How Did RNA & DNA Come Into Existence ?

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Abiogenesis is certainly a tough nut to crack.

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

IMO It’s just down to what they ate or absorbed.. nth of bacteria came into existence at the same time as did plankton due to conditions being right and every higher form evolved from creatures that “creepeth and crawled”

originally posted by: 57ORM1IV

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Abiogenesis is certainly a tough nut to crack.

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

IMO It’s just down to what they ate or absorbed.. nth of bacteria came into existence at the same time as did plankton due to conditions being right and every higher form evolved from creatures that “creepeth and crawled”

But how does an organism decide, "Okay, you cells are going to be brain cells, you other cells are going to photosynthesize, and you other cells are going to break down organic material and spread it around to all the other cells."

a reply to: Blue Shift

Another good point all the code is there, it is reading which ones it needs to use, so it's not just the code, but the transliteration of what code to use and when.

I remember one evolutionist/scientists/biologist stopped believing in evolution after doing intensive research on the eye, saying the code being read for the DNA on the human eye was too complex and impossible to evolve, this is after years of in depth research. Just like what you said, a muscle cell doesn't evolve to become an retina cell.

originally posted by: 57ORM1IV
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

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

In 1953, molecular biologists James Watson and Francis Crick published a discovery that was critical to our scientific understanding of life. They had discovered the double-helical structure of DNA. This threadlike substance—mostly found in the nucleus of cells—contains encoded, or “written,” information, making cells living libraries, as it were.

Nearly all cells have DNA, complex molecules that resemble long twisted ladders. In the human genome, or our complete set of DNA, the ladders have approximately three billion chemical “rungs.” In 1957, Crick proposed that it is the linear sequence of the chemical rungs that forms coded instructions. In the 1960’s, that code began to be understood.

Information, whether in the form of pictures, sounds, or words, can be stored and processed in many ways. Computers, for example, do this all digitally. Living cells store and process information chemically, DNA being the key compound.

Consider one of the smallest organisms, bacteria. German scientist Bernd-Olaf Küppers stated: “Carried over to the realm of human language, the molecular text describing the construction of a bacterial cell would be about the size of a thousand-page book.”

To describe the writing in DNA as “molecular-genetic language” is more than “mere metaphor,” says Küppers. “Like human language,” he points out, “the molecular-genetic language also possesses a syntactic dimension.” Put simply, DNA has a “grammar,” or set of rules, that strictly regulates how its instructions are composed and carried out.

The “words” and “sentences” in DNA make up the various “recipes” that direct the production of proteins and other substances that form the building blocks of the various cells that make up the body. For example, the “recipe” might guide the production of bone cells, muscle cells, nerve cells, or skin cells. “The filament of DNA is information, a message written in a code of chemicals, one chemical for each letter,” wrote evolutionist Matt Ridley. “It is almost too good to be true, but the code turns out to be written in a way that we can understand.”

The Bible writer David said in prayer to God: “Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; all its parts were written in your book.” (Psalm 139:16) Of course, David was using poetic language. Nevertheless, in principle, he was right on the mark, which is typical of the Bible writers. None were even slightly influenced by the fanciful folklore or mythology of other ancient peoples. Such as these myths:

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Evolution—Myths and Facts

Fairly recent findings of two British scientists confirm that the genetic code is not simply the product of random chance. “Their analysis has shown [the genetic code] to be among the best of more than a billion billion possible codes,” notes New Scientist magazine. Of the roughly 10^20 (1 followed by 20 zeros) possible genetic codes, only one was selected early in the history of life. Why this specific one? Because it minimizes errors made during the protein-making process or errors caused by genetic mutations. In other words, the specific code guarantees that laws of heredity are strictly followed. Although some ascribe the selection of this genetic code to “strong selective pressures,” the two researchers have concluded that “it is extremely unlikely that such an efficient code arose by chance.”

Just to be clear, scientists do not use the term “genetic code” to describe the genes themselves. Rather, the code refers to the mechanism or set of rules that allows cells to “read” or decode the genes and produce proteins. Keep in mind though, my comment is for the general public, not scientists per sé. In popular usage the term “genetic code” is often given a broader, nontechnical application. And it's a little besides the point of my comment here.

I feel one is grasping at straws when one is trying to argue that “code” (or “the idea of DNA 'encoding'”) is merely an “analogy”, metaphor or merely “deciphered as a code”, not actually/factually a “code” (regarding DNA as found in the genome of living organisms). Partially quoting you and peter vlar.

People who know what they're talking about and are willing to be honest about it don't talk about the DNA code found in living organisms as if it's only an analogy or metaphor. And even those who are not willing to be honest about it and want to keep the door open to that argument (that it's not actually or literally a code), tend to shoot themselves in the foot whenever they forget to actually use the word “code” as an analogy or metaphor (by adding phrases like: “like a code”, or “similar to a code”) and end up using the word in a way that describes or treats it as an actual code.

I find the insinuation that a code can be produced by chance, not requiring intelligent causation, in terms like “artificially produced code” (as if there also can be a non-artifically produced code, as if the word “code” still can apply then), much more cunning and subtle (as peter vlar did). The other argument ('DNA as found in the genome of living organisms is not actually/factually or literally a code') sounds so much more desperate. They are both equally desperate, but it's just way more obvious the way 57ORM1IV put it.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: 57ORM1IV

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Abiogenesis is certainly a tough nut to crack.

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

IMO It’s just down to what they ate or absorbed.. nth of bacteria came into existence at the same time as did plankton due to conditions being right and every higher form evolved from creatures that “creepeth and crawled”

But how does an organism decide, "Okay, you cells are going to be brain cells, you other cells are going to photosynthesize, and you other cells are going to break down organic material and spread it around to all the other cells."

Hmmm how far down the rabbit hole do you want
to go? The cells know? Or they just “ Do” we don’t separate the cells today do we in our brain say “right blood cells you are going to do this bla or “nerve cells you are going to do that” it just happens that’s not to say a God programmed them, or who programmed Gods?.

I think it works a lot like evolution. A fish can swim without thinking, just as a bird flys. This the same as a plant cell photosynthesis works with rays from the sun.

DNA is like the Sun, and the Cells like plants, Then the cells are the sun to the plants (mitochondria and chloroplasts.)

You can also liken DNA to a computer
Mitochondria to the battery
Cells the chips
Nerves the circuits...
Organs veins muscle bones etc - the hardware
Brain the software..

If you want to live in a matrix lol

whereislogic

When all of your “citations“ are YouTube, Watchtower and JW.org you lose any credibility in a discussion pertaining to science because you’re not using anything resembling science to support your willfully ignorant anti science stance. Your more than entitled to your personal opinions but don’t spout off your opinions as if they’re actually facts.

edit on 17-8-2019 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)

a reply to: peter vlar

Oh look, another ad hominem reverse appeal to pride that plays on people's fears of seeming stupid and "anti science" (or demonstrating having been played and affected by such techniques), no doubt intended as a red herring or distraction from what I said in my comment*, never seen that before on this forum, ahum. *: not to mention intended to discredit, but that's already implied with the term ad hominem.

How empty this forum would be if one would moderate out all the personal invective.

‘Unbelievers are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact.* However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Are modern scientists handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

Proving the above, U.S. News & World Report (March 2, 1981) told of scandals in science labs. A researcher at Yale said: “It’s the Watergate of science.” The article concluded: “‘It’s shocking,’ acknowledges Dr. Arnold Relman, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. ‘It strikes yet another idol. Everyone turns out to have clay feet​—even some research scientists.”’ Simpson, in The Meaning of Evolution, said evolutionists “may use the same data to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed theories” and each one “puts his particular theory into the data.” (Pp. 137-9) Sullivan said that scientists do not “invariably tell the truth, or try to, even about their science. They have been known to lie, but they did not lie in order to serve science but, usually, religious or anti-religious prejudices.”​—Limitations of Science, pp. 173-5.

The original quest for truth is often forgotten as each one gleans for ideas to bolster his own emotional conviction, whether it be scientific dogma or religious creed. Evolution is not the caliber of the science that sends men to the moon or cracks the genetic code. It is more like religion​—priestlike authorities that speak ex cathedra, sectarian squabbles, unexplainable mysteries, faith in missing links and missing mutations, a laity that blindly follows, wresting evidence to fit their creed, and denouncing nonbelievers as stupid and “anti science”. And their god? The same one the ancients sacrificed to, preparing “a table for the god of Good Luck.”​—Isa. 65:11.

In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

*: THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10. (i.e. unreasonable)

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky. (i.e. believers or unbelievers)

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin. (inverse or reverse implied: incompetent if not accepted)

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington. (inverse or reverse: irresponsible)

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey. (inverse or reverse: uninformed)

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson. (inverse: not free of old illusions and prejudices)

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.

In other words (when focussing on the inverse or reverse):

‘Unbelievers are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’

It's getting old.

a reply to: peter vlar

And as indicated in my commentary before including the quotation regarding the “evolution of life” when an evolutionist was referring to the origin of life earlier, wherever I'm using “evolution” in my comment above I'm also referring to and including the so-called “chemical evolution theory of life” as that term was used by Haldane and Oparin as mentioned on the wikipedia page for abiogenesis explaining the various storylines for the spontaneous generation of life by chance, by accident (including various expressions of the belief “that evolution made all life on earth”, quoting a scientist from the previous comment). Before anyone brings up that objection or red herring concerning evolution in relation to the subject of the origin of life* again in response to my comment, or just to give people the notion that I'm using the word or terms wrong or that my comment wasn't relevant or something like that.

*: and thus also the origin of DNA and RNA

originally posted by: peter vlar

When all of your “citations“ are YouTube, Watchtower and JW.org ...

You've made 3 comments in this thread, none of which uses any “citations” as you call it, and you're trying to use my supposed use of “citations” to discredit my commentary?

And btw, none of the actual 'citations' (if you want to call it that) that I did use so far in this thread (all my commentary), are from “YouTube, Watchtower and JW.org” (your previous response was more of the same picture painting). Just another false picture painted to distract from the subjects actually discussed in my commentary. Are you setting something up by saying “citations“ as if you're quoting my usage of the word? I think this comment is the first time I used the word in this thread. Perhaps you were quoting yourself.

For me, several thoughts. First is that I expect dna had a more rudimentary precursor. No need to think dna was the prime originator, it could have started off as something less complex.

Secondly, I expect that life is possibly just another natural state of matter, like solid, liquid etc that naturally forms in the same way that all the hydrogen that was the precursor to everything else became all the other elements and compounds that we have.

And lastly, I expect it likely there is some underlying intelligence guiding it, just like there’s some underlying intelligence guiding all the laws and behaviors of quantum and of physical laws. After all, it’s not hydrogen, it’s certain vibrational frequencies. Where do all the frequencies come from? It’s maya. Just like how in our dreams we create a whole reality within our own minds.

originally posted by: pexx421
No need to think dna was the prime originator, it could have started off as something less complex.

But even the most rudimentary prokaryotes (bacteria) have DNA. We have never found an organism that has some sort of intermediate function. This is because DNA and its role in protein production is irreducibly complex. It could not be any less complex than the way it is, because if it were, it would not be able to function.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

But how does an organism decide, "Okay, you cells are going to be brain cells, you other cells are going to photosynthesize, and you other cells are going to break down organic material and spread it around to all the other cells."

And it also has to have some sort of guiding principal that organizes it in the correct parts of the body. You don't want stomach cells in your mouth, and vice versa. For random mutations to also account for the directive placement of new functions is another hurdle it must pass. Not to mention it has never been observed to happen, ever. Evolution, which I now call a fairy tale (because theories require evidence), is totally incapable of creating new biological functions by random chance.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

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.

those same scientists cant answer the questions i posed earlier:

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.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

That is not the point here. They can believe what they like 9I certainly did. Belief is not science, belief is gut feeling. They can't show that their deity (or deities) of choice did it. I'm fortunate that my spiritual path does not blame Gods for the shoddy job of what many species are genetically. IF a God did it, they are a terrible work-deity, and its like they did it last thing on Friday, to get to the pub.