On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
>
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote in
>
news:641938ef-fde6-4b0d...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano high-technology that
> > defies naturalistic explanations
> >
> >
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokar
> > yotes
>
>
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna3.htm
>
>
> > DNA replication is the most crucial step in cellular division, a
> > process necessary for life, and errors can cause cancer and many other
> > diseases. Genome duplication presents a formidable enzymatic
> > challenge, requiring the high fidelity replication of millions of
> > bases of DNA. It is a incredible system involving a city of proteins,
> > enzymes, and other components that are breathtaking in their
> > complexity and efficiency.
> >
> > How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a
> > "protein compound ... ready to undergo still more complex changes"?
> > Dawkins has to admit:
>
> So, like you, he doesn't understand it all, & admits it publicly. That's
> nice.
> As to how we get the living cell, it requires a journey so far back in
> time, you may never comprehend it. It goes back at least 4 billion years
> & required the cooling of the earth.
That is a *necessary* condition for abiogenesis. How about filling in
at least a few of the superastronomically numerous conditions which
together are *sufficient*? You don't try even to the extent that
"Grasso" tried.
> There will be some serious snippage. Either to decrease the verbosity,
> or remove material that
> A: I have no interest in.
> B Or am uneducated in.
Are you uneducated in the huge literature on what I call the "sub-basement"
of the abiogenesis "skyscraper"?
I used to be convinced of the *ease* with which abiogenesis had to
happen, as in Gould's "maybe life is as inevitable as quartz"
until I saw Nobel Laureate biochemist Christian de Duve spend
a good portion of his rhapsodic _Vital Dust_ thoroughly exploring
the sub-basement and then vault, without even telling us that he
was doing it, to the top level, where the entire protein translation
mechanism, complete with protein enzymes, was in place.
By a happy coincidence, at the same time I checked out this book,
I also checked out _Life Itself_ by another Nobel Laureate, Francis
Crick, who helped me see that we have absolutely no idea of how
common or how rare abiogenesis is. He and Orgel even noted that
we cannot be sure that there isn't only ONE place in the universe
that got as far as evolving an intealligent, technological
species like ourselves.
And here is their punch line: that incredibly lucky planet might
NOT have been earth, but another planet in our galaxy, and if so, the
abiogenesis event did NOT happen a mere 4 billion years ago, but
maybe more than twice that long ago.
Which brings me back to your "necessary" figure up there.
And now for the next step: is the term "directed panspermia"
familiar to you? You can read about it here:
F.H.C. Crick and L. E. Orgel, "Directed panspermia," *Icarus* 19
(1973) 341-346.
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf
> snip one.
Likewise.
> > Several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA
> > synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.
>
> Really? Based on your say so? How amazing. I suspect it's more of a
> question of science realising just how little it knows, & getting on with
> it.
But how far? Do you reckon they've gotten to the ground floor
of that skyscraper yet?
> > It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked, interdependent
> > and consistent of several irreducible complex subsystems. Since
> > evolution depends on it, it could not have emerged through evolution.
> > Even less through random chance or physical necessity.
My agnostic take on this: given enough universes, even abiogenesis
can happen by sheer chance. Lots of multiverse "theories"
[read: speculations] give enough; in some cases, infinitely many.
my snip two.
> NaCl. You do recognise the substance, I hope.
> Taken individually, life can not exist in the presence of the pure
> element. One is explosive around water sources, one is a toxic gas which
> is not only fatal to life, but also forms. with water. one of the most
> corrosive substances known on earth.
> OTOH, you can not survive without the presence of the final product of
> those two elements in your body.
>
> Care to explain why?
Because we are "life as we know it" and not some alien creatures
with a different body chemistry.
And you've only given one more *necessary* condition for life as we
know it.
condi
> walksalone who suspects that Thanatos will be gaining weight soon. Or
> the abyss will be a little fuller.
Does this mean you think you will die soon? I most certainly hope not.
It was sad enough to see "el cid"s obituary almost five years ago
-- and a mere month or so after I got acquainted with him. I haven't
seen his like in talk.origins since.
>
> CROSS, n. An ancient religious symbol erroneously supposed
> to owe its significance to the most solemn event in the
> history of Christianity, but really antedating it by thousands
> of years.
And crucifixion, which is the real crux [excuse the pun] of the
the Christian faith, antedated the NT event by hundreds of years.
But the real "crux of the crux" is that Christianity transformed
crucifixion from the shameful, humiliating death that it
had meant up to then, into a powerful, glorious symbol of a
necessary (but NOT sufficient) condition for Christianity to be more
than just another fertility cult.
Peter Nyikos,
who wonders why so many Protestants have nothing to
do with crucifixes but will tolerate empty crosses. [Now, an empty
TOMB, that's a horse of a different color.]