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

a reply to: cooperton

Here, we show that glycosylation of melamine and BA by ribose-5-phosphate (R5P) occurs spontaneously in water to produce nucleotides in yields of up to 55% and 82%, respectively. When combined, the nucleotides form supramolecular assemblies with Watson–Crick-like base pairs, even within the crude reaction mixtures. These assemblies are shown to preferentially incorporate and increase the fraction of the β-anomer of the melamine nucleotide over the α-anomer.These findings demonstrate prebiotically plausible mechanisms for the selection of nucleotides in both nucleobase and sugar structure.

a reply to: cooperton

a reply to: cooperton

Abstract
We report that the ability of disodium 5′-deoxy-5′-thioguanosine-5′-monophosphate, Na2(5′-GSMP), to self-associate into a helical G-quadruplex structure in aqueous solution at pH 8is significantly higher than that of disodium guanosine-5′-monophosphate, Na2(5′-GMP), which supports our earlier hypothesis regarding the importance of cation bridging.

a reply to: cooperton

Here, we demonstrate the efficient formation of hydrogen-bonded base pairs from mononucleotides in water through enclathration in the hydrophobic cavities of self-assembled cages. Crystallographic studies and 1H- and 15N-NMR spectroscopy clearly reveals pair-selective recognition of mononucleotides and the Textselective formation of an anti-Hoogsteen-type base pair in the cage's cavity. Within an analogous expanded cage, dinucleotides are also found to form a stable duplex in water. These results emphasize how hydrogen-bonded base pairing is amplified in a local hydrophobic area isolated from aqueous solution.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Still not nucleotide polymerization. This is the formation of nucleotides from their constituent molecules, not the polymerization of nucleotides into RNA/DNA chains. Thanks for not including erroneous insults, this can be a cordial debate ya know??

So the dilemma remains... Since nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize into nucleic acid chains, life could not have come to be through random chance reactions.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Abstract
We report that the ability of disodium 5′-deoxy-5′-thioguanosine-5′-monophosphate, Na2(5′-GSMP), to self-associate into a helical G-quadruplex structure in aqueous solution at pH 8is significantly higher than that of disodium guanosine-5′-monophosphate, Na2(5′-GMP), which supports our earlier hypothesis regarding the importance of cation bridging.

"In molecular biology, G-quadruplex secondary structures (G4) are formed in nucleic acids by sequences that are rich in guanine. They are helical in shape and contain guanine tetrads that can form from one, two or four strands."

G-quadruplex structures are helices that are formed as secondary structures, not primary structures. Nucleotide self-polymerization into its primary structure is what you need to find to prove that there is any hint of possibility for life coming to be by random chance.

You will save us both time by conceding that primary structure nucleotide self-polymerization does not happen.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: TzarChasm

What makes you so upset about evolution that it deserves to be eradicated?

He’s a YEC (young earth creationist). If he accepts evolution, he has to then reject his YEC religion. They’re about as clever as flat earthers.

He probably believes rain is gods tears and snow is gods dandruff.

Hold on, I don't think he is a YEC, but let him confirm or deny this.
For myself, the science of how long it takes and how fast light travels from stars in other galaxies to earth rules it out 100%.
This isn't about faith but pure science that is factual that is 100% understood not some conjecture.
For example the blue super giant Icarus is billions of light years from earth, the light emitting from that star just reaching earth that we can see, left many billions of years ago.

Again this by itself alone rules out YEC as a theory no better than evolutionary abiogenesis. They are both equally wrong, science must support your beliefs where it is known.

I think you have your answer.

originally posted by: TzarChasm


I think you have your answer.

I'm looking for answers objectively. I don't think the official narrative is right regarding the age of the earth... but that's not the topic of debate.

You can't refute the evidence that shows evolution is impossible so you have to sidetrack the debate.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm


I think you have your answer.

I'm looking for answers objectively. I don't think the official narrative is right regarding the age of the earth... but that's not the topic of debate.

You can't refute the evidence that shows evolution is impossible so you have to sidetrack the debate.

Monomers and self polymerization are not proof of anything because you have failed to demonstrate the manner in which these devices were engineered as well as failing to provide fingerprints or any physical trace that explicitly confirms the identity of the engineering agency. Circumstantial evidence is just a really weird direction to go when you are studying a cosmic force historically known to be glaringly obvious.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Monomers and self polymerization are not proof of anything because you have failed to demonstrate the manner in which these devices were engineered

So you admit it is obvious that organisms were engineered and biological life came from a Logical source?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Monomers and self polymerization are not proof of anything because you have failed to demonstrate the manner in which these devices were engineered

So you admit it is obvious that organisms were engineered and biological life came from a Logical source?

No because there's no actual evidence to confirm that statement.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

No because there's no actual evidence to confirm that statement.

So you want to make the claim that:

The genetic code can code itself, which would be like a MacBook pro coding itself from nothing.

Mitochondria forming through random chance would be like a car engine forming by random chance.

Trees forming by random chance is as likely as solar panels which self-replicate coming to be by random chance.

You're defending what is, by its very definition, the most unintelligent argument you could defend. Life required intelligent input, just as much as cars and computers require intelligent input.

a reply to: cooperton


God(s) are random chance too. Let's see some evidence for the one which is supposed to be executing all these events.

Evidence hits you right between the eyes. You think that if you say something enough times that it will become true. Well, 500+ journals and 200,000 research articles say you're wrong. And you can't produce a single one which supports your claims.

The nucleotide/DNA monomer polymerization is a classic example. You can deny it all you like but any idiot can see the evidence in those papers. You never fail to confirm our lowest expectations.

a reply to: Phantom423

You still haven't answered my question. This is like the 10th time. You keep avoiding the question.

How did self assembly encode the sequence of a unique storage medium like DNA with information, encode the instructions to build the machinery to decode this information and encode non coding sequences with information that regulates the expression of coding regions?

Also, DON"T BLINDLY POST AN ABSTRACT. If you post an Abstract explain in your own words how the abstract relates to the thread. You have a habit of running to Google and then blindly posting an Abstract that has nothing to do with the thread.

It get's worse for you. Tell me how parts evolved separately through a random, natural process that are the right size, shape and come together to carry out different tasks. Here's a video showing how all the parts of ATP Synthase works together.



If you believe in a natural interpretation of evolution, you have to explain how all of the right parts that are the right size and hape and come together at the right angles did so naturally and randomly. This is asinine but people will believe it because it supports there belief system. Here's more:

Molecular machines are molecule-based devices, typically on the nanometer scale, that are capable of generating physical motions, for example translocation, in response to certain inputs from the outside such as a chemical, electrical, or light stimulus. A large number of such sophisticated small devices are found in Nature, including the many biological motors discussed in this chapter, such as helicases and polymerases. These tiny nanomachines work in many ways just like an automobile on the highway, and many consume fuel on a molecular level, for instance through the hydrolysis of adenosine-5′-triphosphate (ATP) molecules, to power their motion on their tracks. As a result, when lacking the required fuel, these nanomachines tend to slow down and even stop, same as a motor vehicle would. In addition, these biological motors often move in a directional manner with variable speeds, and their processivity characteristics can be described by how far they move on their track of molecular highway. Motions of individual components with these protein machines, for example, the ribosome … , are often nicely coordinated like in any sophisticated, larger-scaled mechanical machines. (p. 4)

evolutionnews.org...

You then have what's called Irreducible Ordanization.

Paper: “Irreducible Organization” of DNA Necessary for Genetic Regulation

A new paper in the journal Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, “Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information,” argues that cellular mechanisms involved in processing genetic information make up an irreducibly complex system. The system requires genetic information, genetic machinery keyed to read that genetic information, as well as specific chromosomal organization. All of these components are necessary for what the paper calls “the organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system.”

To be precise, the paper uses the term “irreducible organization” but it amounts to the same thing as biochemist Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity,” and points implicitly to the same challenge to Darwinian accounts of origins.

The paper aims to critique the reductionist “Jacob-Monod paradigm,” which fails to appreciate the complexity of genetic information, as well as the interaction between transcription factors and their target genes. Of course we’re all familiar with genetic information in DNA being required to produce proteins. But the paper argues that in addition to the “digital information” in the primary DNA sequence, there is also “analog information” in the three-dimensional structure of chromosomes:

evolutionnews.org...

MIND BLOWN!

I will post a couple of more parts cause they're important and then I will explain why they're important instead of just saying go fish. From the paper:

Recent studies have made it increasingly evident that the primary sequence of DNA in addition to the linear genetic code also provides three-dimensional information by means of spatially ordered supercoil structures relevant to all DNA transactions, including transcriptional control. In this review, we adopt the previously introduced terms “analog” and “digital” with regard to the two logically distinct types of information provided by the DNA. … [A]ny DNA gene is a carrier of digital information by virtue of its unique base sequence. Moreover, a gene conceived as an isolated piece of linear code (no matter whether this isolation occurs at the level of transcription or posttranscriptional processing), is a discontinuous entity that can be expressed or not, thus principally consistent with an “on-or-off” logic and, therefore, belonging to digital information type. Conversely, the physicochemical properties of DNA, as exemplified by supercoiling and mechanical stiffness, are determined not by individual base pairs but by the additive interactions of successive base steps. Supercoiling is by definition a continuous parameter ranging between positive and negative values (you can have more or less of it), and so belongs to analog information type.

link.springer.com...

One more from the article:

The article even specifies that there are “Three basic components underlying the irreducible organisational complexity of any living cell” where “the organisation is essentially circular with all three basic components standing in relationship to reciprocal determination.” Those three components are specified as transcriptional machinery, DNA topology, and metabolic energy. The authors are perplexed by how the “irreducible” and “circular” organization of this system arose since they admit, “we face a ‘chicken or egg’ dilemma — on the one hand the TF-TG interactions are determinative for the chromosomal structure, and on the other hand this very same structure determines the regulatory interactions.”

As noted, the paper recognizes that there are other types of information in DNA beyond merely the sequence of bases. What’s incredible is that even though these two types of information are specified through different physical means, they nonetheless interact to regulate gene expression. The article explains that the supercoiling structure of DNA is vital to regulating gene expression, and at the same time it’s not specified by the base-pair sequence. However, the base-pair sequence does interact with the supercoiling, and is more prone to localized untwisting to allow transcription:

evolutionnews.org...

So, the question is, how did these different levels of information become coordinated or evolve naturally? It's like if you work at a factory and the Boss has used his intelligence to design a system where different systems information is coordinated to complete a task. So they may have a system when 2 trucks come into the factory there's a person designated to guide in both trucks to their docks. The two trucks also have red signal lights that let them know when they need to stop before they back into the dock. INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

a reply to: neoholographic

If you can't read the papers, that's your problem. It's how research is done. Abstracts are summaries of that research. You're not a scientist, you've never worked in the field, you don't understand how research is done.

Come back after you make an effort to understand the scientific method. Get some education in the meantime.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


God(s) are random chance too. Let's see some evidence for the one which is supposed to be executing all these events.

Evidence hits you right between the eyes. You think that if you say something enough times that it will become true. Well, 500+ journals and 200,000 research articles say you're wrong.

Stop with the appeals to majority. None of those articles record an instance of evolution.

The nucleotide/DNA monomer polymerization is a classic example. You can deny it all you like but any idiot can see the evidence in those papers. You never fail to confirm our lowest expectations.

None of those articles show that DNA monomers can self-polymerize. give one example from any of those articles that shows that adenine/tyrosine/guanine/cytosil can self-polymerize. You can't, because it doesn't happen. Either you are being obtuse, or you know you are wrong so you are hiding behind ambiguity.

a reply to: cooperton

Typical dumb response. Don't you ever have a new idea? You post the same thing over and over and expect a different answer. Remember what Einstein said about that behavior .....................

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Typical dumb response. Don't you ever have a new idea? You post the same thing over and over and expect a different answer.

I'll move on to a new idea when you admit you were wrong. If you can't admit you were wrong then there's no point conversing with you because you are already locked in to a predetermined bias.

a reply to: cooperton

You don't have to move on because there's nothing for you to move on to - you're stuck in the filth of Creationism.

And you can deny the science all your want. No one is listening except you to yourself.

Try an original thought once in a while.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

If you can't read the papers, that's your problem. It's how research is done. Abstracts are summaries of that research. You're not a scientist, you've never worked in the field, you don't understand how research is done.

Come back after you make an effort to understand the scientific method. Get some education in the meantime.

LOL, this means you have no answer.

You post abstracts then say go fish. You can't articulate why what you're posting is relevant to the discussion. You want people to read through papers and try to guess why you posted the paper and what it has to do with the thread. Most of what you post has nothing to do with the thread and I suspect this is why you can't articulate your position.

I've been on ATS since 2012 and nobody debates like that. I can't think of anyone on any board that I debate on who posts abstracts then basically says figure out why I posted it.

Again, you do this because you can't debate the issue. If you could, you would articulate why you're posting the paper and why it refutes what's being discussed in the thread.

Again I ask:

How did self assembly encode the sequence of a unique storage medium like DNA with information, encode the instructions to build the machinery to decode this information and encode non coding sequences with information that regulates the expression of coding regions?

Also, DON"T BLINDLY POST AN ABSTRACT. If you post an Abstract explain in your own words how the abstract relates to the thread. You have a habit of running to Google and then blindly posting an Abstract that has nothing to do with the thread.

Here's more:

Abstract

Understanding genetic regulation is a problem of fundamental importance. Recent studies have made it increasingly evident that, whereas the cellular genetic regulation system embodies multiple disparate elements engaged in numerous interactions, the central issue is the genuine function of the DNA molecule as information carrier. Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer. These two DNA information types are intrinsically coupled in the primary sequence organisation, and this coupling is directly relevant to regulation of the genetic function. In this review, we emphasise the critical need of holistic integration of the DNA information as a prerequisite for understanding the organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system.

link.springer.com...

Unlike you, I don't just post abstracts without explaining why I'm posting it.

Here you have organisational complexity which the Authors call irreducible organization in the article, where different levels of information is organized to work together in a way that if this was a human design we would say the person who designed it was very intelligent.

If you support a natural interpretation of evolution, you have to explain how this information was encoded on the sequence of DNA and it just happened to be the right information to build machines made up of many parts and with different levels of information that just work together for no reason.

Here's more from the paper:

Genetic regulation is crucial not only for sustaining the self-reproduction of a cell but also for substituting its worn-out constituents. This implies that a genetic regulation system, as a system consisting of physical elements, must be able not only to perform its primary function but also to perceive any internal changes of state so that it retains the potential, for example, to replenish its own components. In other words, it has to be self-referential. This peculiarity of organisation becomes conspicuous when compared to information coding in natural language, the syntactic and semantic properties of which provide logically different types of information. Syntax determines the structure of the rules of language and, thus, the way in which the words are assembled in sentences, whereas semantics determine the meaning of the words and so the available vocabulary. However, the structural rules of language cannot determine the meanings of the words, and nor is the vocabulary determinative for the structural rules of the language (we do not concern ourselves with any generative mechanisms relevant to the formal language theory here). Therefore, viewed as a coding system composed of two non-convertible types of information, natural language is not self-referential. By the same token, the Jacob-Monod paradigm separating the gene regulatory context from the genetic information is at variance with self-referential organisation. Notably, we do not use this term in the sense of elaborated mathematical concepts of distinction, circulation, feedback, re-entry, recursion, etc. Self-referential organisation, as we put it here, implies inter-conversion of information between logically distinct coding systems specifying each other reciprocally. Thus, the holistic approach assumes selfreferentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the different codes) as an irreducible organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell.

Put another way, this implies that the structural dynamics of the chromosome must be fully convertible into its genetic expression and vice versa. Since the DNA is an essential carrier of genetic information, the fundamental question is how this self-referential organisation is encoded in the sequence of the DNA polymer.

link.springer.com...

It's very evident to anyone looking at this without the blind belief in materialism, that a blind, natural, random process couldn't do things like encode the sequence of a storage medium with information and build the machinary to decode this information or randomly and for no reason evolve a bunch of parts that just are the right size and shape that just work together to carry out the exact tasks needed for things like gene regulation and expression.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

No because there's no actual evidence to confirm that statement.

So you want to make the claim that:

The genetic code can code itself, which would be like a MacBook pro coding itself from nothing.

Mitochondria forming through random chance would be like a car engine forming by random chance.

Trees forming by random chance is as likely as solar panels which self-replicate coming to be by random chance.

You're defending what is, by its very definition, the most unintelligent argument you could defend. Life required intelligent input, just as much as cars and computers require intelligent input.

The evidence (body of facts) on hand strongly supports the position that natural biology developed through billions of years of trial and error. It's weird because you keep comparing trees to car engines but I don't see any car engines growing from trees. Now that would be some compelling evidence of godly influence. I also don't see computer gardens or robot chickens. Yet we keep comparing software and metal with RNA and flesh. How is it that life so clearly emulates the machines we have built yet we are the first and only creatures to actually make machines? Very dirty and complicated machines I might add.