Author Topic: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier  (Read 2941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Noisy Rhysling

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
    • Hyperwar, WWII in Hypertext.
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2017, 06:37:32 AM »
You can make calls on a cell, not a tablet. Therein lies the crucial difference.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9333
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2017, 07:50:53 AM »
I thought this was about making phones :-(

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Banned
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2017, 08:20:52 AM »

Simple question to the OP: How do you think a believer in evolution thinks that communication as we now know it evolved?


it did not evolve. It was setup by a intelligent agency.

Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Banned
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2017, 08:21:49 AM »
I'll bite.  Why must the first self-replicating molecule have contained a plan to build something?  As far as I'm aware, all that is required for evolution to begin is something that can replicate with some rate of imperfection sufficient to create new variations.  From there, selective pressures are sufficient to promote those variations which confer a reproductive advantage.  There need be no plan, no intent, no communication.  Just replication.

All of your other assumptions about language, encoding, communication, etc., are all predicated upon this basic assumption of a plan or intent in the first molecule, so I'll leave them aside for now.

DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology  that defies naturalistic explanations

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 12:46:44 PM by TheIrreverend »

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Banned
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2017, 08:22:49 AM »
I can answer parts on how a cell evolved. . . .It didn't evolve all at once and there are intervening steps that are gone so we will never no how they exactly happened.

My problem though is how is a high school biology teacher going to be able to answer this when blindsided by it. In addition, it will be even more compelling to your average person who comes across it.

How do we deal with the question in such situations.

Another thought though is if there was a creator who created the cell fully formed, would that creator have to have been more complex. Where did that creator then come from?

Abiogenesis is impossible

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 12:47:08 PM by TheIrreverend »

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 10659
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2017, 09:07:20 AM »

Simple question to the OP: How do you think a believer in evolution thinks that communication as we now know it evolved?


it did not evolve. It was setup by a intelligent agency.

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence - Christopher Hitchens

Quote
Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.

Most?  Not all? and what does signaling have to do with evolution?  You do realize there's no 'signaling' at all happening in evolution, right?

#notarealskeptic

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8671
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2017, 09:15:49 AM »
I'll bite.  Why must the first self-replicating molecule have contained a plan to build something?  As far as I'm aware, all that is required for evolution to begin is something that can replicate with some rate of imperfection sufficient to create new variations.  From there, selective pressures are sufficient to promote those variations which confer a reproductive advantage.  There need be no plan, no intent, no communication.  Just replication.

All of your other assumptions about language, encoding, communication, etc., are all predicated upon this basic assumption of a plan or intent in the first molecule, so I'll leave them aside for now.

DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology  that defies naturalistic explanations

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes


The Argument of the Original Replicator
In prokaryotic cells, DNA replication involves more than thirty specialized proteins to perform tasks necessary for building and accurately copying the genetic molecule.
Each of these proteins is essential and required for the proper replicating process. Not a single one of these proteins can be missing, otherwise the whole process breaks down, and is unable to perform its task correctly. DNA repair mechanisms must also be in place,  fully functional and working properly, otherwise the mutation rate will be too high, and the cell dies. 18
The individual parts and proteins require by themselves complex assembly proteins to be built.
The individual parts, assembly proteins, and proteins individually would have no function by their own. They have only function interconnected in the working whole.
The individual parts must be readily available on the construction site of the rna replication complex, being correctly interlocked, interlinked, and have the right interface compatibility to be able to interact correctly together. All this requires information and meta information ( information that directs the expression of the genomic information for construction of the individual proteins, and correct timing of expression, and as well the information of the correct assembly sequence. )
Evolution is not a capable driving force to make the dna replicating complex, because evolution depends on cell replication through the very own mechanism we try to explain. It takes proteins to make DNA replication happen. But it takes the DNA replication process to make proteins. That’s a catch 22 situation.
DNA replication requires coded, complex, specified information and meta-information, and the DNA replication process is irreducibly complex.
Therefore, DNA replication is best explained through design.

Who said that DNA was the first self-replicating molecule? It seems highly unlikely to have been the case.  RNA is a more likely candidate, but by no means certain.  It seems to me as plausible that RNA was evolved from a simpler replicant.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 09:35:00 AM by The Latinist »
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline daniel1948

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3951
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2017, 09:28:43 AM »
Without having read the link in C-A's OP, or any of his other posts, I will agree that building a cell is harder than building a DVD. How long did it take for the first life to evolve? It took about a half a billion years from the time the Earth settled down from its formation, until the appearance of the first cell. How long did it take to build the first DVD recorder/player, from conception to completion? A decade? I'll bet it was much less.

We still cannot manufacture a cell. It took evolution a half a billion years. We can mess around with genes, but we cannot yet make a cell. We turn out DVDs by the gazillions.

Give the guy his due: It takes a long time for evolution to do its thing. DVDs are easy.

Of course, "intelligent design" is the wrong paradigm for belief in a Creator. Only a complete idiot would design the urethra to go through the middle of the prostate so that when you get old, the prostate squeezes off the urethra and you die of kidney failure. (Or you get an excruciatingly painful operation.) If we were "designed," the designer was a moron. It was not "intelligent" design, it was Idiotic Design. I suppose there could be a god that stupid. But I doubt it. The prostate is proof that we were not designed by an intelligent creator. An idiot, perhaps, but not a god with any intelligence.

ID = Idiotic Design.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Tassie Dave

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2017, 09:31:50 AM »

Simple question to the OP: How do you think a believer in evolution thinks that communication as we now know it evolved?


it did not evolve. It was setup by a intelligent agency.

You didn't read the question or chose to ignore it.  ::) I was just after an idea of what your idea of our thought processes was. You wouldn't have had to agree with me to do that.










Offline Challengeatheism

  • Banned
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2017, 09:44:11 AM »

Simple question to the OP: How do you think a believer in evolution thinks that communication as we now know it evolved?


it did not evolve. It was setup by a intelligent agency.

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence - Christopher Hitchens

Quote
Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless.  Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!”   The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind.  The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them.  Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design.

Most?  Not all? and what does signaling have to do with evolution?  You do realize there's no 'signaling' at all happening in evolution, right?

many cellular processes are based on signal transduction pathways. You dont know that ?

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Banned
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2017, 09:46:32 AM »
Without having read the link in C-A's OP, or any of his other posts, I will agree that building a cell is harder than building a DVD. How long did it take for the first life to evolve?

there was no evolution prior to dna replication.

Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication :

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatorial events ( luck,chance), or

physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are  forced into taking a certain course of action. )  Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules. ( Protocells Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter, page 43 ) The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that  chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.
 
DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

 If design, or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.

Quote
It took about a half a billion years from the time the Earth settled down from its formation, until the appearance of the first cell.

Time makes everything becoming possible. Really ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2025-time-makes-everything-becoming-possible-really
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 12:48:00 PM by TheIrreverend »

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Banned
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2017, 09:47:58 AM »
Who said that DNA was the first self-replicating molecule? It seems highly unlikely to have been the case.  RNA is a more likely candidate, but by no means certain.  It seems to me as plausible that RNA was evolved from a simpler replicant.

No evidence that RNA molecules ever had the broad range of catalytic activities

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2243-no-evidence-that-rna-molecules-ever-had-the-broad-range-of-catalytic-activities
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 12:48:15 PM by TheIrreverend »

Online superdave

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4556
  • My name is not dave.
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2017, 09:52:11 AM »
You are tremendously underestimating how much abiogenesis we currently understand however, if we don't fully understand how something works, that isn't proof that a deity did it.

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Banned
  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2017, 10:05:41 AM »
You are tremendously underestimating how much abiogenesis we currently understand however, if we don't fully understand how something works, that isn't proof that a deity did it.

A short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45.

Paul Davies once said;
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …… there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.

Dembsky : We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence.  the design inference  does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge.  It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and  based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.  The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a  leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could  also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism.  Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive  arrangement. Since that would become a highly  unlikely event, design is a better explanation. This situation becomes even more acentuated when natural selection is not a possible constrainer, since evolution depends on replication, which did not exist prior dna replication

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 14661
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2017, 10:17:58 AM »
Watch them in order please  :)




 

personate-rain