The Genetic Code

[Kylie]

Not completely wasted.

You'll think twice before you ask for another citation for something that is basic doctrine, won't you?

Maybe you'll think twice and think, "I realise that she's actually asking for evidence, so maybe I should address that instead of playing silly games."

 

[Kylie]

How is that evidence that random chemicals combined to create life?

Because it shows that the chemicals in question - which include the ones that form the building blocks of our own DNA - can be found almost everywhere in the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you'll think twice and think, "I realise that she's actually asking for evidence, so maybe I should address that instead of playing silly games."

It's not my job to second guess you.

Do you even know the difference between a citation and a piece of evidence?

 

[SelfSim]

Lol, the existence of chemicals in us doesn't tell us how we were created.

They're the same specific chemical species! They're found on bodies which are physically isolated from Earth. The 'how' is when they fall to earth, are analysed and then found to contain the exact specific set of base chemicals which produce our life functions! The 'how' is inference based on objective test results .. and not on beliefs.

What we know is that we are wonderfully complex creations

That's your personal belief .. and it can be easily shown that:

- it doesn't account for every other human being's beliefs;
- the belief way, doesn't lead to consensus amongst differing beliefs;
- the belief way, ultimately leads to conflict as the only way of resolving them and;
- the victor often pays the price when their particular belief causes their own demise;
- beliefs are therefore a pointless, self-defeating exercise, in a population of 7.9 billion believing, connected humans.

For 13 years (2000–2013) the Origin-of-Life Science Foundation offered a $1 million prize to anyone providing a chemically plausible naturalistic solution for the origin of the genetic code and life. And yet, as stated on their web site:

Over the 13 years since The Origin of Life Prize was first announced in NATURE and SCIENCE, no submission has ever made it past the screening judges to higher-level judges. No submission has ever addressed, let alone answered, any of the questions below, for which the Prize offer was instituted. Most of these Prize-offer questions centered on: “How did inanimate, prebiotic nature prescribe or program the first genome?” (Origin of Life Prize)

Bad links ... server not found errors.

 

[ottawak]

Lol, the existence of chemicals in us doesn't tell us how we were created. What we know is that we are wonderfully complex creations

For 13 years (2000–2013) the Origin-of-Life Science Foundation offered a $1 million prize to anyone providing a chemically plausible naturalistic solution for the origin of the genetic code and life. And yet, as stated on their web site:

Over the 13 years since The Origin of Life Prize was first announced in NATURE and SCIENCE, no submission has ever made it past the screening judges to higher-level judges. No submission has ever addressed, let alone answered, any of the questions below, for which the Prize offer was instituted. Most of these Prize-offer questions centered on: “How did inanimate, prebiotic nature prescribe or program the first genome?” (Origin of Life Prize)

Only 13 years? It may take generations. What's the hurry?

 

[renniks]

Because it shows that the chemicals in question - which include the ones that form the building blocks of our own DNA - can be found almost everywhere in the universe.

So because some chemicals exists they must have randomly created life? But of course we can't even do it now in a controlled environment.

 

[renniks]

They're the same specific chemical species! They're found on bodies which are physically isolated from Earth. The 'how' is when they fall to earth, are analysed and then found to contain the exact specific set of base chemicals which produce our life functions! The 'how' is inference based on objective test results .. and not on beliefs.
That's your personal belief .. and it can be easily shown that:

- it doesn't account for every other human being's beliefs;
- the belief way, doesn't lead to consensus amongst differing beliefs;
- the belief way, ultimately leads to conflict as the only way of resolving them and;
- the victor often pays the price when their particular belief causes their own demise;
- beliefs are therefore a pointless, self-defeating exercise, in a population of 7.9 billion believing, connected humans.

Bad links ... server not found errors.

You guys crack me up with your belief in miracles. Some random chemicals got together, had a party and poof! Life!

 

[ottawak]

So because some chemicals exists they must have randomly created life? But of course we can't even do it now in a controlled environment.

It's being worked on, may even succeed. As I asked before, what's your hurry?

 

[ottawak]

You guys crack me up with your belief in miracles. Some random chemicals got together, had a party and poof! Life!

That's an amusing parody, but you are wasting your time arguing against it. Nobody will care if you win.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Was this supposed to have some sort of meaning? It rambles and says nothing.

(And "Origin of Life" is the name used for the research in that field as used by the people who do it.)

Noting your phrase "OOL research" has status of OOL guesswork and conjecture and you would be about right. The above is precisely what people believe, mainly to avoid the problem of jumps. But that is all it is: a belief.

But There is still the speciic transition to evolving. Beforethat there is no mechanism for change, so there can only be more of the same. (Just supposing as you do , there is already replication of the more of the same, which is not a given in a complicated structure) .

But here is the philosophical problem in a nutshell: the transition to evolving IS a change in a cell which has no mechanism for change since it is not evolving till it makes the change. . That is a unique step. It is also a big step up in complexity.

Since all of the previous is assumed in conjecture to happen without guidance and by random chance with many other outcomes too, there is also the problem there is not a shred of evidence that there are or have been lesser forms or indeed that the process is still continuing. So there is no actual evidence any of this actually happened only very incomplete arguments for how some of it might have happened.

The day someone gives it a structure and does an experiment that shows how non living became living, I am all ears. Until then it is a serious conceptual problem. I am not actually against it. I am against it being presented as though it were fact, as Dawkins does.

Dawkins seems completely oblivious to his own contradiction and gibberish when he said "we have no evidence about how life started but we know what kind of step it must have been"

Ever since I saw an article in new scientist 50 (yes fifty!!!) years ago about protocel design , I have followed the area with interest. So it is unlikely you will find anything I have not seen before. As you all know I am a read-a-holic and i even get mocked for it!

Dont get me wrong it is a valid and useful area of research, just so long as the conclusions do not race ahead of the evidence.


To follow sagans folly and antithesis of science. "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence". You can rule abiogenesis out. It clearly is extraordinary!

I can only contrast that status of guessing, with actual forensic evidence that shows recently live cardiac tissue in eucharistic miracles mingled at the edges with bread , that cannot be faked by any mechanism so far proposed, that has far more scientific evidence as an origin of life. I dont need that evidence to be true, but it is next to impossible to falsify. Yet none of you so much as study that evidence.

There is little point in repeating any of this again. The "conjecture" in abiogenesis runs way ahead of the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

(And "Origin of Life" is the name used for the research in that field as used by the people who do it.)

How's that research coming along?

 

[SelfSim]

You guys crack me up with your belief in miracles. Some random chemicals got together, had a party and poof! Life!

Peptides and nucleotides aren't just any old random chemicals.
On Earth, they are specifically, directly associated with biology.

 

[SelfSim]

How's that research coming along?

Why don't you attempt reading the links and the sub-sections I've been posting instead of expecting others to sort out your own ignorance issues?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you attempt reading the links and the sub-sections I've been posting instead of expecting others to sort out your own ignorance issues?

It's all Greek to me.

 

[SelfSim]

It's all Greek to me.

Actually do something about that then, rather than blather on about your completely irrelevant beliefs.

 

[ottawak]

How's that research coming along?

Slowly, but there's no rush.

 

[AV1611VET]

Slowly, but there's no rush.

Okay.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually do something about that then, rather than blather on about your completely irrelevant beliefs.

You mean my "completely irrelevant belief" that evolution will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in a time where it will be explained so simply a child can understand it?

 

[SelfSim]

You mean my "completely irrelevant belief" that evolution will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in a time where it will be explained so simply a child can understand it?

A belief is still a belief .. regardless of it being dressed up to appear like science .. and your self-professed attempts at 'cleverness', mean zip also.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How's that research coming along?

You could look into it if you actually were interested. Several links to pages and videos have been posted in recent threads on this topic.