Is there a legitimate argument for design?

It doesn't look very alive to me...

DNA isn't alive either. Its just chemicals. No less than the calcium in your bones is just a metal.

Sorry for the missing ellipsis. It doesn't change the meaning of the quote. 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.

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. It dint need to be as large as ours, a membrane, and all the neat little dohickeys cells now have all it needed to do was replicate imperfectly. 3 billion years later woalla human beings working it all out.Now i know you could say well it dint need an intelegent creator but there could have been one, well yes for all we know an ailen spaceship dumped its sewage on this planet as it was passing by. And life on the planet evolved from that. We just dont know how life started we only know how it got to the stage its at now from simple beginnings. This is how it could have happened. This first self replicating molecule just interacts with the stuff arround it and copies itself inperfectly mistakes are made and one day one mistake makes the molecule attract lipids to itself, Lipids have a natural tendency to clump together to form spherical structures. If the molecule attracted them it would be protected from harmfull solar radiation, taking a longer time for it to decay under solar radiation, allowing it to make more copies of itself. Is the molecule now alive because it has a membrane?But no we cant prove this is how life started on earth and we probably never will unless someone invents a TARDIS. but we do not need to invoke gods evil spierits, and or daemons to come to a possible answer because there are more realistic answers to be explored first.P.s.
What instructions as i said it needs no instructions it just follows the laws of chemestry?And RNA needs no proteins to replicate itself. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Well, here's the mention of the kind of research he was engaged in:

quote:

---

Crick then concentrated on the biological implications of the structure of the DNA molecule, developing further insights into the genetic code − including the so called 'central dogma' explaining the flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein.

---

About Dr Francis Crick | CrickI'll update this post as I find more information...

Let me get this straight:
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... Darwinian wishful thinking (based on faith) at its best Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

I'm sure we're all interested in hearing your take on it.

Maybe it was Frako's poor English that made you misunderstand him, but your laughter was directed at a strawman of the argument that he was making.Initially he stated that obviously life must be present for evolution to happen. However, we could see just the RNA strand replicating itself based on laws of chemistry through chemical reactions. Frako, then stated "Or would we call that life?" He is pointing out that it becomes very murky water when it gets to the levels of life versus non-life in this scenario. It can replicate itself, but it is still simply a chemical molecule, doing what it must based upon the laws of chemistry. Would you consider something such as RNA just replicating itself but nothing else as life....or must it begin to build other proteins and code for actual processes before you would call it life?Frako then goes on to mention how errors in the code through replication could allow the molecule to attract lipids, which could form the very basic structure of a cellular membrane, giving us the first cell. Again, still only using the laws of chemistry. Where the designation between life and non-life comes is a part of what scientists researching abiogenesis are looking for.Finally, your laughter at an entirely plausible idea, simply because you could not understand his meaning (hence why you attributed several ideas ("'all it needs', you seem to be saying, 'is a PRE-EXISTING simple form of LIFE'") to Frako which he did not state) is not beneficial to academic discourse. Perhaps trying to get a better graso instead of relying on your own intellect would allow you to clarify before spouting off answers that do not apply and laughing at someone presenting a reasonable hypothesis to your very minimally fleshed out idea of a cosmic "intelligence"

More on the topic of their research:

quote:

---

In 1953, Watson and Crick published another article in Nature which stated: "it therefore seems likely that the precise sequence of the bases is the CODE that carries the genetical information".[48]

---

Francis Crick - WikipediaThey 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.

Here's some other stuff from that page:

quote:

---

In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom." Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.

---

quote:

---

Crick was especially critical of Christianity:

​

"I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about."

​

Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

---

They called it a code. I have not disputed that it can be called a code. What I'm saying is that it is nothing beyond the structure of the molecule, nothing that every other molecule doesn't carry.The point you're (supposedly) responding to is the idea that life is a byproduct of DNA's structure. You claimed in Message 161 that Crick disproved that. Show us the disproof.

So a strand of simple pre-RNA molecule is alive then cool, then by those standards so are salt crystals, there you go the origins of life answered.Yea the answer to how life arose requires a definition of what life is. To me it has to furfill one property self replication with modification. Im one of those that categorises viruses as alive even though its only a strand of RNABut yea i also told you we dont know how life arose evolution takes of once you have a self replicating molecule.We know how most components of such a molecule could have arisen in the earth environment at that time, but not yet how they combined to form a self replicating molecule. but that is not what evolution deals with, evolution deals with what happens after you get that molecule. Sure you could push god in to that gap god made the first verry simple self replicating molecule, o praise the lord what a miracle we have been doing it for 60 years. Just a moment... go order some for yourself. Yea sure faith, its faith that tells us that the early erths atmosphere was made up of ater vapor, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia, and methane, not diligent sicence.Its also faith that tells us that add lightning to this soup and you get simple amino acids, it wasnt experiments and testing and diligent work its faith.now we know here is a gap in our knowlege ie you say god did it in how those aminoacids formed the first selfreplicating molecule.But then there is no gap any more, the fossil record clearly shows how life evolved from simple life to complex life.We should all just quit right now burn all books and works cause god did it is the simplest and best answer. Cause you know its completely logical god was there in the abstract time before time ie before the big bang, made it bang, then he waited 10 billion years for the earth to form, placed a self replicating molecule on it, waited 3,5 billion years, then send his son to appear in ancient Jerusalem, when the top form of storing knowledge was on scraps of paper, he took 12 fishermen who dint know how to write, as his students then he died for humanity's sins knowing that some 60 years later someone is bound to record his story on paper, and some 300 years later a few dozen people will gather all the writings and sort them out to form the bible. Praise the lord.

I agree, to me the essential aspect of life is that it can evolve, ergo life can be defined as something that can undergo the process of biological evolution: And yes, this would include viruses. Given the "RNA World" hypothesis it can also be (and is) argued that viruses are the left over bits from that time.The amount of viruses in the world is unknown: recently a biologist took a sailboat cruise across the Atlantic and sampled the water, every day he cataloged new viruses.

For the chemist the process would be:Take Sodium and Chlorine and dissolve in water, apply heat until the water evaporates.Now there may be an excess of either (or both) left over, but most will combine by chemical reactions to form salt crystals.If there are other elements mixed in you can get some "impurities" (mistakes?) in the salt matrix, some fitting in and perhaps changing the color of the chrystal, others interfering with the pattern so that it isn't as regular as pure NaCl salt.Curiously, these conditions are known to occur naturally all over the world ...Salt (chemistry) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In chemistry, salts are ionic compounds that can result from the neutralization reaction of an acid and a base. They are composed of related numbers of cations (positively charged ions) and anions (negative ions) so that the product is electrically neutral (without a net charge). These component ions can be inorganic, such as chloride (Cl^-), as well as organic, such as acetate (C2H3O2^-); and can be monatomic, such as fluoride (F^-), as well as polyatomic, such as sulfate (SO4^--).

​

There are several varieties of salts. Salts that hydrolyze to produce hydroxide ions when dissolved in water are basic salts, whilst those that hydrolyze to produce hydronium ions in water are acidic salts. Neutral salts are those that are neither acid nor basic salts. ...

​

​

The blue salt copper(II) sulfate in the form of the mineral chalcanthite

---

Pretty isn't it? I wonder who designed the color ...

Thank you, ringo, for reminding me about our 'unpacking' we have to do. I ASKED whether Crick had disproven this idea, I didn't state it as fact.But I was wrong in thinking that it was easy to verify; I can't locate the source that I got the info from. I must have heard about it in a lecture.So, I'll retract the mention of Crick 'attempting and failing' to prove your point and just compare what YOU are saying with what accepted scientists such as Crick have said about the chemistry of nucleic acids.Any normal high school biology student knows the gist of what Watson and Crick discovered about the chemistry of nucleic acids, so it will be an easy thing to discuss.Now, do you agree that scientists have found what Crick called a 'code' embedded in the nucleic acids?