|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
I'm debunking the idea that you introduced, that of DNA as a blueprint. So get on with it. So far you have only made assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
"Ringo" writes: Ed67 writes:The 'code' is the SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENT of bases along the DNA molecule. Every molecule has a specific arrangement. (1) There is nothing about the DNA molecule that is unique in that regard; (2) THE CHEMISTRY OF DNA ISN'T FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CHEMISTRY OF WATER. It does what it has to do. It could be said that (3) life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry. Hmm... that was a very richly packed reply. I take exception to each of your 3 points above. So I'd like us to unpack these remarks together and look at them separately(pardon the pun).(1) "Ringo" writes: There is nothing about the DNA molecule that is unique in its specific arrangement. I'd like you to cite your source on this point, please, unless it's your opinion. (2)"Ringo" writes: The Chemistry of DNA isn't fundamentally different from the chemistry of water. I'd like to see your source on this one, too. This doesn't sound like any water I've seen:
But what, exactly, is DNA? In short, DNA is a complex molecule that consists of many components, a portion of which are passed from parent organisms to their offspring during the process of reproduction. http://www.nature.com/...ure-that-encodes-biological-6493050 (3)"Ringo" writes: Life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry. What makes you think that? That's what Francis Crick hypothesized and disproved in the fifties, isn't it? Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
subbie writes: Ed67 writes:
quote: I am not introducing a new concept. I'm debunking the idea that you introduced, that of DNA as a blueprint. Ok, call it what you will. Just get on with it. By all means, debunk my idea of DNA as a 'blueprint'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
RAZD writes: So recipe is a better analogy than code or blueprint. Ok, this is your own word so all your gang can agree with it lol. So, do recipes include cooking instructions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
xongsmith writes: KillebrewFan writes:A blueprint specifies every single dimension and every single detail of a building, from height to floor spacing to wiring and plumbing. DNA doesn't actually specify very much at all. That's not how it functions. It in fact does NOT proscribe every single detail of what an organism is going to look like and does not contain detailed instructions about how to create an organism. Hmmm. They say that most of DNA is junk. What if those dead zones controlled which cell was which as the zygote grew, then shut themselves off so as appear dead & junk today. Your point in saying that DNA "does not contain detailed instructions about how to create an organism" is interesting. You are correct.I recant if I have said that. What I mean is that DNA contains detailed instructions on how to REPLICATE, or 're-create' an organism. These instructions must have originally come from some cause; they could have come from an intelligent source, as intelligence is known to be sufficient cause for the kind of instructions contained in the 'recipe' of DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Pressie writes: Ed67 writes:...or 're-create' an organism. Or salt crystals. Pressie writes: DNA is chemistry... And you show an appalling ignorance of the chemistry of DNA. If you can't bring your high school knowledge of DNA to bear on the subject, I suggest you go back and finish high school before you come to the 'big boys' discussion. Again, does anyone have anything INTELLIGENT to say about the origin of the DNA molecule?I'll give you all a hint: it has to do with complex, specified information. Or you can call it a RECIPE if you want. Just bring your grey matter to bear on the subject PLEASE!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
frako writes: I'm debunking the idea that you introduced, that of DNA as a blueprint. 'So get on with it. So far you have only made assertions.'(ed67)A blueprint = a design plan or other technical drawing. DNa is definitively not that At best it would be an a punch-card-automaton, that produces proteins. So get on with the debunking. So far you have simply maintained your assertions...Unless, of course, you're only stating your preference in metaphors? If so, that explains the lack of reasoned argument. OPINIONS don't need evidence. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
subbie writes: Ed67 writes:By all means, debunk my idea of DNA as a 'blueprint'. Others here are doing a marvelous job already, and you are ignoring their points. I have no reason to believe I'd be any more successful than they would. You are a troll. Oooo, I hit a soft spot. I didn't think you had anything intelligent to say about my argument for design...this just proves it. Any more 'debunkings'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
frako writes: A blueprint would mean that it is a design plan... Now we're getting warmer... yes, the arrangement of nucleotides on DNA/RNA molecules IS a design plan for the organism. It is a 'recipe' written in base-4 digital code (because of the 4 possible bases in each position, as opposed to binary, which has only 2). Like any recipe, this one had to have an intelligent source, as it was 'written' some time BEFORE life started. Evolution could not have an effect until life began as a whole phenomenon.Oh, and a the 'blueprint' is a different kind; not one to be read by humans, so it doesn't require paper. Sure it is a verry complex molecule you could even call it a nano-bot (ie molecular machine). but thats it...Its the same for DNA all chemical reactions just a bit more complicated.
That's exactly true. You are getting to the point. Now the next question:How did the DNA/RNA NANOBOT come to be 'constructed' so that it could CONTAIN, TRANSMIT AND INTERPRET the instructions to make functional proteins necessary for an organism to live? Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: "If you can't bring your high school knowledge of DNA to bear on the subject, I suggest you go back and finish high school before you come to the 'big boys' discussion." -ed67Again, does anyone have anything INTELLIGENT to say about the origin of the DNA molecule? I'll give you all a hint: it has to do with complex, specified information. Seriously, have you even taken a General Chemistry course? The absurdity of ridiculing someone's discussion of science by posting something even more infantile and unscientific is beyond belief. By all means, go ahead and school me in the Chemistry of DNA, if you can. So far you're just huffing and puffing. Still waiting for an INTELLIGENT, reasoned response to my main argument for design; the existence of a RECIPE embedded in DNA/RNA that requires a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
CS writes: Its just chemistry. It doesn't look very alive to me...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes:
What I said was, "It could be said that life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry." Message 160 This is a science-oriented forum and we appreciate rigor, especially when it comes to quotes. Sorry for the missing ellipsis. It doesn't change the meaning of the quote.
ringo writes: Ed67 writes: What makes you think that? That's what Francis Crick hypothesized and disproved in the fifties, isn't it? I'm not awae that he disproved any such thing. Please explain. Ok, thanks for asking. Are you aware of the basic course of research that Crick engaged in after finalizing the initial discovery of the double helix?I have to go hunting for my sources on it, so I'll be a while. I don't want to just go spouting off on my own (nonexistent) authority, but I thought this finding of crick's was quite common knowledge for anyone interested in the history of science. If so, it won't take me long to find a source... bear with me please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes: I'm not awae that he disproved any such thing. Please explain. Well, here's the mention of the kind of research he was engaged in:
quote:About Dr Francis Crick | Crick I'll update this post as I find more information...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
frako writes:
Let me get this straight: Yea we know evolution coulden't have an effect before life started. And this recepie did not need an intelligent source all it needed was a simple replicating molecule or should we call that molecule alive.You claim that life didn't need an intelligent source to explain its existence. 'all it needs', you seem to be saying, 'is a PRE-EXISTING simple form of LIFE' to evolve from. Darwinian logic at its best. On top of that, you claim IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE that evolution can have nothing to do with the origin of life! What a disingenuous load of hogwash! That's not even a bad argument, that's an embarrassment. Shows to what lengths Darwinian propagandists are willing to go...
frako writes:
Darwinian wishful thinking (based on faith) at its best 3 billion years later woalla human beings working it all out. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
More on the topic of their research:
quote:Francis Crick - Wikipedia They had the common sense to call a spade a spade, and a code a code. ...still looking for more details... Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024