Believing what you know ain't so

a reply to: Phantom423

Life is made up of molecules. DNA is a molecule.

Molecules are made of atoms, too. The "building blocks of life" do not a living organism make.

Life utilizes molecules, life is the difference, without life you got matter, plain and simple.

a reply to: OneManArmy

I too see DNA as a computer program which requires intelligent design.
Until shown otherwise, I will maintain that idea.

Imo, one of the 'hallmarks'. Along with an egg, seed, the womb and cell division.

Extraordinary processes. You must be familiar with at least rudimentary engineering and design principles, maybe computer architecture.

Computers can't miss a beat, if they do, the system crashes. Same with cell mutations during replication. A "glitch" favors dysfunction, disease and death, not improvement.

Even if by some random chance a mutation offered an 'improvement', the odds that particular improvement would go on to "improve" again during mutation after mutation in millions of years of "evolution" without dying out are enormous. If that somehow occurred, there should be random mutations occurring the world over and half 'this and that' genetic mixtures and misfits roaming the planet.

Thing is there aren't. Procreation is not cross species and if so, a dead end. Thats why species have adapted so perfectly to their environment. Besides, at least in the wild kingdom, mutants are quickly killed by the head of a pack or herd, whatever. "Weakness" is not generally tolerated in the wild.

Example here, caution… if you can't take natures heat stay out of the kitchen.

a reply to: intrptr

Why not? Atoms are the constituents of the base pairs that make up DNA. Life is ubiquitious. Probably pops up all over this universe and other.

First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab

An engineered bacterium is able to copy DNA that contains unnatural genetic code

For billions of years, the history of life has been written with just four letters — A, T, C and G, the labels given to the DNA subunits contained in all organisms. That alphabet has just grown longer, researchers announce, with the creation of a living cell that has two 'foreign' DNA building blocks in its genome.

www.scientificamerican.com...

_____________________________________________________________

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'

Dr Craig Venter, a multi-millionaire pioneer in genetics, and his team have managed to make a completely new "synthetic" life form from a mix of chemicals.

They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply – the very definition of being alive.
www.telegraph.co.uk... l

a reply to: intrptr

You're wrong on that. Hundreds of mutations occur every day in all life forms. Ones that are favorable to the organism may be incorporated into the genome permanently. The others are scratched.

And what are the odds? Given that hundreds of mutations happen daily, the odds are pretty good that some mutations will stick.

a reply to: Phantom423

Why not? Atoms are the constituents of the base pairs that make up DNA. Life is ubiquitious. Probably pops up all over this universe and other.

"Pops up"? Because life has adapted to and spread everywhere on earth still doesn't tell us how it got here.

As far as ubiquitous "science" is looking with all their instruments out there and so far, zip.

I like how you changed your thinking, though. If life is 'out there', then why do we say it "evolved here"?

a reply to: intrptr

You don't get it. Science never said that life "evolved on Earth exclusively". First, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Life could have started here independently or it could have been carried by another vehicle like a meteorite. The point is that the components for life have been found not only on Earth but in meteorites which demonstrates that at the very least, the components are ubiquitious.

If you read the articles which I posted above, you will see that "life" can be synthesized in the laboratory. I don't think there's any miracle about life - it's just that more research is required to determine how it starts independently. And that will happen.

a reply to: intrptr

You don't get it. Science never said that life "evolved on Earth exclusively". First, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Life could have started here independently or it could have been carried by another vehicle like a meteorite. The point is that the components for life have been found not only on Earth but in meteorites which demonstrates that at the very least, the components are ubiquitious.

If you read the articles which I posted above, you will see that "life" can be synthesized in the laboratory. I don't think there's any miracle about life - it's just that more research is required to determine how it starts independently. And that will happen.

a reply to: Phantom423

You're wrong on that. Hundreds of mutations occur every day in all life forms. Ones that are favorable to the organism may be incorporated into the genome permanently.

I was referring to the mutations that gave rise to life, not ongoing adaptation within an genome. I am fully aware of the adaptability of ongoing life.

By the way, using DNA in the lab to "make life" is cheating.

I want to see all your links that start with atoms and make DNA….

In the end, one can not explain how chemistry goes to biochemistry.

a reply to: Phantom423

You don't get it. Science never said that life "evolved on Earth exclusively". First, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

I already said that "evolution" moved the goal post to seperate "adaptation" from origin. The science of adaptation to an environment is not the same as what used to be called evolution.

"Evolutionists" are not scientists. What you call science is really called "Bio" chemistry.

Enough. Done with blind believers from both religion and science.

a reply to: intrptr

Wrong again.

Accession Number : ADA243530

Title : Molecular Self-Assembly and Nanochemistry: A Chemical Strategy for the Synthesis of Nanostructures

Descriptive Note : Technical rept. no. 45

Corporate Author : HARVARD UNIV CAMBRIDGE MA DEPT OF CHEMISTRY

Personal Author(s) : Whitesides, George M. ; Mathias, John P. ; Seto, Christopher T.

PDF Url : ADA243530

Report Date : DEC 1991

Pagination or Media Count : 39

Abstract : Molecular self assembly is the spontaneous association of molecules under equilibrium conditions into stable, structurally well-defined aggregates joined by non-covalent bonds. Molecular self-assembly is ubiquitous in biological systems, and underlies the formation of a wide variety of complex biological structures. Understanding self-assembly and the associated non- covalent interactions that connect complementary interacting molecular surfaces in biological aggregates is a central concern in structural biochemistry. Self- assembly is also emerging as a new strategy in chemical synthesis, with the potential of generating non-biological structures having dimensions of 1-10 2 nanometers. Structures in the upper part of this range of sizes are presently inaccessible through chemical synthesis, and the ability to prepare them would open a route to structures comparable in size (and perhaps complementary in function) to those that can be prepared by microlithography and other techniques of microfabrication.

Descriptors : *STRATEGY, BIOLOGY, INTERACTIONS, CHEMICALS, MOLECULES, STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES, BIOCHEMISTRY, SYNTHESIS(CHEMISTRY), STRUCTURES, FABRICATION, EQUILIBRIUM(GENERAL), MICROSCOPY, SURFACES, AGGREGATES(MATERIALS), ASSEMBLY, PHOTOLITHOGRAPHY, MICROMINIATURIZATION.

Subject Categories : Atomic and Molecular Physics and Spectroscopy

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

__________________

Here's another one:

Self-assembly of nucleic acids, silk and hybrid materials thereof
REVIEW ARTICLE

Martin Humenik and Thomas Scheibel
Show affiliations

Abstract


Top-down approaches based on etching techniques have almost reached their limits in terms of dimension. Therefore, novel assembly strategies and types of nanomaterials are required to allow technological advances. Self-assembly processes independent of external energy sources and unlimited in dimensional scaling have become a very promising approach. Here, we highlight recent developments in self-assembled DNA-polymer, silk-polymer and silk-DNA hybrids as promising materials with biotic and abiotic moieties for constructing complex hierarchical materials in 'bottom-up' approaches. DNA block copolymers assemble into nanostructures typically exposing a DNA corona which allows functionalization, labeling and higher levels of organization due to its specific addressable recognition properties. In contrast, self-assembly of natural silk proteins as well as their recombinant variants yields mechanically stable β-sheet rich nanostructures. The combination of silk with abiotic polymers gains hybrid materials with new functionalities. Together, the precision of DNA hybridization and robustness of silk fibrillar structures combine in novel conjugates enable processing of higher-order structures with nanoscale architecture and programmable functions.

a reply to: intrptr

Your problem is that you don't read the science. It's a "make it up as you go" method. Sorry, it don't work.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution doesn't have proof of the origin of life any more than creationists. W can argue adaptation vs. evolving all day…

That's because evolution doesn't discuss the origin or life.

I said "proof of origin", please try to absorb that before addressing any response to me. Tired of clarifying myself to some that read what they want to into others statements.

ETA: Oh, and spellcheck left "poodles", I intended 'electric mud puddles'.

I don't care what you mean, Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. So if you are looking at it for proof of origin, you are looking in the wrong place.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's because evolution doesn't discuss the origin or life.

Not anymore it don't. Its been excised from the discussion because you can only devolve life back do far before the trail goes cold and minds go blank--

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423


I already said that "evolution" moved the goal post to seperate "adaptation" from origin. The science of adaptation to an environment is not the same as what used to be called evolution.

But "evolution" didn't move any goal posts. The biological sciences, based on increased evidence after 70-80 years of investigation and corroboration. I assume your reference pertains to the difference between what Darwin proposed over 150 years ago and what is referred to today as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. If so, the premise of your argument is incorrect. Darwin never addressed the origin of life on Earth. His theory was premised on all life descending from a common ancestor but that is not anything remotely resembling the origins of life. Only descent from and adaptation of life after it began. It simply doesn't address the origins. Only common descent. So your claim that goal posts have been moved by anyone is simply incorrect. If that is what you were taught as evolution you were taught wrong

"Evolutionists" are not scientists. What you call science is really called "Bio" chemistry.

Damn, and all this time I thought my degree in Anthropology was in the biological science department. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I feel so silly now thinking I had a science degree all this time.

Enough. Done with blind believers from both religion and science.

Except that nobody on the science side of the equation believes so blindly. It's a common misperception perpetrated by people without any background in formal scientific education. Had you taken any anthropology courses at a collegiate level you would understand this and be aware that you actually have to do your research and are encouraged to question all previous work before doing your own and to do any graduate level work you HAVE to prove your work correct and respond to questions and critiques of it. It's completely different than a religious take on things.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's because evolution doesn't discuss the origin or life.

Not anymore it don't. Its been excised from the discussion because you can only devolve life back do far before the trail goes cold and minds go blank--

Not anymore? It never did. Evolution has always been the discussion of how life changes over time. And yes, things do go dark the further we look into the past of life; that's why evolution doesn't talk about the origins of life and also why it never talked about them. Evolution is a theory, so it talks about what it can prove. It cannot prove where life came from, so it sticks to the topic of change in life over time.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs

Evolution is genetics

Genetics is DNA. DNA is encoded, right? After all its called the Genetic Code. So who wrote this code?

Way to change the subject. Can you prove somebody wrote the "code" or are you just guessing again? Sorry, unless you can prove design, you have nothing. Your entire view hitches on numerous assumptions.

What cracks me up is how some surmise that something as complex as DNA can just "develop" itself.

So now you resort to insulting those that agree with abiogenesis. Because DNA just poofed into existence in it's modern form right? You do realize that DNA has been mutating and evolving for 3 billion years, right? Do you really believe that DNA from 3 million years ago was exactly as complex as it is today? You aren't responding with logic, you are responding with emotional attachment to a belief.

Big lulz. Its right in front of your face. Software "developers" write assembly language and machine code, programs don't 'write themselves'.

Completely irrelevant. Can you prove that a software developer wrote DNA code? No you can't, you are just guess because you can't fathom the complexity. Your arguments are not arguments. They are appeals to emotion.

All I'm saying is that if that is true they have moved the goal posts.

I'm calling BS on this. Please demonstrate exactly how the goal posts have been moved. Sounds like you need to read on on your fallacies.

Evolution in my day was always about origins. To my mind it still is. You have end runned the "theory"-- wait… its still called a theory, right? Or did you change that, too?

Nobody cares about "your day" or what you believe in your mind. You have argued nothing but fallacies in these 2 posts. Plus the ancient argument, "it's just a theory'. Sorry I need a moment to finish laughing. You come in here, insult evolution and people who agree with science, and then respond to everyone's counterpoints with ignorance. Use google and look up "scientific theory" before you make yourself look worse.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OneManArmy

for he life of me...I can't figure out why people get off in shooting down creationists...that includes ATS threads...

It's like shooting fish in a barrel...I think that's the term used...

as long as you make these threads...it only shows we give them way too much credit. Creationists are a wast minority among religious people...and it makes no sense to putting in an effort to shoot them down.

Denying ignorance is the mantra of this website, so logically it makes sense to me to shoot it down when it gets brought up.

originally posted by: intrptr
Nice deflection guys…

I'm out.

LMAO! Says the guy that deflected every argument against him, and responded with numerous fallacies and lies.

Carry on folks.

a reply to: Barcs

Way to change the subject. Can you prove somebody wrote the "code" or are you just guessing again? Sorry, unless you can prove design, you have nothing. Your entire view hitches on numerous assumptions.

Neither can you prove DNA just "happened". Or is it the electric mud puddle theory again?

Can you prove that a software developer wrote DNA code?

You just called it 'code' too, lol.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution has always been the discussion of how life changes over time.

You mean adaptation… or did you change that meaning too?