Author Topic: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier  (Read 2386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11386
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2017, 10:22:42 AM »
Why do fundies go onto skeptics' boards seeking to show proof of gods? Do these people not realize that skepticism and atheism are not the same thing? Personally I'm both but my skepticism informs my atheism, not the other way around.
If we don't discover the mistakes of the future we are doomed to repeat them for the first time. - Ken M

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 12:49:06 PM by TheIrreverend »

Offline Tassie Dave

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2017, 10:33:48 AM »
You obviously didn't have time to watch them in or out of order.

I suppose you don't need to when you have your answers to every question ready to copy and paste

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8527
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2017, 11:15:02 AM »
Yeah, I'm done engaging with someone who's only regurgitating pre-fab arguments and is clearly unwilling to actually think about or discuss the subject.  If you're willing to give up the copypasta, and to actually engage, I'm willing to discuss it.
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

Online Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 14317
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2017, 11:26:01 AM »
Watch them in order please  :)

New findings challenge assumptions about origins of life
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1428-replicator-first-and-metabolism-first-scenarios
There is currently no known chemical pathway for an "RNA world" to transform into a "DNA/protein world."

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-assumptions-life.html#jCp
But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That's a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth's age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today.

OOL theorist Leslie Orgel notes that an "RNA World" could only form the basis for life, "if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis." The RNA world is thus a hypothetical system behind which there is little positive evidence, and much materialist philosophy: "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear … investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.

Following the unresolved issues of nucleotide biogenesis :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2028-origin-of-the-dna-double-helix#3426

DNA: Destroys the theory of Evolution. Unmasking the lies

(1) Laboratory experiments show that DNA spontaneously and progressively disintegrates over time. Estimates indicate that DNA should completely break down within 10,000 years. Any fossil DNA remaining after this period (especially more than say 100,000 years) must of necessity indicate that the method of dating the fossil is in error. Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991 p:381

(2) The classic evolutionary problem of 'which came first, protein or DNA' has not been solved by the 'self-reproducing' RNA theory as many textbooks imply. The theory is not credible as it was based on laboratory simulations which were highly artificial, and were carried out with a 'great deal of help from the scientists'. Scientific American, February, 1991 p:100-109

(3) DNA can only be replicated in the presence of  specific enzymes which can only be manufactured by the already existing DNA. Each is absolutely essential for the other, and both must be present for the DNA to multiply. Therefore, DNA has to have been in existence in the beginning for life to be controlled by DNA. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:93-94

(4) There is no natural chemical tendency for the series of base chemicals in the DNA molecule to line up a series of R-groups in the orderly way required for life to begin. Therefore being contrary to natural chemical laws, the base-R group relationship and the structure of DNA could not have formed by random chemical action. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:94

(5) "The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress." Written by biochemist Dr Leslie Orgel (Salk Institute, California) in the article "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life" in New Scientist, April 15, 1982 p:151

(6) Computer scientists have demonstrated that information does not, and cannot arise spontaneously. Information only results from the input of energy, under the all-important direction of intelligence. Therefore, as DNA is information, it cannot have been formed by natural chemical means. P. Moorhead & M. Kaplan (eds.), "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution", Wistar Institute: Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), 1967

(7) The transformation of one species into another by viruses transferring small sections of the DNA of another species could not cause evolution for three reasons:- (1) if genes for a particular feature or action were transmitted as a small piece of DNA, the animal would not be able to utilize the code unless it had all the other structures present to support that feature, (2) there is no guarantee that without the rest of the supporting DNA code, that the feature would appear in the right place, and (3) the information transmitted would already be in existence and would not lead to the formation of a species with totally new features. Reader's Digest, March 1980

(8  "A scientist who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the DNA technique that inspired (the film) Jurassic Park was asked how likely it was that in the future, a dinosaur could be re-created from ancient DNA trapped in amber, as in the movie. Dr Kary Mullis replied in essence that it would be more realistic to start working on a time machine to go back and catch one." From Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16, No. 2, March 1994, p:8, summarizing The Salt Lake Tribune, December 5, 1993

THE RNA WORLD,  AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life

Paul Davies The Algorithmic Origins of Life
Despite the conceptual elegance of the RNA world, the hypothesis faces problems, primarily due to the immense challenge of synthesizing RNA nucleotides under plausible prebiotic conditions and the susceptibility of RNA oligomers to degradation via hydrolysis 21 Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it.

We need to explain the origin of both the hardware and software aspects of life, or the job is only half finished. Explaining the chemical substrate of life and claiming it as a solution to life’s origin is like pointing to silicon and copper as an explanation for the goings-on inside a computer. It is this transition where one should expect to see a chemical system literally take-on “a life of its own”, characterized by informational dynamics which become decoupled from the dictates of local chemistry alone (while of course remaining fully consistent with those dictates). Thus the famed chicken-or-egg problem (a solely hardware issue) is not the true sticking point. Rather, the puzzle lies with something fundamentally different, a problem of causal organization having to do with the separation of informational and mechanical aspects into parallel causal narratives. The real challenge of life’s origin is thus to explain how instructional information control systems emerge naturally and spontaneously from mere molecular dynamics.

Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and  interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa.

I started playing those videos immediately after posting them.  There is no physical way for you to have written that post AND actually watched / listened to them in the time allotted.  You have now proven to me that you are not arguing in good faith, as you are only pretending to read / listen to those you are responding to.  Consider this my sign off from this thread because I refuse to be complicit in a false discussion.
(click to show/hide)

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2017, 11:36:21 AM »
Watch them in order please  :)

New findings challenge assumptions about origins of life
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1428-replicator-first-and-metabolism-first-scenarios
There is currently no known chemical pathway for an "RNA world" to transform into a "DNA/protein world."

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-assumptions-life.html#jCp
But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That's a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth's age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today.

OOL theorist Leslie Orgel notes that an "RNA World" could only form the basis for life, "if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis." The RNA world is thus a hypothetical system behind which there is little positive evidence, and much materialist philosophy: "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear … investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.

Following the unresolved issues of nucleotide biogenesis :

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2028-origin-of-the-dna-double-helix#3426

DNA: Destroys the theory of Evolution. Unmasking the lies

(1) Laboratory experiments show that DNA spontaneously and progressively disintegrates over time. Estimates indicate that DNA should completely break down within 10,000 years. Any fossil DNA remaining after this period (especially more than say 100,000 years) must of necessity indicate that the method of dating the fossil is in error. Nature, Vol. 352, August 1, 1991 p:381

(2) The classic evolutionary problem of 'which came first, protein or DNA' has not been solved by the 'self-reproducing' RNA theory as many textbooks imply. The theory is not credible as it was based on laboratory simulations which were highly artificial, and were carried out with a 'great deal of help from the scientists'. Scientific American, February, 1991 p:100-109

(3) DNA can only be replicated in the presence of  specific enzymes which can only be manufactured by the already existing DNA. Each is absolutely essential for the other, and both must be present for the DNA to multiply. Therefore, DNA has to have been in existence in the beginning for life to be controlled by DNA. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:93-94

(4) There is no natural chemical tendency for the series of base chemicals in the DNA molecule to line up a series of R-groups in the orderly way required for life to begin. Therefore being contrary to natural chemical laws, the base-R group relationship and the structure of DNA could not have formed by random chemical action. Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1983 p:94

(5) "The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress." Written by biochemist Dr Leslie Orgel (Salk Institute, California) in the article "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life" in New Scientist, April 15, 1982 p:151

(6) Computer scientists have demonstrated that information does not, and cannot arise spontaneously. Information only results from the input of energy, under the all-important direction of intelligence. Therefore, as DNA is information, it cannot have been formed by natural chemical means. P. Moorhead & M. Kaplan (eds.), "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution", Wistar Institute: Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), 1967

(7) The transformation of one species into another by viruses transferring small sections of the DNA of another species could not cause evolution for three reasons:- (1) if genes for a particular feature or action were transmitted as a small piece of DNA, the animal would not be able to utilize the code unless it had all the other structures present to support that feature, (2) there is no guarantee that without the rest of the supporting DNA code, that the feature would appear in the right place, and (3) the information transmitted would already be in existence and would not lead to the formation of a species with totally new features. Reader's Digest, March 1980

(8  "A scientist who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the DNA technique that inspired (the film) Jurassic Park was asked how likely it was that in the future, a dinosaur could be re-created from ancient DNA trapped in amber, as in the movie. Dr Kary Mullis replied in essence that it would be more realistic to start working on a time machine to go back and catch one." From Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 16, No. 2, March 1994, p:8, summarizing The Salt Lake Tribune, December 5, 1993

THE RNA WORLD,  AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life

Paul Davies The Algorithmic Origins of Life
Despite the conceptual elegance of the RNA world, the hypothesis faces problems, primarily due to the immense challenge of synthesizing RNA nucleotides under plausible prebiotic conditions and the susceptibility of RNA oligomers to degradation via hydrolysis 21 Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it.

We need to explain the origin of both the hardware and software aspects of life, or the job is only half finished. Explaining the chemical substrate of life and claiming it as a solution to life’s origin is like pointing to silicon and copper as an explanation for the goings-on inside a computer. It is this transition where one should expect to see a chemical system literally take-on “a life of its own”, characterized by informational dynamics which become decoupled from the dictates of local chemistry alone (while of course remaining fully consistent with those dictates). Thus the famed chicken-or-egg problem (a solely hardware issue) is not the true sticking point. Rather, the puzzle lies with something fundamentally different, a problem of causal organization having to do with the separation of informational and mechanical aspects into parallel causal narratives. The real challenge of life’s origin is thus to explain how instructional information control systems emerge naturally and spontaneously from mere molecular dynamics.

Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and  interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa.

I started playing those videos immediately after posting them.  There is no physical way for you to have written that post AND actually watched / listened to them in the time allotted.  You have now proven to me that you are not arguing in good faith, as you are only pretending to read / listen to those you are responding to.  Consider this my sign off from this thread because I refuse to be complicit in a false discussion.

Your videos have been refuted a looooong way ago. No need to watch pseudo scientific just so fantasy assertions . If you like to be guillible and swallow anything , as long as the result is " no god needed ", fine with me. I think a littlebit more critically.

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2017, 11:37:11 AM »
Yeah, I'm done engaging with someone who's only regurgitating pre-fab arguments and is clearly unwilling to actually think about or discuss the subject.  If you're willing to give up the copypasta, and to actually engage, I'm willing to discuss it.

well, just refute my copy pasta....

Offline Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • I know you know I know
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2017, 12:16:21 PM »
We don't have time to refute every single thing.  How about we pick one.  It seems that a lot of what you've been posting boils down to the belief that DNA replication is irreducibly complex.  I think that you are granting that there was a simple form of reproduction before DNA, but that it couldn't have turned into DNA replication without intelligent help.  Is that right, and can we stick to that for now?

Online Noisy Rhysling

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
    • Hyperwar, WWII in Hypertext.
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2017, 12:27:39 PM »

Offline Challengeatheism

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2017, 12:32:31 PM »
We don't have time to refute every single thing.  How about we pick one.  It seems that a lot of what you've been posting boils down to the belief that DNA replication is irreducibly complex.  I think that you are granting that there was a simple form of reproduction before DNA, but that it couldn't have turned into DNA replication without intelligent help.  Is that right, and can we stick to that for now?

We can.

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 10613
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2017, 12:55:02 PM »

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 ?

Of course I know that, but you seem to be saying that evolution requires signaling, and I'm challenging that assertion.

If you're saying evolution CAN'T develop signalling over time, then I would say you're wrong.   Take two cells.  One that, through genetic mutation, has the ability for part B to detect when part A is doing something vs one that doesn't have that ability.

If that gives a selective reproductive pressure, then it will be advantaged.  You may as well argue that the eye couldn't have evolved.

#notarealskeptic

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11386
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2017, 01:06:06 PM »
Yeah, I'm done engaging with someone who's only regurgitating pre-fab arguments and is clearly unwilling to actually think about or discuss the subject.  If you're willing to give up the copypasta, and to actually engage, I'm willing to discuss it.

well, just refute my copy pasta....
"Hi, I am too intellectually lazy to engage with you but I would appreciate if you would engage with me."
If we don't discover the mistakes of the future we are doomed to repeat them for the first time. - Ken M

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2017, 01:41:51 PM »
(click to show/hide)

You did not write that and I suspect that you don't really even understand what you posted. In addition, your post did not address what I wrote.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline daniel1948

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3659
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2017, 01:42:03 PM »
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.

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.
[...snip...]

There is absolutely no evidence for the above statement (your long post notwithstanding) and very good reason to think that the first self-replicating molecules were much simpler than DNA. It's quite possible that the first step towards cellular life was thin films of non-cellular molecules that self-replicated on a clay substrate. Cell walls likely appeared after such self-replicating films had been around for quite a while.

Consider crystals: They are not "alive" by any definition I am aware of, but they grow spontaneously and uniformly out of a molecular "soup." They reproduce without any "code" merely because of the chemistry of the atoms. Many organic compounds have natural origins. The chemistry of such compounds, under suitable conditions, will cause them to combine according to the principles of chemistry.

It is utterly fallacious to assert that a compound cannot become self-replicating without DNA and the complex pathways of modern life.

Your whole argument comes down to "It cannot possibly have happened because I can't think of a way it could." This is the argument from incredulity, and is a very common logical fallacy.

BTW, it's also the base of many UFO and conspiracy claims. "Thus and such could never have happened unless..." They cannot think of an alternative explanaiton, so they assert there cannot be one. That's exactly what you are doing.

We're never going to convince you about evolution, and most of us are not here to convince you. But you are on a fool's errand if you think you can convince scientific skeptics that evolution cannot have happened, just because you think it's too unlikely, or too complex.
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

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Wanna Build a Cell? A DVD Player Might Be Easier
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2017, 01:43:48 PM »
Watch them in order please  :)

(click to show/hide)

Thank you for posting the vidoes
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

 

personate-rain
personate-rain