How Did RNA & DNA Come Into Existence ?

a reply to: cooperton

What is funny here is it s clear you just searched the paper for key words.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Very good question, all these threads I either create or comment on are just to break people from 100% dependence on the evolutionary theories and it's concepts of the origins of our existence which is in my opinion is like a drug that is trapping the mind and it's very addictive. It panders to those of the highest intellect and education making it extremely hard for them to break free from.

have you ever heard of replacement therapy? do you never wonder why addiction treatment services place such a heavy emphasis on finding a higher power?

pandering to those of the highest intellect and education...how exactly do you pander to a scientist whose mind is trained to separate fact from fiction? your words seem to suggest that science itself is just an elaborate marketing ploy.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
[...] how exactly do you pander to a scientist whose mind is trained to separate fact from fiction? your words seem to suggest that science itself is just an elaborate marketing ploy.

Magicians will tell you that the "scientist" is most often the easiest to fool because they have very specific expectations as to how reality should work. As for pandering to them... you appeal to their ego. Mensa knows this. You just tell them that they're the smartest person in the room and you can get them to do anything. Robots, however, are not so easy to butter up.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
[...] how exactly do you pander to a scientist whose mind is trained to separate fact from fiction? your words seem to suggest that science itself is just an elaborate marketing ploy.

Magicians will tell you that the "scientist" is most often the easiest to fool because they have very specific expectations as to how reality should work. As for pandering to them... you appeal to their ego. Mensa knows this. You just tell them that they're the smartest person in the room and you can get them to do anything. Robots, however, are not so easy to butter up.

magicians are also professional liars, they literally make a living convincing you the least likely explanation is the most obvious. and generally speaking, there is a difference between ego and confidence. ego is self important, confidence is knowing what you are talking about. its funny how people keep making comments that suggest credible experts havent spent literal decades earning that background.

the most notable omission in this whole discussion is a testable theory demonstrating the who/how/when/why of dna or rna being coded by some hyperintelligent cosmic agency. "intelligent design" is not an answer, just a very general description of a collection of facts that have not been presented nor verified in any meaningful sense. we need to see facts that answer the above questions.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

What is funny here is it s clear you just searched the paper for key words.

lol no it was the first sentence in the abstract that showed it was referring to tertiary structure and not primary structure (DNA sequence). Therefore the mystery of how DNA sequences could have self-assembled remains totally unknown... Let alone how they would have assembled into coherent coding sequences that are able to be translated into functional proteins.

Evolution is a fairy tale. Genetic code assembling by itself is a fairy tale. The genetic code requires an intelligent Programmer.

a reply to: cooperton

Ahh so you just read the first sentence? I read the papers, oh and the many of the cited ones.

Ta ta

a reply to: Noinden

Let me know if you got my pm.

Dont know if it didn't go through.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Ahh so you just read the first sentence?

Yeah because it immediately showed that it was talking about tertiary structures, and not primary structure. In order for RNA & DNA to be formed by random chance alone, it would need to be proven that long primary structures (DNA/RNA sequences) can polymerize on their own without synthetic intervention.

Do you understand this difference??

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Ahh so you just read the first sentence?

Do you understand this difference??

I don't think he does, one part of science has really blinded him.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

the most notable omission in this whole discussion is a testable theory demonstrating the who/how/when/why of dna or rna being coded by some hyperintelligent cosmic agency. "intelligent design" is not an answer, just a very general description of a collection of facts that have not been presented nor verified in any meaningful sense. we need to see facts that answer the above questions.

still waiting for the who/how/when/why and the facts supporting your answers

a reply to: Skyfox81

it did

a reply to: Xtrozero

It doesn't address the problems for the storyline discussed in my comment under the subjects:

- free oxygen in the atmosphere
- UV radiation (or "cosmic rays")
- hydrolysis in a watery environment, "water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules". Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Dickerson: "...the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization." Wald: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” Even though, in your article, they seem to suggest this is all happening in a liquid environment, presumably an "aqueous"/watery environment when they are talking about:

...sequences floating by.

They aren't very clear about that part of the storyline so I'm just going to presume they are referring to a watery environment. They pretty much say nothing about the 3 main issues described in my comment and their relation to one another, as described when I mentioned (between brackets at the beginning is new because I'm leaving out some context related to an earlier mentioned common objection or red herring):

The dilemma this creates for [the so-called chemical] evolution [theory of life] is expressed by Franchis Hitching (evolutionist): “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”(2) I.e. UV radiation.
...
The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed.
...
However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”⁠

That's a mild way of stating the impossible. Note that your article is already skipping to talking about proteins and whole "sequences floating by" without having properly addressed any of the issues regarding what Hitching here calls "this first and relatively easy stage" (or step). So this is also about the storyline that says proteins came first, as your article argues for as opposed to RNA first. That is also how the article is titled and the main angle they approach it at. Not to address any issues with the storyline that are really inconvenient, such as those described in my initial comment (don't like repeating the whole thing, also don't like leaving out the context as I've done now, I suggest a re-read if one is interested in seeing the things I've been describing in this comment and in particular this last point).

originally posted by: Blue Shift
DNA doesn't really do anything unless it's already in a viable living structure like a cell. As for how it originated, it was sucked in the form of a tiny bacterial-like cell from some distant point in future (or maybe it was just yesterday) through a micro vacuum conduit back in time to around 4 billion years ago -- a least in this neck of the universe. Well, you say, how did that life come to be? The answer of course is that it grew from a cell that came from the future. Because that's the way time works.

Point of order: DNA (and even more so RNA) has been shown that it can fold on itself and make secondary and tertiary folds that can have some semblance of enzymatic ability. So that's great!

...Thing is, you need the building blocks (amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids, etc) for the enzymatic activity to actually product something. And those can't just be floating around randomly, you 'll need a concentration of them in a confined space.

No problem, the biologist says, they are in a cell and the cell can concentrate the building blocks. Voila!

...Thing is, you need a cell or some other type of consolidation mechanism to have specific surface channel proteins to know which building blocks to allow into the cell... but without those building blocks the DNA/RNA can't code for itself the surface proteins... or for that matter the cell membrane.

So the problem isn't so much that DNA or RNA can process itself so much as they need the raw materials to build something and the means to keep it all concentrated. The best theory I remember reading is how proto-RNA became ionically bound to crystalline structures in magma vents and processed random organic materials and generated lipid membranes as by products until they encapsulated themselves and broke off from the crystals and floated away, but that doesn't explain how they continued to ingest raw materials and even more importantly how they came up with the means to divide into two separate cells. Not to mention, without the crystal surface they would have shifted their own folded structure... vicious circle, innit?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
pandering to those of the highest intellect and education...how exactly do you pander to a scientist whose mind is trained to separate fact from fiction? your words seem to suggest that science itself is just an elaborate marketing ploy.

As a scientist who has reviewed the papers of PhDs and DVMs I can assure you their poop still stinks like everyone else's, and they are led astray by their own biases like any other human being.

I can also assure you that there are very accomplished scientists (biologists no less) who believe there is a higher power in the universe and set the laws of nature in motion, and we have the privilege to have the intelligence and curiosity to try unlocking those mysteries through science and perseverance.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

DNA is a code,
no... it’s been deciphered as a code.

Beings Eating and copulating adding extra animo acids etc

That is all, the universe isn’t even aware it’s intelligent that’s just the label we give it,
and how life began.

a reply to: 57ORM1IV

DNA is a code, no... it’s been deciphered as a code.

Again....more mental gymnastics that deny reality, very sad.

It's like saying computer code like JAVA and HTML didn't have any intelligence behind it, and somebody that discovers it would merely decipher it as code, but then think it really isn't for some bizarre reason.

Just a silly statement.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

I can also assure you that there are very accomplished scientists (biologists no less) who believe there is a higher power in the universe and set the laws of nature in motion, and we have the privilege to have the intelligence and curiosity to try unlocking those mysteries through science and perseverance.

So they put all their opinions on faith alone... OK

Here is the issue that I see, you and others are basically saying this is impossible so God waved a magic wand and zapped it all into being at least at a complex sub level to start the process.

I find this a very lame and lazy approach to answer questions that will most likely be answered fully in the near future, so instead of helping to figure this all out we need to just say God did it...

I don't buy it, and even IF God did it one would think he would not wave a magic wand but use the laws of his universe to have it happen.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: 57ORM1IV

DNA is a code, no... it’s been deciphered as a code.

Again....more mental gymnastics that deny reality, very sad.

It's like saying computer code like JAVA and HTML didn't have any intelligence behind it, and somebody that discovers it would merely decipher it as code, but then think it really isn't for some bizarre reason.

Just a silly statement.

If intelligent design is a thing... then what designed the intelligent
< font color=Ff00Ff >designer < / font >

Where’s the < source > ??

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: 57ORM1IV

DNA is a code, no... it’s been deciphered as a code.

Again....more mental gymnastics that deny reality, very sad.

It's like saying computer code like JAVA and HTML didn't have any intelligence behind it, and somebody that discovers it would merely decipher it as code, but then think it really isn't for some bizarre reason.

Just a silly statement.

The silly statement is your false analogy.

Essentially, your argument is:

DNA is a code.

A code requires an intelligence.

Therefore, DNA comes from an intelligence.

The problem with this is that the idea of DNA "encoding" the information is purely an analogy, since the DNA precedes the information rather than vice versa — more accurately , it could be said we "encode" the information from DNA into our phenotypes, then again into our human perceptions of the same. Recognizing patterns doesn’t make something an artificially produced code. Calling it the “genetic code” is merely presenting things in a way that people should be able to understand more easily.

Regardless, the analogy you present is flawed and based on a analogy, not fact.

Abiogenesis is certainly a tough nut to crack.

But cell differentiation within a single organism... that's another basket of magic, right there.