Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
74 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, nwr (3 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,393 Year: 1,039/14,102 Month: 31/411 Week: 52/168 Day: 12/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   first genetic material
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 3093 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 7 of 84 (440647)
12-13-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by judhajeetray
11-02-2004 3:46 AM


Dear Judhajeetray,

Even though Loudmouth gives some of the things needed to produce a sing celled life form, he grossly underestimates the situation when he states what is necessary for life to come into existence.

I will give you an example. My Niece, a few years ago, was helping me make a cake from a recipe book. We had all of the ingredients, in the right proportions; however, my niece failed to mix the stuff in the right order. Needles to say the cake did not turn out correctly.

My point here is this: To assume that the right ingredients accidentally fell in the right proportions at just the right time in just the right order requires more faith then theory.

I mean, take the cake example. You have, what, about eight ingredients. If you leave one ingredient out, or have to much or to little of one, or (like my niece) you mix them wrong you’re not going to get the desired result. (And that’s not even mentioning the cooking time); Remember that is an intelligent agent, working from a recipe. You’re trying to figure out how a far-more-complex system came into existence without an intelligent agent.

Remember here we are talking about something ‘not-alive’ becoming something that ‘is-alive’; and they say my faith is blind;-}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by judhajeetray, posted 11-02-2004 3:46 AM judhajeetray has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 12-13-2007 11:27 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 12-14-2007 1:20 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 3093 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 15 of 84 (443191)
12-23-2007 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by molbiogirl
12-14-2007 3:53 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Dear molbiogirl,

This is a quote from a document entitled “Questionable Success for Life Synthesis Diehards”

How realistic is Miller and Robertson's assertion that tidal pools can produce all four of the building blocks, or nucleotides, for RNA molecules? First, they admit in their discovery paper that the "simulated early earth conditions" under which the other two building blocks of RNA molecules, adenine and guanine, were synthesized required freezing conditions rather than near boiling conditions.7 Thus I surmise that we cannot expect the same pool to make all four of RNA's building blocks. Nor is it reasonable for two pools in close proximity to make all four, plus the necessary sugars. Nor is it reasonable for a nucleotide-rich pool to be undisturbed long enough under the right chemical conditions for the four RNA nucleotides to begin to self assemble-and to link with only right-handed ribose molecules, as life requires.

www.reasons.org


For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.

For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by molbiogirl, posted 12-14-2007 3:53 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by molbiogirl, posted 12-24-2007 1:19 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 3093 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 16 of 84 (443206)
12-24-2007 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
12-15-2007 12:37 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Dear Crashfrog,

Hello, nice to hear from you again.

You state,

I think it's been estimated that an organism could carry out all the metabolic processes of life using a subset of only (I think) 12 different amino acids.

So let’s use those twelve different amino acids. An individual protein has one to three hundred of these (12) amino acids; and a protein is just one small component of the cell.

Stephen C. Myer (Philosopher of Science Discovery Institute) States,

…Even simple cells are made up of thousands of different types of proteins; and the function of these molecules derives from there three dimensional shapes.

Unlocking the Mystery of Life DVDwww.illustramedia.com

An example I used in one of my posting on another string is this,

…My Niece, a few years ago, was helping me make a cake from a recipe book. We had all of the ingredients, in the right proportions; however, my niece failed to mix the stuff in the right order. Needles to say the cake did not turn out correctly.

My point here is this: To assume that the right ingredients accidentally fell in the right proportions at just the right time in just the right order requires more faith then theory.

I mean, take the cake example. You have, what, about eight ingredients. If you leave one ingredient out, or have too much or too little of one, or (like my niece) you mix them wrong you’re not going to get the desired result. (And that’s not even mentioning the cooking time); Remember that is an intelligent agent, working from a recipe. You’re trying to figure out how a far-more-complex system came into existence without an intelligent agent.

Remember here we are talking about something ‘not-alive’ becoming something that ‘is-alive’; and they say my faith is blind;-}


For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.

For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 12-15-2007 12:37 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by molbiogirl, posted 12-24-2007 1:08 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 3093 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 82 of 84 (535280)
11-14-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by EZscience
05-14-2009 4:18 PM


Re: New Evidence
Dear EZscience,

This is great stuff (I read the whole article), and thank you for getting us back on topic.

I have posted on this subject before; and would like to make a few comments on this article, since, as you stated, it is ‘on topic’.

Please, also note that I am only going to make a couple of comment on a few aspects of this article. This is because I tend to have long postings and have been asked to shorten my responses.

Mr. Nicholas Wade writes in his New York Times article ‘’Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life’:

It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth.

First: Notice the wording here “a plausible explanation” “could have emerged”.

My father loves to debate the ‘possible’ versus the ‘impossible’ with me. Granted, statistically speaking there is not a 100% certainty that any number of variable did not line up just the right way at just the right time. However, there is a point where your chances are so remote that a better explanation is necessary. Would you not agree?

If I handed you a set of dice, told you that it was ‘possible’ for you to roll snake eyes thirteen times in a row and then wanted you to make bets with other people; how many of those people do you think would win the bet?; and how often do you think you would win?

Would you bet, big money, that you could roll snake eyes thirteen times in a row?

So, I guess my question would have to be: ‘Exactly how ‘possible’ is ‘possible’

Second: Mr. Nicholas Wade claims that now a ‘possible’ “explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth.

Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that these “biological molecule” did “emerged through natural processes”; They still need the “information” to “carry

Information is the key to the origin of life because no matter whether you’re talking about RNA, DNA, or some prequel you still have to account for the information these “information-carrying biological molecule’s” are carrying.

The storage and transmission of Information is the domain of Intelligence.

You may, with enough badgering, get me to believe that a thumb drive ‘evolved’, under just the right conditions, by itself {without an intelligent designer}, however, the idea that the software and/or files on that thumb drive are a product of random chance (naturalistic evolutionary processes) is just that much further beyond the pale.

One last thing: Even if you convinced me that the thumb drive was the product of evolution, does that mean it, in fact, is true {a fact}?

In other words, should we base our ideas of what is real {factual} on our limited understanding and feelings or should we base our limited understanding and feelings (of how things are and should be) on the facts we know to be true?

So; if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; you’re going to have to give me some pretty convincing evidence before you can convince me that it’s not a duck. ;-}

Emphases added in quoted remarks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by EZscience, posted 05-14-2009 4:18 PM EZscience has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 11-14-2009 11:09 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 84 by lyx2no, posted 11-14-2009 11:12 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021