What's wrong with the God of the gaps that Darwinist like to say when losing a debate

a reply to: neoholographic
Evolution does not disprove creation.

What if creation happened by a God you do not recognise 8 billion years ago and via panspermia brought life to earth 4 billion years ago?

That idea is perfectly consistent with evolution.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: neoholographic
Evolution does not disprove creation.

What if creation happened by a God you do not recognise 8 billion years ago and via panspermia brought life to earth 4 billion years ago?

That idea is perfectly consistent with evolution.

Who said evolution disproves creation? Haven't you been reading the thread?

I accept evolution as a theory.

I don't accept a natural interpretation of evolution.

There's an intelligent design interpretation of evolution and a natural interpretation of evolution. The natural interpretation of evolution is illogical. It explains nothing.

See, Darwinist want the debate to be evolution vs. creationism. This way they can say it's a natural vs. supernatural debate. I don't play that game though.

In my personal life, I have faith in God and his Son Jesus Christ who died for our sins. I believe God is the intelligent designer and I'm secure in my faith.

Scientifically, an intelligent design interpretation of evolution doesn't name the designer. It just says that the origin of life and evolution can't occur without intelligent agency. This intelligent agency can be a universal mind or universal consciousness that has a fundamental existence or Panspsychism where there's a non physical/physical duality of consciousness and matter and everything is conscious.

I think first, this is the logical inference to make when looking at biological systems and so does the world's biggest atheist.

"Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose." Richard Dawkins

Secondly, I think intelligent design is a must because nature or randomness can't encode information in the sequence of a storage medium and also encode the instructions for the machinery to decode that information.

That would be like a snowflake encoded with the information to build an igloo and a snowman. It would also be encoded with information to build machinary to build the igloo and the snowman.

This is asinine but it's accepted because materialism and atheist use a natural interpretation to support their worldview. Their atheism would crumble without a natural interpretation of evolution so they wil accept the illogical to maintain their belief.

You also have information in non coding regions that regulate the expression of coding regions and layered error correction that you will see in Microsoft Word or Gmail.



So, the logical inference to make when looking at biological systems is to see design with a purpose according to the world's biggest atheist and I haven't seen a shred of evidence that refutes that logical inference.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Okay so I am still having difficulty connecting dots between "monomers do not self polymerize" and "evolution is a lie, god is the only answer".

Because RNA/DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, there is remarkable difficulty in generating RNA/DNA chains via random chance. Nucleic acid (RNA/DNA) chains are necessary to code for protein production. If the DNA sequences cannot self-polymerize, then it shows that a highly orchestrated force must have been the original cause for these DNA sequences to conform into patterns that are 1,000,000 sequences long in the simplest prokaryote, to 3,200,000,0000 sequences long in the human being. Even the most rudimentary organism has a genome comprised of over 1,000,000 polymerized monomers... so if these monomers cannot self-polymerize, there must have been an intelligent force that organized it.

This Intelligent force is God of All, Designer of the Logos, and came manifest as Jesus Christ who insisted upon our birthright as children of this Most High Creator Being.

See you did it again. You just jumped from one statement to another statement with no math or science to connect them. You just assumed that this intelligent force has a particular identity without showing how you reached that conclusion.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

See you did it again. You just jumped from one statement to another statement with no math or science to connect them.

Prokaryotes can have over 1,000,000 DNA monomers in their genetic code, and they're the most rudimentary independent organisms known to science. So for these prokaryotes to get a genome polymer of over 1,000,000 DNA monomers would be insurmountable (love that word) for unintelligent processes to create it due to the fact the DNA monomers do not self-polymerize. The fact that DNA monomers do not self-polymerize kills any theory that suggests this happened by random chance. Let's go back to the chorus:

DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy

You just assumed that this intelligent force has a particular identity without showing how you reached that conclusion.

Luckily for us we had a human who proved to be a direct embodiment of the Creator. He proved his validity by conquering death after martyring his life for the sake of Truth and Love in a dishonest and hateful world. So yes, we have identified this Creator God thanks to Jesus. It is our Dad.

a reply to: cooperton

Yeah you didn't show any math for that conclusion either. You just sort of said "monomers do not self polymerize therefore Jesus" but that doesn't explain how supernatural intervention works or how you connected that with one specific model of intelligent design. You skipped a lot of steps that would have been rather crucial to the big picture.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Yeah you didn't show any math for that conclusion either.

Let me slow it down for you then since you purposefully befuddle the simple answer.

Prokaryotes have a DNA genome polymer chain of about 1,000,000 DNA monomers. For monomers to polymerize, they need the enzyme polymerase. But the problem is that polymerase doesn't exist yet. Polymerase can only come to be by polymerase parsing a DNA sequence that codes for polymerase. The problem is, there is no polymerase to read this. Get it? Since there is no polymerase to polymerize monomers into the first organism's genetic code, there can be no polymerization whatsoever of nucleic acids. Since nucleic acids cannot self-polymerize, then this means the genetic code could not have come to be through random chance, thus increasing the absolute necessity of an Intelligence to implement the genetic code

You just sort of said "monomers do not self polymerize therefore Jesus"

No I specifically divided my post into two sections. One was explaining why an unintelligent abiogenesis would absolutely require the ability for nucleic acid monomers to self-polymerize - since they dont self-polymerize, intelligence is absolutely required. It would be the equivalent of a monkey writing shakespeare, but you never give the monkey a typewriter or a pen... It makes an already impossible task all the more impossible. The second part was me answering your question how I know the Identity of this Creator.

but that doesn't explain how supernatural intervention works

If you want to know God's ways a good start would be to believe in Him, and begin to be open regarding how to communicate with Him. You could start by being open to logic, rather than blindly playing the devil's advocate in any Theological discussion.

a reply to: cooperton

Well I can trust that you are real and actively interacting here because of this dialogue. This is a very practical experience that I can record and share if needed and everyone else will have the same experience. How do you expect someone to interact with this intelligent creator entity?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton
How do you expect someone to interact with this intelligent creator entity?

There are many people on this forum who could give you examples of how they do it. You can look at the lives of the Saints, yogis, mystics, etc, etc.

For me it is biofeedback. I feel euphoric sensations when my mind and heart are on the right track. It consists of sensations more profound than any feeling I felt before I started my search.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

So your responses to highly technical scientific posts are not proper rebuttals, but mocking meme's, well good job.

Memes are a wonderful tool for the propagandist, they work great, like slogans. Especially when they play on the emotions. Like the one about "idiots".

This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
...
Making Generalizations

Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. Generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people. [whereislogic: 'those who argue against evolution are idiots asking dumb questions about monkeys that only show they don't understand evolution', that idea]
...
Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked. [whereislogic: in this case that label would be "idiots"]
...
Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. And, as in the case of envy, fear can be played upon. ...
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. ["idiots"] Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that. [ so that's playing on both fear and pride at the same time, as is that meme about idiots; it's a very popular trick. Possibly the most frequently one demonstrated on this forum. Either on purpose or because the one repeating the argument or style of commenting, has fallen for it themselves and has picked up the behaviour, feeling intellectually superior to the ones he thinks of as "idiots", because of having had their pride and egos tickled for such a long time. Frequency of being affected by these tricks is also important during that time. I.e. what you choose to fill your mind with, what you choose to listen to. If you feed your mind with a continuous barrage of evolutionary propaganda and marketing, it has more impact on your intellectual superiority complex if the buttons of fear and pride are continuously pushed like that, with a reverse appeal to pride that plays on your fear of seeming stupid, or uneducated, non-scientific, etc.]

Slogans and Symbols

Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with. ...

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

... They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say. [there we have the reverse appeal to pride that plays on the fear of seeming stupid again along with a straightforward appeal to pride to nurture someone's intellectual superiority complex, feed it what it needs.]

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) So we need to be selective. We need to scrutinize whatever is presented to us, deciding what to accept and what to reject.

However, we do not want to be so narrow that we refuse to consider facts that can improve our thinking. How can we find the right balance? By adopting a standard with which to measure new information. Here a Christian has a source of great wisdom. He has the Bible as a sure guide for his thinking. On the one hand, his mind is open, that is, receptive to new information. He properly weighs such new information against the Bible standard and fits what is true into his pattern of thinking. On the other hand, his mind sees the danger of information that is entirely inconsistent with his Bible-based values.

Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter. But how can you discern when something is misleading?

Put information to the test: “Beloved ones,” said John, a first-century Christian teacher, “do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions.” (1 John 4:1) Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.

Ask questions: ...
...
Do not just follow the crowd: ...

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18)

Let's practice some discernment on the video below to see one way someone can use “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” A hidden play on pride and reverse appeal to pride that plays on people's fear of seeming stupid, uneducated, etc. Who can tell me which 2 terms (each term consisting of 2 words) are used to sneak that 'play' in there (hint, they are both used in the same sentence and the first time the sentence is cut off):

originally posted by: neoholographic
...
Scientifically, an intelligent design interpretation of evolution doesn't name the designer. It just says that the origin of life and evolution can't occur without intelligent agency. ...
...
So, the logical inference to make when looking at biological systems is to see design with a purpose according to the world's biggest atheist and I haven't seen a shred of evidence that refutes that logical inference.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
You have probably heard of the Italian painter and sculptor Michelangelo. Though you may never have seen the original of any of his masterpieces, you most likely agree with the art historian who called the Italian genius a “marvellous and incomparable artist.” Michelangelo’s talents cannot be denied. Who would try to separate appreciation for Michelangelo’s art from acknowledgment of him as an outstanding artist?

Now think of the mind-boggling molecular machinery of life that thrives around us on earth. Appropriately, The New York Times quoted one professor of biological sciences as stating: “The physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology.” He added: “Life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.” Is it intellectually honest to admire the design without acknowledging the designer?
...

Design Without a Designer?

...
A Puzzling Omission

There is usually, however, a conspicuous omission in the carefully worded defense of intelligent design. That is the absence of reference to a designer. Do you believe that design is conceivable without a designer? Advocates of intelligent design “make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be,” reported The New York Times Magazine. Writer Claudia Wallis stated that intelligent design proponents are “careful not to bring God into the discussion.” And Newsweek magazine commented that “I.D. has nothing to say on the existence and identity of the designer.”

You can appreciate, though, that it is futile to try to evade the question of the designer. How could the explanation involving design in the universe and of life itself be complete if the existence and identity of the designer were concealed or not even considered?

To an extent, the debate on whether to invoke a designer or not revolves around these questions: Would accepting the existence of a superhuman designer hamper scientific and intellectual progress? Is an intelligent designer called for only when no other explanation is offered? And does it really make sense to infer from the design that there is a designer? The following article will discuss these and related questions.

Following article: Admire the Design; Learn About the Designer

Or see the rest of my initial comment that I quoted from at the start of this comment.

a reply to: neoholographic
I kind of agree.
You could argue that evolution is illogical because we can't understand the time frames. The reason Darwin was so celebrated was because he found something so counter intuitive.

However you seem to agree with evolution except for the very beginning.

And the beginning is a blatant gap that no credible scientist can explain confidently.

I'm confused, we seem to agree on everything except abiogenesis. Your answer is someone else did it, mine is someone else could have done it.

I guess the question is at what point do the odds seem insurmountable and you have to resort to a God to answer it.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It isn't just about abiogenesis.

Before I got into genetics, I looked at evolution and said intelligent agency must be involved.

I saw how all of these parts evolved separately but just worked together to carry out different tasks. When people said this occurred randomly and naturally, it made no sense to me.

I even went and talked to students at a local College. I asked them, how could parts evolve separately that weren't designed to work together be the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to work together to carry out tasks.

One guy was so upset with me, he went and got his Professor. He couldn't answer either and basically said evolution is one of the strongest theories we have in science. I said if it's so strong, why can't you answer a simple question from a guy who barely graduated High School.

When I was younger, all I cared about was strippers and partying. After I gave my life to Christ, I was given the gift of knowledge and understanding by the Holy Spirit.

I found myself winning debates with people who I know are more educated than I am. I found myself reading these science books that I was never interested in and understanding things in a way that got me kicked off of a few message boards. I would make the well educated atheist so mad because they couldn't refute the logic.

So I would be remiss if I didn't say to anyone reading this thread, if you're persuaded by these arguments, there's more than I can ever tell you. Simply go into a corner, kneel down and open your heart to Christ. Ask Christ to reveal these things to you.

I then read a book on Genetics. Then Hubert Yockey's book that said that DNA transmits information like a communications channel that you would see designed by an Engineer.

You have an encoder that encodes information, a code that transmits that information and then a decoder which decodes the transmitted information.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

evo2.org...

We don't see codes like this occurring anywhere in nature. The only place we see this is with intelligent design.

The sad part is, evolution has led so many away from God because it's easy to accept the illogical when it's what you want to believe.

a reply to: neoholographic

Okay well if you are done bragging, then maybe you can share your model of creation. And please don't say that god literally just talked humans into being a thing. There's actual math and a methodology behind all this god stuff right? Walk us through it so we can understand the exact mechanics of how intelligent design works.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I am going to put it into simple terms, it's like God(Grand Architect) gave Jesus(Grand Builder) this plan/diagram.
And told him to build it.



That is a woodworking plan that had a designer, I am using this because Jesus was a carpenter when he was on earth.

In a similar way billions of years ago God gave Jesus the code, plans, diagrams, blueprints for the entire universe supplying him with infinite resources to accomplish his assignment. From the largest super cluster of galaxies in cosmology to the tiniest quark in physics all the science was planned. And we can see it in the math with the Fibonacci sequences and the golden triangle, these have been likened to an Architectural stamp left behind for us to see from God.

a reply to: cooperton

DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy

You sound like a five year old demanding his cookies. Read the following article and weep.

Self-assembly and Polymerization of DNA Monomers with Controllable Size and Stimuli-Responsive Property for Targeted Gene Regulation Therapy.

Juan Li,†,‡ Cheng Zheng,† Sena Cansiz,‡ Cuichen Wu,‡ Jiehua Xu,‡,⊥ Cheng Cui,‡ Yuan Liu,‡
Weijia Hou,‡ Yanyue Wang,‡ Liqin Zhang,‡ I-ting Teng,‡ Huang-Hao Yang,*,† and Weihong Tan*,‡,§
†The Key Lab of Analysis and Detection Technology for Food Safety of the MOE, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Analysis and Detection Technology for Food Safety, College of Chemistry, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350002, P.R. China
§Molecular Science and Biomedicine Laboratory, State Key Laboratory for Chemo/Bio-Sensing and Chemometrics, College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, College of Biology, and Collaborative Research Center of Molecular Engineering for Theranostics, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, P.R. China

ABSTRACT:

Here, we report the self assembly and self polymerization of DNA monomers as effective targeted gene delivery vectors. It is well known that DNA self assemble and polymerize independently in nature. Utilizing the ability of DNA monomers to self polymerize, DNA units can be synthesized through self polymerization through a self-assembly process using three kinds of building units, respectively termed Y-shaped monomer A with three sticky ends (YMA), Y-shaped monomer B with one sticky end (YMB), and DNA linker (LK) with two sticky ends. Hybridization at the sticky ends of monomers and LK leads to nanohydrogel formation. DNA nanohydrogels are sizecontrollable by varying the ratio of YMA to YMB. By incorporating different functional elements, such as aptamers, disulfide linkages, and therapeutic genes into different building units, the synthesized aptamer-based nanohydrogels (Y-gel-Apt) can be used for targeted and stimuli-responsive gene therapy. Y-gel-Apt strongly inhibited cell proliferation and migration in target A549 cells, but not in control cells. By taking advantage of the natural ability of DNA to self assemble and polymerize DNA monomers,efficient cellular uptake, and superior biocompatibility, this Y-gel-Apt holds great promise as a candidate for targeted gene or drug delivery and cancer therapy.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You sound like a five year old demanding his cookies. Read the following article and weep.

Self-assembly and Polymerization of DNA Monomers with Controllable Size and Stimuli-Responsive Property for Targeted Gene Regulation Therapy.

Juan Li et al

ABSTRACT:

Here, we report the self assembly and self polymerization of DNA monomers as effective targeted gene delivery vectors. It is well known that DNA self assemble and polymerize independently in nature. Utilizing the ability of DNA monomers to self polymerize, DNA units can be synthesized through self polymerization through a self-assembly process using three kinds of building units, respectively termed Y-shaped monomer A with three sticky ends (YMA), Y-shaped monomer B with one sticky end (YMB), and DNA linker (LK) with two sticky ends. Hybridization at the sticky ends of monomers and LK leads to nanohydrogel formation. DNA nanohydrogels are sizecontrollable by varying the ratio of YMA to YMB. By incorporating different functional elements, such as aptamers, disulfide linkages, and therapeutic genes into different building units, the synthesized aptamer-based nanohydrogels (Y-gel-Apt) can be used for targeted and stimuli-responsive gene therapy. Y-gel-Apt strongly inhibited cell proliferation and migration in target A549 cells, but not in control cells. By taking advantage of the natural ability of DNA to self assemble and polymerize DNA monomers,efficient cellular uptake, and superior biocompatibility, this Y-gel-Apt holds great promise as a candidate for targeted gene or drug delivery and cancer therapy.

Unfortunately for you this is not nucleotide monomer polymerization. Their use of the word 'monomer' is in reference to DNA chain monomers. Again this is a DNA's tertiary structure, not a monomer in the sense of primary structure polymerization.

It gives it away clearly via the pictures of their 'monomers':



Notice their building unit (what they also refer to as a monomer) is actually referring to a tertiary structure DNA sequence. Their use of 'sticky ends' also proves they are using a tertiary structure DNA sequence, and not a nucleotide monomer, because sticky ends usually require 4 nucleotides to form an overhanging DNA sequence which is highly reactive with other sticky ends. This part is shown in the picture above by the small black line at the ends of the DNA sequences. These building blocks they are using are longer than just 4 nucleotides, the 4 nucleotides are just the synthesized reactive part of the larger tertiary structure. These are monomers in the sense that they are looking at the entire DNA sequence as a 'building unit', but it is by no means referring to nucleotide monomers self-polymerizing into their primary structure.

Yet again, you have failed to prove that DNA nucleotide monomers can self-polymerize to form the primary structure. You continually show you are not a trained biology. I should start charging you for all this schooling.

Let's repeat: DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy

a reply to: cooperton

100% wrong again. You just can't admit that you don't know what you're talking about. You want nucleic acid monomers?
You'll have them too.

But let's be clear on what you said:

DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy

This is the title of the article:

Self-assembly and Polymerization of DNA Monomers with Controllable Size and Stimuli-Responsive Property for Targeted Gene Regulation Therapy.

You'll have to do a lot of scrambling to defend yourself. You can't do it. You won't do it.

a reply to: cooperton

You also completely misinterpreted what that image is showing. This is an example of YOU never having been in a real LAB to conduct experiments. You have no idea how it's done or even what the terminology means.

Nucleic acids also self polymerize. It's a no brainer. You're so ignorant of real science that you just make it up as you go along.

Self assembly and self polymerization is a fundamental biological strategy on this planet. It happens in all living organisms.

Once again, you need to make up a model that allows your super being to be the initiator of these reactions. You can't do it and you have never done it.

So let's see this super being in the process of initiating a reaction. I'm sure everyone reading this will be curious to see it in action.

originally posted by: Phantom423

This is the title of the article:


"Self-assembly and Polymerization of DNA Monomers with Controllable Size and Stimuli-Responsive Property for Targeted Gene Regulation Therapy."

You'll have to do a lot of scrambling to defend yourself. You can't do it. You won't do it.

Hahaha... phantom, you have to read the article buddy. Their vernacular regarding a 'monomer' is in reference to a DNA macromolecule. You're tough to communicate with because you're not good with biology. Take a look at what they refer to as "YMA", they call it a monomer or building unit. But it is not a nucleotide monomer, it is a DNA chain (tertiary structure) monomer. Look at this picture again:



YMA is the Y-shaped nucleotide chain. It's not a nucleotide monomer, it's a tertiary structure monomer. If you can't understand this then I don't know what else to tell ya. For reference, here is what a nucleotide monomer looks like (which are never mentioned in the paper):



You have to read more than just the title to understand what they're saying. Hint: look how they use the word "oligonucleotide" to refer to these chains in the paper. Oligonucleotides are defined as DNA chains, not DNA monomers