Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 151 of 292 (229879)
08-04-2005 7:08 PM


Warning
Just a quick warning to everyone on this thread. Do not let others draw you into their attitude problems.
Maintain your cool and let others take the suspensions.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 292 (229897)
08-04-2005 8:28 PM


a recap
Great warning, Asgara, thanks. Now that we have all calmed down and can continue our discussion without personal attacks and insults, let us proceed.
It appears that some people try to argue that life could not have arisen by naturalistic means because it has properties ("information", irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and so forth) that could only have come from some intelligence. However, the argument is not valid, and, in fact, is just gibberish unless the arguer does the following:
1) Provide a rigorous, measurable, scientific definition of the property in question. This is so that everyone can understand what it is that we are talking about, and to prevent the fallacy of equivocation (as in the use of the scientific term information, which is the same word used in colloquial speech to refer to a transfer of knowledge between two sentient beings).
2) A demonstration that life or a biochemical system or DNA or whatever actually has this property.
3) A demonstration that this property cannot have arisen by purely naturalistic means.
There may be other necessary conditions, too, but those should become apparent as the discussion proceeds. This seems to me to be enough to get the ball rolling again.

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 11:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 153 of 292 (229968)
08-04-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Chiroptera
08-04-2005 8:28 PM


Re: a recap
Proceeding with the discussion without verbal abuse would be nice.
I at the posters request set up a hypothesis, corollaries, a predictive element and a falsification statement. Since I was aked to do that many times it would seem fair to get an answer or two back with out just being dismissed out of hand.
I further wrote and referenced an evolutionists book in which the description of DNA replication included in depth definition of the "information" content of the DNA molecule in terms of the amount of information in the Webster's New World Dictionary and continued throughout to refer to the genetic code, messages, reading m-rna, coding, etc. making no reference or comparison to other than a semantically understood "alphabet" conveying information to ribosomes and the ribosome reading the codons three at a time starting and stopping when instructed to by additional instructions. I included the ISBN, Title , author and by inclusion his roughly one hundred acknowledgements of his editorial and content advisory team of scientists as well as the extensive references to papers and other works.
This description of the DNA replication process is far from unique in that one book but also Origins by Robert Shapiro, encyclopedic entries and The text Biology and ITs Applications with similar editors and references.
I am sure these people who are evolutionists do not purposefully use ambigious and confusing terms or outright lies.
The accuracy of the replication of the DNA molecule and the storage /unit volume calculations in the former are persuasive of a very accurate code and a highly efficient copying system.
I have done what was asked I believe with the thought that at least critical thinking and logical objections in good conscience could be offered.
I guess time will tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2005 8:28 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 154 of 292 (229991)
08-05-2005 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 10:59 AM


Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
My hypothesis and et al clearly is that life and thus evolution are impossible under any scenario except the hybridization of intelligence onto non-living matter to establish the operations of life as we see them without dispute.
I see. In that case it would probably be wise to define and clarify 'hybridization of intelligence onto non-living matter'.
There then is no need for the intervention of some imagined supernational outside designer, indeed no need at all.
And this is what I was talking about. Even if it were shown that a supernatural outside designer were not needed, that doesn't mean one wasn't involved.
I see Yaro attempted to convince you that abiogenesis and evolution are seperate and you're response was, to paraphrase "so why have scientists been working on it then?". It is assumed in science, that all things have a natural explanation that can be discovered through the methodology. That means that since life has only been around for a finite amount of time so it must have started, and this start must be natural.
If it is shown that abiogenesis is not naturally possible then ontological naturalism is falsified and that means science is in big trouble...it means that no theory is as secure as it once was because now some non-natural phenomena could be accounting for it. This includes ToE.
ToE is not falsified by the falsification of abiogenesis, if God, Aliens, or a Time Traveller created the first life forms, that does not mean that all extant species are the result of descent with modification from these first life forms.
What would be falsified would the hypothesis that life has natural origins. ToE does not require life to have natural origins. If you can demonstrate to me that I am wrong I will concede this point
This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 05-August-2005 06:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 10:59 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 10:49 AM Modulous has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 155 of 292 (230002)
08-05-2005 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 6:15 PM


Re: Fifteen Minutes of Review is Adequate
I never said anything that was a suggestive of putting amino acids as substitues for DNA base pairs or such.
Oh no? How about Post 96 where you said...
quote:
Or you could just just substitute dextro forms of amino acids into the dna strands
How was that not suggestive of putting amino acids into DNA strands?
examples of such that do not make exclusive use of either L forms of the four amino acids of the code or D form of same or other necessary molecules such as sugars.
My God!!! You just did it again!!! Exactly which four amino acids are you talking about and what code are they involved in?And in exactly what way are sugars unnecessary?. *ABE* sorry I misread your comment about sugars.
In any one type of molecule be it an amino acid, an enzyme, a sugar etc the specificity of their purpose and function almost without exception dictate only one optically active form.
Abosolute rubbish, there are plenty of non-chiral molecules. Lets start off with the most fundamental one Glycine. Glycine is an amino acid whose R side chain consists only of 1 hydrogen atom and which is not optically active. *ABE* There are also molecules which have different biologically active properties depending on which enantiomer is produced such as Carvone, Asparagine or Limonene.
And if one tries to interject the use of another form in such it will not work whether making a protein, reading mrna or whatever.
Could you please, please, pretty please try and make an effort to actually substantiate some of your many assertions? I'm sure there is quite a bit of evidence to lend at least some weight to this claim, but it might help if we had any impression that you had any familiarity with it at all.
As to the accuracy of the copying of the dna molecule and the genetic code which afterall is the method used both to make the enzymes of replication and the enzymes that build those enzymes.
Oh Dear, I think you may be mixing up bits of your high school biology? Strictly the copying of DNA in terms of replication/synthesis is a completely different mechanism than that of producing anything for enzymes. One inolved DNA synthesis to make a second double helix and the other involves the transcription of mRNA.
The complete replication of the dna by its own information and the cooperative machinery it codes for takes about seven hours to complete some 6,000,000,000 base pairs as to being divided, recognized, transported, read, duplicated, stitched, inspected, repaired and made finally into a new molecule which on average contains a few dozen errors in type or sequence.
Thats funny since E. coli have a generation time of 15-20 minutes. Perhaps you should specify what organism you are thinking of, I presume it is humans.
Well lets say back to the books kiddies.
How about back to my post #121 and you could maybe address my points for a change.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-05-2005 05:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 6:15 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 12:49 PM Wounded King has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 156 of 292 (230110)
08-05-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Modulous
08-05-2005 1:28 AM


Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
An inaccurate paraphrase .. wrong premise.
I said that the only consensus premise proposed from Darwin forward was the naturalistic origon of life from non-living matter. That all reputable scientific investigation for abiogenesis has been carried out by evolutionary scientists of good reputation over roughtly a hundred years. That no scientist of that persuasion ever proposes a supernatural element in their origin of life investigative work.
So every textbook in biology, chemistry and essentially all natural sciences contain extensive chapters on abiogenesis, the many contributors, thier results, remaining issues to be resolved; this as well as all NAS literature, pronouncements, et al and all other government funded scientific research groups in the related fields from NASA to Sandia.
Further such printed materials whether pop science or textbook will organize the material in the chronilogical sequence of evolutionary events beginning with such as how the universe or the solar system was formed, how the precursors of life wwere formed , how the simplist form of life was probably this or that and how it began to evolve upward in complexity by mutation and natural selection.
I have never seen in such material a statement such as "this abiogenesis material is not part of the evolutionary theory or presentation.. its an unrelated peripheral issue. Or instructors may ignore chapters 2 and 3 on the origin of life as they are not essential to the scientific understanding of evolution.
Now if one should dicover that say chemical predestination were demonstrable in a universally agree valid experimental procedure under curcumstances universally agreed upon as naturalistic as regards say to a viable first replicator clearly a precursor to say dna......would the evolutionary community say ... so what.. a peripheral event to evolutionary theory.....we are not interested.. that result has no bearing on anyof our research activities.
In good conscience I think not it would be trumpeted around the world as the death of God as was the case with several false starts and overblown results of "life in a test tube" etc.
Now again my hypothesis is a defined proposal that there is no life ever without the information or logos or teleonomy expressed in the DNA molecule , the genetic code, the molecules of life that work systematically together to make life viable. That the logos, information cannot arise by naturalistic means not ever in the functional DNA molecule by any naturalistic matter only event or series of events.
That the examination of life from a purely naturalistic perspective or schema is deficient in that the tools, methods, thought processes, plans and activities as well as the human talent brought to bear will not include the equally and perhaps more important perspective, resources, talents, tools and procedures from the disciplines of information technology, information theory, electrical science such as design of coding systems, networks, programs and the identification, isolation and debugging and repair of malfunction within such.
I understand that you have personal disagreement with the concept of biology havin such logos regardless of how it got there .. although I continually am lectured on the reationality of Genetic Algorithms simulating biological /life activites as logos driven discliplines.
As to the term hybridization of information or logos onto matter.. I intend to describe those activities which happen every day in the filed of science where the mental concepts, ideas, training, education and experience of the scientist which are precisely cognitive thought arising in their consciousness are by the scientist via the brain and central nervous system made manafest through writings, keyboarding, lab work, etc. and result in taking molecules of materials and manmade equipment and by techniques inform those materials and devices to behave to operate to perform functions thaat they would never be able to do without our logos inspired diretions and actions. We hybridize our logos onto matter and accomplish our planned results for the matter which it could never accomplish otherwise.
Example: The windows operating system would never arise on media such as CD's or computer hard drives in any usuable meaningful form.. this we can agree on. But via people like Bill Gates and others their intricate logos or knowledge can be stored in an elegant micromedia format of binary codes and made to perform ..well just about any virtual activity imaginable.. which can be by convention understood and made operative by a three year old child.
Now do the various compoonents of the PC have ears, tongues, nerves consciousness etc. Of course not, but the components very effectively understand the binary bits , the code , the information , the instructions that have been taken from human intelligence to a stored version on magnetic media and carry out precisely and reliability the instructions and operations resulting in practical useful understandable actionable outcomes.
Intellect has been hybridized onto matter to accomplish tasks that the matter could not possibly ever accomplish on it own by naturalistic processes.
Now if I find in life processes a real code residing on but in chemistry and matter and directing other matter to perform real work, real tasks of such complexity as to far exceed any analagous functionality humanity can demonstrate and I know that scientists do precisely acomplish the same starting with their intelligence and "hybridizing it onto matter" and that such activities cannot be in any way shown to develop those abilities alone and naturally and innately then it would seem very logical to conclude that an outside source of intelligence had at the beginning designed that system and "hybridized" it onto the matter. Since that is what a scientist does every day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 08-05-2005 1:28 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by robinrohan, posted 08-05-2005 11:27 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 165 by Modulous, posted 08-05-2005 4:55 PM Evopeach has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 292 (230137)
08-05-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 10:49 AM


computers and DNA
Now if I find in life processes a real code residing on but in chemistry and matter and directing other matter to perform real work, real tasks of such complexity as to far exceed any analagous functionality humanity can demonstrate and I know that scientists do precisely acomplish the same starting with their intelligence and "hybridizing it onto matter" and that such activities cannot be in any way shown to develop those abilities alone and naturally and innately then it would seem very logical to conclude that an outside source of intelligence had at the beginning designed that system and "hybridized" it onto the matter. Since that is what a scientist does every day.
You seem to be saying in a rather overblown prose style that the DNA code is like a set of instructions in a computer. And since an intelligence made the set of instructions, then an intelligence had to make the set of instructions in the genetic code. I thought the "information" transmitted by the genetic code was just a bunch of complicated, automatic chemical events. Like if you mix yellow and blue paint together you get green paint. Is that the "hybridization of logos on matter"?
"The hybridization of logos on matter" seems a rather odd way of putting it. I use my logos to understand the game of baseball, and I hybridize my logos onto matter by throwing the ball in a particular direction that I have predetermined with a baseball algorhythm.
Or we get a bunch of barrels and place them in various positions out on some prairie, and get some people together and issue a set of instructions to them about the filling and emptying of these barrels. They have to be either full or empty, nothing in between. So if barrel A is empty, Barrel L, say, has to be full, and so on. If we get enough barrels and enough people, we have about one megabyte. That's all a computer does, except that it does it invisibly and quickly by electronic means, which makes it seem more mysterious.
We use matter, but I don't think we are infusing it with intelligence.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 08-05-2005 10:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 10:49 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 1:14 PM robinrohan has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 158 of 292 (230179)
08-05-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Wounded King
08-05-2005 2:42 AM


Re: Fifteen Minutes of Review is Adequate
Is it possible that you could be posting out of context by not reading the prior posts?
The amino acid comment was a wry cynical perhaps comment suggesting that since the four amino acids that are used in the genetic code from the twenty or so that make up proteins in general are exclusively L form in the DNA structure base pairings, that is AGTC. Now if one were to substitute or attempt to substitute n amino acid whose form was dextro into the DNA it would never ever fit, work and code for a particular protein in the position or sequence necessary when such protein was made via the ribosome reading the mrna codon triplet and etc. I did not suggest it could be or should be attempted just that it would not work as an example of the absolute Levo form of the amino acids used in the genetic code AGTC.
I would have thought that this group would have immediately known that the replication of 6 billion base pairs in seven hours referred to the human dna molecule without having to spell it out... especially noting my reference to Dr. Wills book on the human genome.
"It's quite common for natural systems to only work with only one of the enantiomers of an optically active substance. It isn't too difficult to see why that might be. Because the molecules have different spatial arrangements of their various groups, only one of them is likely to fit properly into the active sites on the enzymes they work with."
Francis Crick: Francis H. C. Crick, Molecules and Men (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966), p. 60.
It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature. For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids. Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.15
===============================
A. I. Oparin, Life, Its Nature, Origin and Development (New York: Academic Press, 1961), pp. 59, 60.
The probability of the formation of one antipode or the other is therefore the same. As the law of averages applies to chemical reactions the appearance of an excess of one antipode is very improbable, and, in fact, we never encounter it under the conditions of non-living nature and in laboratory syntheses . . . .
In living organisms, on the contrary, the amino acids of
naturally occurring proteins are made always have the left-handed configuration. . . . This ability of protoplasm selectively to synthesize and accumulate one antipode alone is called the asymmetry of living material. It is a characteristic feature of all organisms without exception but is absent from inanimate nature.
================
Linus Pauling, Linus Pauling, General Chemistry (Third Edition) (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1970), p. 774
This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms—bacteria, molds, even viruses — are found to have been made of L-amino acids.
===========================================================
S. E. Bresler, Introduction to Molecular Biology (New York: Academic Press, 1971), pp. 6, 7.
How and why the complete separation of stereo isomers in living tissue was started remains an enigma. . . . We can only speculate that this remarkable phenomenon originally occurred as the result of very rare large-scale fluctuations associated with the origin of life.
====================================
My observation
A comet with a slight excess of L forms is thin evidence of any natural occurrence of such in the molecules of life, considering statistical confidence in one measurement or sample... questionalble at best. Was it a SRS nope! Was it free from any contamination...unknown.
Respectfully,
Evopeach

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2005 2:42 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2005 1:05 PM Evopeach has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 159 of 292 (230189)
08-05-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Fifteen Minutes of Review is Adequate
I am rendered pratically speechless, well typeless perhaps.
You really don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about.
the four amino acids that are used in the genetic code from the twenty or so that make up proteins in general are exclusively L form in the DNA structure base pairings, that is AGTC.
Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine ,the nucleotides which are found in DNA, are not amino acids!!! How much clearer can we get on this point?
The amino acids are ...
# alanine
# arginine
# asparagine
# aspartic acid
# cysteine
# glutamine
# glutamic
# glycine
# histidine
# isoleucine
# leucine
# lysine
# methionine
# phenylalanine
# proline
# serine
# threonine
# tryptophan
# tyrosine
The amino acids occur in the L form but nucleic acids are of the d form due to the sugar part of their structure.
Your references seem totally irrelevant. I'm not saying that l-amino acids are not used almost exclusively in naturally occurring proteins. That is very different from you having demonstrated that the inclusion of even 1 amino acid of a different chirality would render the protein functionless, which was your claim.
Please learn something about DNA, nucleotides and amino acids. At the moment you are just showing yourself to be clueless and confirming everyone's worst beliefs about engineers commenting on the biological sciences.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 12:49 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 1:31 PM Wounded King has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 160 of 292 (230195)
08-05-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by robinrohan
08-05-2005 11:27 AM


Re: computers and DNA
I did not say anything about making matter intelligent.. I said what we did in the process of causing matter to perform, to organize, to do tasks was always the result of our imposing our intellectually developed logos, information, designs etc. ideas on the matter and that otherwise the matter would never ever exhibit those capabilities.
The matter is not truly intelligent it is simulating some limited specific intelligent activities via a schema, design, direction, instruction, code et al that without our implementing our intellect on the matter it would never perform.
A cd of music cant really sing Hey Jude by the Beatles but we took the real voices, captured it analog, then digitized and finally all that conscious thought, ability, talent and technical knowhow inside brains was made manafest in a digitized codes messaage understandable to us via a player machine and a cd which have no REAL organic intelligence but simulate such precisely because we imposed our intelligence et al upon that matter and caused it to perform tasks it could never develop or perform otherwise.
DNA and the human cell and those molecules making it up do not have brains sop to speak but they function to perform the most complex task known, self replication and repair, based on a code the genetic code using chemistry with great unaccounted for specificity. And we can observe it doing so and understand something of the processes involved but certainly not all just yet.
So again my conclusion absent any possible naturalistic explanation or demonstration is that an outside intelligent entity did precisely what we do every day .. we infuse matter with our intellectual ideas and cause it to carry them out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by robinrohan, posted 08-05-2005 11:27 AM robinrohan has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 161 of 292 (230202)
08-05-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Wounded King
08-05-2005 1:05 PM


Re: Fifteen Minutes of Review is Adequate
I am specifically pointing out to the administrative overseerers of this post that I am trying hard not to respond to personal attacks as this person just imposed on me in his post.
I never said there were'nt ANY r form molecules in the dna of course the sugar molecules are, never even mentioned in my post period.
I said there were no r form amino acids involved in the dna molecules genetic code and for good reason they wouldn't fit, they couldn't code for the correct proteins even if they could be fit into DNA they couldn't be read from an "mrna" strand by the ribosome enzyme and thus the replication would fail, period.
I will be pleased to read any papers or references demonstrating r form amino acids making up functioning dna genetic code elements and performing the tasks in the replication process as we observe today in living systems successfully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2005 1:05 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2005 2:24 PM Evopeach has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 162 of 292 (230238)
08-05-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 1:31 PM


Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
I said there were no r form amino acids involved in the dna molecules genetic code and for good reason they wouldn't fit, they couldn't code for the correct proteins even if they could be fit into DNA they couldn't be read from an "mrna" strand by the ribosome enzyme and thus the replication would fail, period.
You don't know what you are talking about. Anyone who is familiar with molecular biology can see that you don't. Appealing to the admins won't suddenly change the whole nature of life on Earth and magically make you any less completely wrong.
Amino acids certainly won't fit into DNA, because DNA is not composed of amino acids in any way shape or form, of any enantiomeric form.
Please read up on the structure of DNA and the processes of transcription and translation.
Then you might understand why the things you are saying do nothing but convince me that you know nothing about biology.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 1:31 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 3:30 PM Wounded King has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 163 of 292 (230263)
08-05-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Wounded King
08-05-2005 2:24 PM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
Apparently you can't read because I specifically talk about base pairs and bases regarding DNA as anyone can see.
I never suggested that you could would or should attempt to make an amino acit function as a base pair in DNA... please show me where.
I was speaking always and in particular about the optical purity of the different sorts of molecules that are unique to the various functions they carry out.
Amino acids chains folding from their one dimentional form after being built are all left handed resulting in left handedness in the proteins they make when folded into the 3-d form.
That is one molecule type proteins that do not in life processes ever show up made from r form amino acids not individually or collectively.
Then agian all the sugars that are utilized are dextro form, absolutely.
The point was as stated you will not see mixtures even substitutions of these mandated forms of the opposite handedness in the differnt functional molecules.
If you are telling me that base pairs in DNA are not amino acids I am lost as to why you felt the need. Certainly not on any post I made.
If I was unclear that's my problem but please don't attribute non-statements to me and then redicule me for things I never said... at least not intentionally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2005 2:24 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-05-2005 4:42 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 166 by Wounded King, posted 08-05-2005 4:55 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 167 by Trixie, posted 08-05-2005 4:57 PM Evopeach has replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 164 of 292 (230280)
08-05-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Fundamental lack of understanding of molecular biology
The amino acid comment was a wry cynical perhaps comment suggesting that since the four amino acids that are used in the genetic code from the twenty or so that make up proteins in general are exclusively L form in the DNA structure base pairings, that is AGTC. Now if one were to substitute or attempt to substitute n amino acid whose form was dextro into the DNA it would never ever fit, work and code for a particular protein in the position or sequence necessary when such protein was made via the ribosome reading the mrna codon triplet and etc. I did not suggest it could be or should be attempted just that it would not work as an example of the absolute Levo form of the amino acids used in the genetic code AGTC.
bold formating mine
Evopeach, maybe you could comment on this quote from your post Message 158 in conjunction with this quote from the post I am replying to
I never suggested that you could would or should attempt to make an amino acit function as a base pair in DNA... please show me where..
It would go a long way towards assuring us that you are debating in good faith.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 3:30 PM Evopeach has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 165 of 292 (230285)
08-05-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Evopeach
08-05-2005 10:49 AM


abiogenesis/evolution conflation
An inaccurate paraphrase .. wrong premise
The paraphrase I used was:
quote:
"so why have scientists been working on it then?"
It was referring to this response in Message 119:
quote:
For fifty years one of the central efforts of that community at enormous expense and time investment has tried every avenue imaginable to show that abiogenesis was not just possible but inevitable...
Hundreds yea thousands of people and experiments have been tried, Nobel prizes awarded for so called life in the test tube, life on clay substrates all to show there is no problem with life from non-life just natural chemical properties of matter and a source of energy etc...
Of course, my paraphrasing wasn't 100% accurate...otherwise it wouldn't be a paraphrase but a quote.
I said that the only consensus premise proposed from Darwin forward was the naturalistic origon of life from non-living matter.
I could have sworn that Darwin's work was regarding The Origin of Species not The Origin of Life...since science assumes ontological naturalism to come to conclusions, it also assumes that there is a natural origin for life, so yes, that was the consensus premise...though not necessarily from Darwin onwards.
If you meant to say that the consensus of science regarding life since Darwin has been ontological naturalism, it would have probably been simpler to say just that. Especially since I don't even see where you mentioned Darwin. The closest I can see to such a statement is:
quote:
I dont see how to have a rational discussion with someone who dismisses the major emphasis of the displipline from 1920 to 2000 and continuing,
So every textbook in biology, chemistry and essentially all natural sciences contain extensive chapters on abiogenesis...
Which would make sense since abiogenesis is a biochemical natural science. How does that show it is integral to ToE?
Further such printed materials whether pop science or textbook will organize the material in the chronilogical sequence of evolutionary events beginning with such as how the universe or the solar system was formed
Indeed, it helps put things into context to show the entire history of the universe up to and including the evolution of man (and occasionally it will go beyond that, showing the sun expanding, shrinking and eventual heat death). When showing a history of the universe it is going to include the evolution of the universe and the evolution of life, it would be odd to discount the scientific hypothesis on the creation of life as well since it is a fairly important moment and happens between the universe forming to what we see and the evolution of life.
I have never seen in such material a statement such as "this abiogenesis material is not part of the evolutionary theory or presentation...
Why on earth would you? Do you ever see a star formation paper have a statement like "this star formation material is not part of the Big Bang Theory". It just doesn't make sense. What would be interesting is if you read a paper that said "The Theory of Evolution begins with the creation of life..."
Now if one should dicover that say chemical predestination were demonstrable in a universally agree valid experimental procedure under curcumstances universally agreed upon as naturalistic as regards say to a viable first replicator clearly a precursor to say dna......would the evolutionary community say ... so what.. a peripheral event to evolutionary theory.....we are not interested.. that result has no bearing on anyof our research activities.
Actually no. They would be happy that their colleagues had managed to find the holy grail of biological sciences, and their work may have revealed characteristics of life which would be useful to them. It would of course be yet another seperate theory/discipline which is congruent and in agreement with ToE, like radiodating and cosmology.
I don't think theories surrounding nuclear decay or the big bang are part of ToE.
Organic non-living material is not thought to be subject to descent with modification driven by natural selection. Organic non-living material does not have more offspring than is necessary, nor does it get reproductively isolated before diverging.
In good conscience I think not it would be trumpeted around the world as the death of God as was the case with several false starts and overblown results of "life in a test tube" etc.
Anybody claiming that abiogenesis is the death of God is either an idiot, or being colloquial.
That the logos, information cannot arise by naturalistic means not ever in the functional DNA molecule by any naturalistic matter only event or series of events.
And this of course is falsifiable.
I understand that you have personal disagreement with the concept of biology havin such logos regardless of how it got there
You may be confusing me with someone else.
it would seem very logical to conclude that an outside source of intelligence had at the beginning designed that system and "hybridized" it onto the matter.
It has logic to it and I'm not denying it. However, the problem is that we have only two types of code to judge it on so its a little early to make such logical conclusions:
1. Man-made
2. non man-made
The first ones are irrelevant. Obviously they are going to involve intelligence. The non man-made one(s) however present us with a problem. How do we tell if they were made by some other entity, or if they were made by natural processes? Well, since we like to use parsimony in science, we eliminate the hypothesized entity, leaving that to philosophers and theologians, and assume it was a natural process.
This is not without precedent. I point to the infamous "Lightening is more powerful than man could ever achieve, therefore it must be a god...enter Thor" argument. Time and again, scientific enquiry into realms of the unknown assuming that a natural explanation exists, has turned out to produce results and explanations. Those unknown realms were once ascribed to gods/djinn/angels/titans.
I don't thing your conclusion is irrational. Its perfectly lucid, logical and rational. Unfortunately, it isn't a scientific conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 10:49 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Evopeach, posted 08-05-2005 6:30 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024