists ignore, yet they assert abiogenesis as absolute truth without any evidence at all. I'm not saying that you are so stupid as to make a fatuous argument like that, but whether you intend it or not, that's the argument you seem to be making.

I go One step further.

The physical evidence contains white cells which ALL the pathologists say is evidence of recent LIFE . White cells dissolve in hours post mortem. Ie the evidence is that Eucharistic miracles are actual created living tissue. So that is actual evidence of abiogenesis ,ie life from non live materials.

So there is far more evidence for abiogenesis occurringin Eucharistic miracles than pure conjecture it occurred in chemical soup.

My point is atheists all share a belief in abiogenesis from soup , despite how they deny it, and it is just a belief based on scant plausibility not actual evidence. . Believing in no God cannot be in a vacuum, it comes with a credo as to where else the universe and life came from.