Did Darwin say this?
tom
expect
if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good,
nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
http://quotations.about.com/od/morepeople/a/darwin1_4.htm
But, other sites attribute this to Dawkins.
Did Darwin say this. If so can you provide a citation?
Jason Spaceman
No, it's definitely Dawkins who said that. Either in The Blind Watchmaker,
or River Out of Eden. Can't remember which.
J. Spaceman
jessica....@gmail.com
Dawkins, from a Scientific Americs article. Although, he repeats
analogies, so it might be in another one of his books as well.
Dana Tweedy
"tom" <tada...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176464061.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The quotation is by Richard Dawkins, from the book 'River out of Eden'. The
context was Dawkins talking about the problem of why do bad things happen.
The full quote is:
"The paper went on to quote one priest: "The simple answer is that we do
not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But
the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a
world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just
electrons, there would be no problem of evil or suffering.
On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes,
meaningless tragedies are exactly what we should expect, along with equally
meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in
intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind.
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people
are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't
find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe
has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no
design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference. As that unhappy poet A E Housman put it:
For Nature, heartless, witless
Nature
Will neither know nor care.
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
DJT
bi...@juno.com
> DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
>
> DJT
Unfortunately for Dawkins, DNA is precisely that which proves that
Divine Intelligence existed before Life. "Intelligence precedes
Organism."
There is no way that DNA could just magically arrange itself into the
correct order by random chance, while at the same time having all the
precise unzipping and replication reading enzymes in just the right
location, and then when everything "just randomly happened" to be in
the exact right location for no reason, decide to start replicating
itself for no reason.
Leaving aside the fact that DNA in humans is about 6 billion
nucleotides, it has been calculated that the smallest possible DNA
strand is about 180,000. There is no way this just magically and
randomly arranged itself into the right sequence without God. And
without DNA, life cannot even begin.
Ray Martinez
> "tom" <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The Dawkins quote (pasted by Dana) and Dana's final comment says he
agrees with Dawkins. How could a Christian like Dana agree with that
atheist Dawkins quote?
The best and quickest way to harmonize my point above would be simply
to place quote marks around the word Christian.
How could Dawkins be a rational person and think evil does not exist?
If the Holocaust was not evil then what is? The only real surprise in
any of this is that there is no surprise.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
<bi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1176497077.0...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
>>
>> DJT
>
> Unfortunately for Dawkins, DNA is precisely that which proves that
> Divine Intelligence existed before Life. "Intelligence precedes
> Organism."
How does DNA prove that? What mechanism did this "Divine Intelligence"
use?
>
> There is no way that DNA could just magically arrange itself into the
> correct order by random chance,
That's why theories of abiogenesis don't claim that it "magically arranged"
itself. In fact, it's the Creationists who are positing magic as a
mechanism, not scientists. Chemistry is not 'random chance'.
> while at the same time having all the
> precise unzipping and replication reading enzymes in just the right
> location, and then when everything "just randomly happened" to be in
> the exact right location for no reason, decide to start replicating
> itself for no reason.
As soon as you get done beating that strawman, why not look into what
research programs are currently looking into regarding the beginnings of
life, and how DNA may have formed. Hint, scientists don't claim chat
everthing "just randomly happened".
>
> Leaving aside the fact that DNA in humans is about 6 billion
> nucleotides, it has been calculated that the smallest possible DNA
> strand is about 180,000.
"It has been calculated" by whom? Why would that be relevant, anyway, as
the first reproducing organisms most likely didn't use DNA.
> There is no way this just magically and
> randomly arranged itself into the right sequence without God.
There is no way they could magically, or randomly arrange itself with God
either. DNA requires a physical mechanism, which scientists are trying to
discover. Your suggestion is to throw up your hands and say "it's too
complicated, God must have done it". That's not how science works.
> And
> without DNA, life cannot even begin.
Actually, according to recent research, DNA is not necessary for life. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/class/RNA/RNA00/RNA_World_3.html
http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/articles/altman/
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176498091.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Ray, in your rush to smear me, you missed something, i.e. that quotation
mark at the end of the last sentence. The last sentence is not my comment
at all, it's Dawkin's.
I did not "agree" with Dawkins about the existance of God, and the comment
about DNA not knowing or caring was Dawkin's statement. If you had
bothered to read the quote, and look up the source, you'd have seen you were
wrong. How embarassing for you.
>
> The best and quickest way to harmonize my point above would be simply
> to place quote marks around the word Christian.
Or to admit you are wrong. Again, the last sentence was part of the quote
from Dawkins, not my words. You were in such a rush to smear me, you got
"hoist by your own petard".
>
> How could Dawkins be a rational person and think evil does not exist?
Perhaps he's never met you?
> If the Holocaust was not evil then what is?
The Holocaust was indeed evil, but it was also the actions of human beings,
people you'd most likely get along with quite well.
> The only real surprise in
> any of this is that there is no surprise.
How about the "surprise" when you find out you made another embarassing
mistake? Will we be surprised when your post mysteriously gets deleted
from Google Archives?
No, lets have an apology, and be quick about it.
DJT
AC
>
> How could Dawkins be a rational person and think evil does not exist?
> If the Holocaust was not evil then what is? The only real surprise in
> any of this is that there is no surprise.
I dunno. Maybe we should go ask some infidel Jews.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Desertphile
> >
> > DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
> >
> > DJT
>
> Unfortunately for Dawkins, DNA is precisely that which proves that
> Divine Intelligence existed before Life.
Then why did the gods put so much useless junk in DNA to make it
appear that it evolved? I don't get it.....
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Mark VandeWettering
>>
>> DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
>>
>> DJT
>
> Unfortunately for Dawkins, DNA is precisely that which proves that
> Divine Intelligence existed before Life. "Intelligence precedes
> Organism."
It is neither unfortunate, nor true.
> There is no way that DNA could just magically arrange itself into the
> correct order by random chance, while at the same time having all the
> precise unzipping and replication reading enzymes in just the right
> location, and then when everything "just randomly happened" to be in
> the exact right location for no reason, decide to start replicating
> itself for no reason.
Of course it doesn't do any of that for no reason. It does so because
of physics.
> Leaving aside the fact that DNA in humans is about 6 billion
> nucleotides, it has been calculated that the smallest possible DNA
> strand is about 180,000. There is no way this just magically and
> randomly arranged itself into the right sequence without God.
There is no way to do it with God either.
> And without DNA, life cannot even begin.
This is an assertion which is almost certainly not true.
Mark
Richard Clayton
> No, lets have an apology, and be quick about it.
That's what I like best about you, Dana... you're an eternal optimist.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon
Pete G.
>
>> There is no way that DNA could just magically arrange itself into the
>> correct order by random chance, while at the same time having all the
>> precise unzipping and replication reading enzymes in just the right
>> location, and then when everything "just randomly happened" to be in
>> the exact right location for no reason, decide to start replicating
>> itself for no reason.
>
>
>> Leaving aside the fact that DNA in humans is about 6 billion
>> nucleotides, it has been calculated that the smallest possible DNA
>> strand is about 180,000. There is no way this just magically and
>> randomly arranged itself into the right sequence without God.
>
Oooh, look: here is everyone's least-favourite liar pretending once again
that neo-Darwinism requires people to believe that this sophisticated
molecular arrangement came about in a single step. As if no-one had ever
explained to him that *cumulative selection* brings it about in *a vast
number of smaller and more likely incremental steps*!
How many times does he have to be told the truth before he stops
'forgetting' it...?
P.
Mark VandeWettering
He didn't say that evil doesn't exist. He says it doesn't exist as the
underlying substrate of the universe. Evil is something that men do,
not something that simply is.
edwar...@verizon.net
>
>>
> Leaving aside the fact that DNA in humans is about 6 billion
> nucleotides, it has been calculated that the smallest possible DNA
> strand is about 180,000. There is no way this just magically and
> randomly arranged itself into the right sequence without God. And
> without DNA, life cannot even begin.
The claimed "statistical impossibility of DNA forming" is quoted by
many legitimate scientists--Hoyle, Sagan, etc. The claim is in fact,
based on a series of misleading or misunderstood statements. The
"proofs" of the impossibility include misstatements about the # of
nucleotides required, the calculations of the emergence of only one
amino acid (rather than specifying "any" amino acid), ignoring the
influence of chemical bonding, and other influences. For a summary of
the misunderstandings about the "impossibility of forming RNA/DNA"
see:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
Cemtech
bi...@juno.com says...
> >
> > DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
> >
> > DJT
>
> Unfortunately for Dawkins, DNA is precisely that which proves that
> Divine Intelligence existed before Life. "Intelligence precedes
> Organism."
What idiot said that?
> There is no way that DNA could just magically arrange itself into the
> correct order by random chance,
Good thing chemistry isn't random.
--
Creationists support genocide.
"God is like Shakespeare, he can do whatever he wishes with his
characters upon the stage of planet Earth, including sending evil,
plague, famine, pestilence, and anything else. Such things improve the
story in both Shakespeare and God's dramatic creations."
- bi...@juno.com
wf3h
bi...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
> >
> > DJT
>
> Unfortunately for Dawkins, DNA is precisely that which proves that
> Divine Intelligence existed before Life. "Intelligence precedes
> Organism."
since DNA is a product of life and is NEVER seen apart from a living
organism, we know bimms bizarre cult beliefs are wrong.
>
> There is no way that DNA could just magically arrange itself into the
> correct order by random chance, while at the same time having all the
> precise unzipping and replication reading enzymes in just the right
> location, and then when everything "just randomly happened" to be in
> the exact right location for no reason, decide to start replicating
> itself for no reason.
sure it can. the reasons are called 'the laws of chemistry'.
>
> Leaving aside the fact that DNA in humans is about 6 billion
> nucleotides, it has been calculated that the smallest possible DNA
> strand is about 180,000. There is no way this just magically and
> randomly arranged itself into the right sequence without God. And
> without DNA, life cannot even begin.
and since god uses natural laws to do everything, again, bimms is
wrong.
bi...@juno.com
> "God is like Shakespeare, he can do whatever he wishes with his
> characters upon the stage of planet Earth, including sending evil,
> plague, famine, pestilence, and anything else. Such things improve the
> story in both Shakespeare and God's dramatic creations."
Rather than quoting me on this one, you should quote St. Paul, who
says that God as the Potter can do whatever he wants with us, the
pots:
"One of you will say to me, 'Then why does God still blame us? For who
resists his will?' But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall
what is formed say to him who formed it, Why did you make me like
this? Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump
of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
Romans 9:19-21
Quoting St. Paul from the Bible is much better than quoting me. Paul
says it better.
If you read the whole Romans 9, you will understand why Calvinism was
founded. Only by reading Romans 11 can you discover that God's mercy
extends to everyone. The Universalism of Romans 11 supersedes the
Calvinism of chapter 9. God's mercy will finally triumph, (chapter 11)
but he still has the right to do anything he wants with us. (chapter
9) By reading chapter 9 through the lense of chapter 11, you get a
correct perspective on how the balance of eternal love will banish
everything else.
Eternity vastly overwhelms anything that we experience on Earth. Even
if God were to slaughter every last one of us, the fact that we spend
eternity in heaven vastly overbalances the scale of love versus
violence. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of centuries of
happiness, versus one momentary death? Come on, the two don't even
compare at all.
Stop judging God, you are just storing up temporary wrath for
yourself.
bi...@juno.com
>
> Oooh, look: here is everyone's least-favourite liar pretending once again
> that neo-Darwinism requires people to believe that this sophisticated
> molecular arrangement came about in a single step. As if no-one had ever
> explained to him that *cumulative selection* brings it about in *a vast
> number of smaller and more likely incremental steps*!
There is no way that "cumulative selection" can operate upon a non-
reproducing organism. Natural Selection can only operate upon already
fully functional replicating organisms.
The problem is the difficulty in arriving at the first replicating DNA
(or RNA) strand. This combined with the "breakout problem" which
involves all the necessary enzymes and so on to "read" this RNA strand
that "just magically appeared there" in perfect formation.
If you just had a RNA strand "just sitting there" in a chemical soup,
it would get destroyed by random chemical sloshing around. You have to
already have a protective membrane around the RNA strand. But you
cannot have them both just randomly arriving there at once. This is a
classic case of Irreducible Complexity. You need a protective membrane
around the RNA, but the protective membrane will close off the arrival
of the necessary nutrients and enzymes and so forth.
Science will NEVER solve this. Sure, they will TRY. They are desperate
to maintain their blind faith in naturalism. But they won't succeed.
And even if they did, it would fail to explain why any scientific laws
exist in the first place, or how dead atoms just sprang to life,
started replicating, became self-aware, started getting angry at other
complicated dead atom arrangements (called "Creationists") on
talk.origins, and so on. Materialism and its bastard child naturalism
are the most laughable fairy tale ever.
>
> How many times does he have to be told the truth before he stops
> 'forgetting' it...?
>
> P.
Go ahead, keep your blind faith in naturalism. Your desperate faith is
rather sad, and it will result in a temporary hell at minimum. You
have my pity.
bi...@juno.com
> Of course it doesn't do any of that for no reason. It does so because
> of physics.
Actually, physics is exactly why it could NOT have happened. Random
dead chemicals sloshing around can NOT produce a fully functional RNA
strand. Every time a nucleotide happened to be there, it would get
sloshed off the other one WELL before you had a fully functional RNA
strand. To say nothing of all the required enzymes and so forth. And
the protective membrane that is needed to keep the milieu together.
>
> There is no way to do it with God either.
There had better be some way to do it. Otherwise, how come we are all
here, posting on talk.origins, and getting angry at one another?
Here is a question from me to you, from one complicated dead-atom
arrangment to another: Why are there scientific laws? Why is there a
space-time continuum? Why a universe? Or Multiverse?
>
> This is an assertion which is almost certainly not true.
>
DNA, RNA, whatever.
bi...@juno.com
> Then why did the gods put so much useless junk in DNA to make it
> appear that it evolved? I don't get it.....
The so-called "junk" DNA probably has some unknown purpose. Such as
preventing speciation. Kind of like the 300 vestigial organs we
thought we had, but the list keeps shrinking? It's like that.
The more we learn about DNA, the less junk-DNA there will be, until
finally this evolution-proven-by-gaps argument will vanish away.
Ernest Major
bi...@juno.com writes
>
>>
>> Oooh, look: here is everyone's least-favourite liar pretending once again
>> that neo-Darwinism requires people to believe that this sophisticated
>> molecular arrangement came about in a single step. As if no-one had ever
>> explained to him that *cumulative selection* brings it about in *a vast
>> number of smaller and more likely incremental steps*!
>
>There is no way that "cumulative selection" can operate upon a non-
>reproducing organism. Natural Selection can only operate upon already
>fully functional replicating organisms.
Cumulative selection operates on populations, not organisms, and in
biology those populations typically containing both reproducing and
non-reproducing organisms. Cumulative selection does not require that
the population be composed of organisms - for example see the Spiegelman
Monster. Or the efficacy of cumulative selection in alife systems such
as Tierra - if you were to claim those were organisms then you have to
concede experimental achievement of abiogenesis.
>
>The problem is the difficulty in arriving at the first replicating DNA
>(or RNA) strand. This combined with the "breakout problem" which
>involves all the necessary enzymes and so on to "read" this RNA strand
>that "just magically appeared there" in perfect formation.
>
>If you just had a RNA strand "just sitting there" in a chemical soup,
>it would get destroyed by random chemical sloshing around. You have to
>already have a protective membrane around the RNA strand. But you
>cannot have them both just randomly arriving there at once. This is a
>classic case of Irreducible Complexity. You need a protective membrane
>around the RNA, but the protective membrane will close off the arrival
>of the necessary nutrients and enzymes and so forth.
>
>Science will NEVER solve this. Sure, they will TRY. They are desperate
>to maintain their blind faith in naturalism. But they won't succeed.
>
>And even if they did, it would fail to explain why any scientific laws
>exist in the first place, or how dead atoms just sprang to life,
>started replicating, became self-aware, started getting angry at other
>complicated dead atom arrangements (called "Creationists") on
>talk.origins, and so on. Materialism and its bastard child naturalism
>are the most laughable fairy tale ever.
And you're back to this not even wrong dead atoms category error.
>
>
>>
>> How many times does he have to be told the truth before he stops
>> 'forgetting' it...?
>>
>> P.
>
>Go ahead, keep your blind faith in naturalism. Your desperate faith is
>rather sad, and it will result in a temporary hell at minimum. You
>have my pity.
>
Argumentum ad baculum is a fallacy. (Not to mention that according to
the Bible, you are yourself in danger of hell-fire, because of the time
you spend (implicitly) arguing that Christianity is false.)
--
Alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
bi...@juno.com writes
>>
>> Then why did the gods put so much useless junk in DNA to make it
>> appear that it evolved? I don't get it.....
>
>The so-called "junk" DNA probably has some unknown purpose. Such as
>preventing speciation. Kind of like the 300 vestigial organs we
>thought we had, but the list keeps shrinking? It's like that.
To reiterate what I said last time you made this claim about junk DNA
preventing speciation ...
Junk DNA is more likely to promote speciation than prevent it.
For example it is observed that in neopolyploids sometimes meiosis is
disrupted because the two sets of parental chromosomes are too similar.
It is also observed that bursts of transposon activity and other changes
to junk DNA can occur in neopolyploids. The effect of this is to
increase the difference between the two sets of parental chromosomes,
and eliminate the disruption of meiosis, thus changing a relatively
infertile hybrid into a fully fertile new allopolyploid or segmental
allopolyploid species.
The accumulation of changes to junk DNA (defined by being non-conserved)
in different populations also promotes speciation. When sufficient
changes have accumulated the genomes of the two populations are
sufficiently different that meiosis is disrupted in hybrids, which are
therefore sterile, making the two populations separate species.
The accumulation of chromosomal rearrangements also contributes
speciation in the same way. As the existence of junk DNA plausibly
increases the rate of accumulation of chromosomal rearrangements, this
would be a third way in which junk DNA promotes speciation.
>
>The more we learn about DNA, the less junk-DNA there will be, until
>finally this evolution-proven-by-gaps argument will vanish away.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Pete G.
> bi...@juno.com writes
>>
>>>
>>> Oooh, look: here is everyone's least-favourite liar pretending once
>>> again
>>> that neo-Darwinism requires people to believe that this sophisticated
>>> molecular arrangement came about in a single step. As if no-one had ever
>>> explained to him that *cumulative selection* brings it about in *a vast
>>> number of smaller and more likely incremental steps*!
>>
>>There is no way that "cumulative selection" can operate upon a non-
>>reproducing organism. Natural Selection can only operate upon already
>>fully functional replicating organisms.
Spot the latest lie, people? Now he's pretending that nothing can replicate
unless it's 'an organism'. In other words, the possibility of an entire
foundational succession of increasingly complex inorganic and organic
replicators that *aren't yet* 'organisms is slyly avoided -- in order that
the liar can set the bar impossibly high for the 'first thing to
replicate'...
>>
>>If you just had a RNA strand "just sitting there" in a chemical soup,
>>it would get destroyed by random chemical sloshing around. You have to
>>already have a protective membrane around the RNA strand. But you
>>cannot have them both just randomly arriving there at once. This is a
>>classic case of Irreducible Complexity.
No, it's a classic case of Incorrigible Mendacity. You are just dishonestly
peddling the absurd 'tornado-in-a-junkyard-blows-a-747-together' model in an
attempt to discredit a process that no-one ever said required RNA and a
protective membrane to 'just randomly arrive there at once'.
>>
>>Science will NEVER solve this. Sure, they will TRY. They are desperate
>>to maintain their blind faith in naturalism. But they won't succeed.
Yeah, yeah, heah...
[remainder of silly tantrum snipped]
P.
Ye Old One
s/he wrote:
>
>>
>> Oooh, look: here is everyone's least-favourite liar pretending once again
>> that neo-Darwinism requires people to believe that this sophisticated
>> molecular arrangement came about in a single step. As if no-one had ever
>> explained to him that *cumulative selection* brings it about in *a vast
>> number of smaller and more likely incremental steps*!
>
>There is no way that "cumulative selection" can operate upon a non-
>reproducing organism. Natural Selection can only operate upon already
>fully functional replicating organisms.
>
>The problem is the difficulty in arriving at the first replicating DNA
>(or RNA) strand. This combined with the "breakout problem" which
>involves all the necessary enzymes and so on to "read" this RNA strand
>that "just magically appeared there" in perfect formation.
>
>If you just had a RNA strand "just sitting there" in a chemical soup,
>it would get destroyed by random chemical sloshing around.
Why?
> You have to
>already have a protective membrane around the RNA strand.
Why do you say that. Please provide cite to back that up.
> But you
>cannot have them both just randomly arriving there at once. This is a
>classic case of Irreducible Complexity.
Nope - there is no such thing.
>You need a protective membrane
>around the RNA, but the protective membrane will close off the arrival
>of the necessary nutrients and enzymes and so forth.
Would it. please provide evidence for that claim.
>
>Science will NEVER solve this.
Never is a very long time.
>Sure, they will TRY. They are desperate
>to maintain their blind faith in naturalism. But they won't succeed.
And you know this how?
>
>And even if they did, it would fail to explain why any scientific laws
>exist in the first place, or how dead atoms just sprang to life,
Chemistry.
>started replicating,
Chemistry.
>became self-aware,
Chemistry.
>started getting angry at other
>complicated dead atom arrangements (called "Creationists") on
>talk.origins, and so on. Materialism and its bastard child naturalism
>are the most laughable fairy tale ever.
Not in the same class as your bible.
>
>
>>
>> How many times does he have to be told the truth before he stops
>> 'forgetting' it...?
>>
>> P.
>
>Go ahead, keep your blind faith in naturalism. Your desperate faith is
>rather sad, and it will result in a temporary hell at minimum. You
>have my pity.
You have mine.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
s/he wrote:
>>
>> Of course it doesn't do any of that for no reason. It does so because
>> of physics.
>
>Actually, physics is exactly why it could NOT have happened. Random
>dead chemicals sloshing around can NOT produce a fully functional RNA
>strand.
Please provide proof.
> Every time a nucleotide happened to be there, it would get
>sloshed off the other one WELL before you had a fully functional
Please provide proof.
>RNA
>strand. To say nothing of all the required enzymes and so forth. And
>the protective membrane that is needed to keep the milieu together.
Please provide proof.
>
>
>>
>> There is no way to do it with God either.
>
>There had better be some way to do it. Otherwise, how come we are all
>here, posting on talk.origins, and getting angry at one another?
>
>Here is a question from me to you, from one complicated dead-atom
>arrangment to another: Why are there scientific laws? Why is there a
>space-time continuum? Why a universe? Or Multiverse?
Simple - because there is.
>
>
>>
>> This is an assertion which is almost certainly not true.
>>
>
>DNA, RNA, whatever.
--
Bob.
Elf M. Sternberg
> The problem is the difficulty in arriving at the first replicating DNA
> (or RNA) strand. This combined with the "breakout problem" which
> involves all the necessary enzymes and so on to "read" this RNA strand
> that "just magically appeared there" in perfect formation.
Who says that was it?
Most of the abiogenetic research I've seen proposes far
simpler mechanisms than RNA or DNA and all of the complex biochemistry
implied by those molecules. There is no chemical or physical barrier
to achieving full-on biology from chemistry.
The uusual complaint creationists will trot out is that if
there was non-DNA and non-RNA based life, where is it now? The answer
is simple: they were less efficient at exploiting available energy
resources than the DNA-based life.
In other words, our ancestor ATE THEM.
Elf
Kermit
> > Of course it doesn't do any of that for no reason. It does so because
> > of physics.
>
> Actually, physics is exactly why it could NOT have happened. Random
> dead chemicals sloshing around can NOT produce a fully functional RNA
> strand.
How can you say "physics" and "dead chemicals" in the same breath with
a straight face? How is the H2O in the rain dripping of my roof
different from the H2O in my blood?
Why do you call the laws of chemistry "random"?
Why would a fully functioning RNA strand have to be the first self-
replicating molecule?
> Every time a nucleotide happened to be there, it would get
> sloshed off the other one WELL before you had a fully functional RNA
> strand.
What scientist thinks it happened this way? Why should I take
seriously anyonw who talks about live atoms and dead atoms?
> To say nothing of all the required enzymes and so forth. And
> the protective membrane that is needed to keep the milieu together.
Some abiogenesis hypotheses postulate a membrane before anything we
would call an organism.
>
>
>
> > There is no way to do it with God either.
>
> There had better be some way to do it. Otherwise, how come we are all
> here, posting on talk.origins, and getting angry at one another?
Gosh, I dunno. Perhaps natural laws produce these results? If you
think God interfered with the process, you might want to offer some
evidence other than your ignorance.
>
> Here is a question from me to you, from one complicated dead-atom
You have never answered my question: how does a dead carbon atom
differ from a live one?
> arrangment to another: Why are there scientific laws? Why is there a
> space-time continuum? Why a universe? Or Multiverse?
I don't know.
That's actually the *correct answer when you don't know something.
>
>
>
> > This is an assertion which is almost certainly not true.
>
> DNA, RNA, whatever.
You must be a "big picture" thinker, and don't want to be bothered
with details.
Kermit
Cemtech
bi...@juno.com says...
>
> > How many times does he have to be told the truth before he stops
> > 'forgetting' it...?
> >
> > P.
>
> Go ahead, keep your blind faith in naturalism. Your desperate faith is
> rather sad, and it will result in a temporary hell at minimum. You
> have my pity.
Somehow I doubt that. They don't have hell for liars?
--
Creationists support genocide.
"God is like Shakespeare, he can do whatever he wishes with his
characters upon the stage of planet Earth, including sending evil,
plague, famine, pestilence, and anything else. Such things improve the
story in both Shakespeare and God's dramatic creations."
wf3h
bi...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > Oooh, look: here is everyone's least-favourite liar pretending once again
> > that neo-Darwinism requires people to believe that this sophisticated
> > molecular arrangement came about in a single step. As if no-one had ever
> > explained to him that *cumulative selection* brings it about in *a vast
> > number of smaller and more likely incremental steps*!
>
> There is no way that "cumulative selection" can operate upon a non-
> reproducing organism. Natural Selection can only operate upon already
> fully functional replicating organisms.
> >
> to maintain their blind faith in naturalism. But they won't succeed.
you guys have been saying this for 300 years about science. and you've
been wrong. by the way...what natural feature has religion explained?
for 5000 years you guys have been saying 'god did it'
you've been wrong every time.
>
> And even if they did, it would fail to explain why any scientific laws
> exist in the first place,
god of the gaps
or how dead atoms just sprang to life,
god of the gaps.
> started replicating, became self-aware, started getting angry at other
> complicated dead atom arrangements (
god of the gaps....
called "Creationists") on
> talk.origins, and so on. Materialism and its bastard child naturalism
> are the most laughable fairy tale ever.
except, of course, the computer you type your hatred of science on was
invented by scientists....
>
>
wf3h
bi...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > Of course it doesn't do any of that for no reason. It does so because
> > of physics.
>
> Actually, physics is exactly why it could NOT have happened. Random
> dead chemicals sloshing around can NOT produce a fully functional RNA
> strand.
and you know that how? you keep saying the laws of physics dont exist
THEN you say they prove evolution is impossible
contradiction...one of many...in creationism
?
>
> Here is a question from me to you, from one complicated dead-atom
> arrangment to another: Why are there scientific laws? Why is there a
> space-time continuum? Why a universe? Or Multiverse?
every single question is an argument of 'god of the gaps'. you guys
keep trying to stuff your god into a test tube that's getting smaller
every day.
>
eerok
[...]
> how come we are all here, posting on talk.origins, and
> getting angry at one another?
If you're getting angry, maybe it's time to take a break.
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
Pooua
> > There is no way that DNA could just magically arrange itself into the
> > correct order by random chance, while at the same time having all the
> > precise unzipping and replication reading enzymes in just the right
> > location, and then when everything "just randomly happened" to be in
> > the exact right location for no reason, decide to start replicating
> > itself for no reason.
>
> Of course it doesn't do any of that for no reason. It does so because
> of physics.
Nothing in physics dictates that atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen and phosphorous should arrange themselves in any fashion that
encodes biologically useful information. So, no, it does not do it
because of physics; physics merely allows it to work, it doesn't make
it happen.
"We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To
claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that
information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue
that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained
by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the
material base of a message is completely independent of the
information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have
nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple
illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was
designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether
ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in
binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the
same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship
between the information and the material base used to transmit it.
Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the
base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA
molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created
the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to
the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the
information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the
current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained
within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical
makeup of the DNA molecule."
http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix.htm
> > Leaving aside the fact that DNA in humans is about 6 billion
> > nucleotides, it has been calculated that the smallest possible DNA
> > strand is about 180,000. There is no way this just magically and
> > randomly arranged itself into the right sequence without God.
>
> There is no way to do it with God either.
Ergo, you don't exist.
Kermit
> On Apr 13, 5:11 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2007-04-13, b...@juno.com <b...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no way that DNA could just magically arrange itself into the
> > > correct order by random chance, while at the same time having all the
> > > precise unzipping and replication reading enzymes in just the right
> > > location, and then when everything "just randomly happened" to be in
> > > the exact right location for no reason, decide to start replicating
> > > itself for no reason.
>
> > Of course it doesn't do any of that for no reason. It does so because
> > of physics.
>
> Nothing in physics dictates that atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
> nitrogen and phosphorous should arrange themselves in any fashion that
> encodes biologically useful information. So, no, it does not do it
> because of physics; physics merely allows it to work, it doesn't make
> it happen.
1. Please explain which laws of chemistry are violated by the
biochemistry we see happening daily.
2. Please explain why RNA or DNA should be considered information, and
why natural processes cannot produce information.
>
> "We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To
> claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that
> information can arise by random material forces.
Depends on what you mean by random. If you simply mean undirected, why
not? Because you say so? If by random, you mean "anything goes", you
are wrong.
> Many scientists argue
> that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained
> by natural evolutionary processes.
Or perhaps it is best described as "The evidence indicates it".
> However, they must realize that the
> material base of a message is completely independent of the
> information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have
> nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple
> illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was
> designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether
> ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in
> binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the
> same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship
> between the information and the material base used to transmit it.
Please establish why RNA/DNA should be considered information. Then,
using *that definition of information, explain why natural forces
cannot produce it.
Example: A section of an organisms genome duplicates - a mutation. A
descendant of that organism has a mutation in one of the duplicate
sections. How is that not "new information"?
I note that it is neither information scientists nor geneticists who
claim that "natural force cannot produce new information". Please
justify this assertion.
> Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the
> base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA
> molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created
> the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to
> the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the
> information also produced the information itself.
Why must they hold to that? Cites, please. This makes no sense. If I
throw magnetic letters at a refrigerator door, and leave any
combination of letters that produce a word but remove the others, how
is the information in the letters ahead of time?
> Contrary to the
> current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained
> within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical
> makeup of the DNA molecule."
Please justify calling it information.
Please justify this claim above.
Please justify the assertion that "material used to transmit the
information also produced the information itself."
>
> http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix.htm
AKA allaboutgod.com
>
> > > Leaving aside the fact that DNA in humans is about 6 billion
> > > nucleotides, it has been calculated that the smallest possible DNA
> > > strand is about 180,000. There is no way this just magically and
> > > randomly arranged itself into the right sequence without God.
>
> > There is no way to do it with God either.
>
> Ergo, you don't exist.
Of course we do, so you might want to reconsider your pseudo-
reasoning.
Kermit
Mark Isaak
> On Apr 24, 2:38 am, Pooua <p...@aol.com> wrote:
>> However, they must realize that the
>> material base of a message is completely independent of the
>> information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have
>> nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple
>> illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was
>> designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether
>> ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in
>> binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the
>> same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship
>> between the information and the material base used to transmit it.
>
> Please establish why RNA/DNA should be considered information.
Or why flecks of mica, feldspar, etc. arranged in a chunk of
naturally-formed granite should not be.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Pooua
> On Apr 24, 2:38 am, Pooua <p...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 5:11 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2007-04-13, b...@juno.com <b...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > There is no way that DNA could just magically arrange itself into the
> > > > correct order by random chance, while at the same time having all the
> > > > precise unzipping and replication reading enzymes in just the right
> > > > location, and then when everything "just randomly happened" to be in
> > > > the exact right location for no reason, decide to start replicating
> > > > itself for no reason.
>
> > > Of course it doesn't do any of that for no reason. It does so because
> > > of physics.
>
> > Nothing in physics dictates that atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
> > nitrogen and phosphorous should arrange themselves in any fashion that
> > encodes biologically useful information. So, no, it does not do it
> > because of physics; physics merely allows it to work, it doesn't make
> > it happen.
>
> 1. Please explain which laws of chemistry are violated by the
> biochemistry we see happening daily.
Please explain which federal laws you violate to post on Usenet; that
request makes as much sense as your gibberish.
If you think that "laws of chemistry" or "laws of physics" is
sufficient to explain our existence, then why have all attempts to
recreate independent, living cells from purely naturalistic causes
failed? Abiogenesis is not as easy as it looks.
> 2. Please explain why RNA or DNA should be considered information,
One reason would be that the patterns in RNA and DNA vary in
statistically significant ways. It is neither homogeneous repetition
nor random gibberish. The variations are also meaningful in the sense
that they give rise to functioning mechanisms; indeed, the most
complex functioning mechanisms known in the Universe.
Don't they teach Biology anymore? If you took the class, you might not
think of RNA and DNA as just so much cellular window dressing, and so
would not ask such ridiculous questions. Caveat: some of what I stated
isn't taught in Biology per se, but in Discrete Mathematics and
Information Theory.
> and why natural processes cannot produce information.
Natural processes notoriously follow statistical uniformity simply by
nature of their lack of intelligence. That's why we have such concepts
differentiating between "organic" and "man-made" shapes; artificial
constructions usually stand out from the clutter of nature, something
that even the late astronomer Carl Sagan pointed out.
> > "We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To
> > claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that
> > information can arise by random material forces.
>
> Depends on what you mean by random. If you simply mean undirected, why
> not?
Because there are far, far more ways for systems to form statistically
homogeneous arrangements than there have been seconds and atoms in the
Universe to form them.
> > However, they must realize that the
> > material base of a message is completely independent of the
> > information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have
> > nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple
> > illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was
> > designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether
> > ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in
> > binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the
> > same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship
> > between the information and the material base used to transmit it.
>
> Please establish why RNA/DNA should be considered information. Then,
> using *that definition of information, explain why natural forces
> cannot produce it.
See previous explanation.
> Example: A section of an organisms genome duplicates - a mutation. A
> descendant of that organism has a mutation in one of the duplicate
> sections. How is that not "new information"?
It is a derivation of pre-existing information, that is, the gene from
which the mutation originated.
> I note that it is neither information scientists nor geneticists who
> claim that "natural force cannot produce new information". Please
> justify this assertion.
>
> > Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the
> > base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA
> > molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created
> > the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to
> > the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the
> > information also produced the information itself.
>
> Why must they hold to that?
Because that is what the term "self-organizing" means; the patterns
and structures necessary for the continued replication of the organism
did not exist until the structure that would acquire those traits
created them.
> Cites, please. This makes no sense. If I
> throw magnetic letters at a refrigerator door, and leave any
> combination of letters that produce a word but remove the others, how
> is the information in the letters ahead of time?
As hard as it is to make the case for it, you contain intelligence.
You recognized which letters formed meaningful patterns and which did
not; you were the origin of that information transcription.
You could, of course, remove yourself and your container of
intelligence from the experiment; for example, have a bucket full of
letters balanced on a pedestal tip over and scatter the letters
randomly on the ground. By chance, some of the letters would
eventually form words, even entire documents. In fact, given enough
time and attempts, this arrangement would eventually produce every
document possible to produce, including those that people will
eventually write in our future. However, note that it is an early
homework demonstration in Discrete Mathematics that demonstrates that
this arrangement would take many times the age of the Universe to
produce meaningful results. Or, as George Gamow put it in his book,
"One Two Three . . . Infinity," if every atom in the Universe were to
produce all the characters of the English alphabet at the rate of the
natural frequency of the hydrogen atom, the estimated lifetime of the
Universe would not be enough time to produce more than half of these
possible combinations.
IOW, it wouldn't work in real life.