Evolution:

[Doug1029]

Why do we have to do that. I really wish that supporters of evolution would stop invoking the criticism of Creation by way of circumventing valid criticism of evolution.

You mock a Creationist for making up a ridiculous theory but look what you just wrote.

When it comes down to it your whole theory hinges on this statement:

'm sure you will bleat about biogenesis but minerals were leaching from the Earths magma and there could have been an organism in there somewhere.

How is that a scientific statement on which to rest an entire theory?

Truethat:

I would like to write an article laying out the best arguments for and against evolution/creationism. I am seeking well-informed sources on both sides of the argument. My problem, so far, is that evolutionits know very little about the theological underpinnings of creationism and are thus not able to answer questions pertaining to them. The same applies in spades to creationists talking about evolution. The result is the drivel we're reading on this website.

Ideally, what I want is pro-creation articles by evolutionary biologists and pro-evolution articles by top-level theologians. Are you aware of any such sources, and if so, what are they?

Thanks,

--DJS

[Doug1029]

Seeing as the Bible is pure fiction, I do not find it hard for him to do such a thing.

Kind of hard to answer this. I believe Moses was a legend - that is, part history, part myth. I would have to place the "writing the Pentateuch" part in th myth column. So I guess the question comes down to: did a legend create a myth? And which part (the historical or the mythical) was it that created the myth? Hmm!

There is a lot of stuff in the Bible that can be proven true, but there is also a lot that can be proven false. And there is a lot that is unproveable one way or the other. So I don't agree that it is PURE fiction; it is fiction contaminated with truth. (Or maybe, truth contaminated by fiction: hard to tell which it might be.).

--DJS

[Guyver]

Dark Arc,

I think that you did a good job with your posts. I happen to agree with your perspective, but even if I didn't - I wouldn't fault your presentation. I always like to add one point to this discussion and that's DNA. DNA is so precise by nature as to clearly eliminate all but intelligent design as a source. It's like complex computer code but tens of thousands of times more sophisticated. This type of programming never occurs randomly in nature, or even in our technological world. Sophisticated computer code only arises with the help of the programmer; remember - garbage in, garbage out.

Yetihunter

[Cradle of Fish]

Dark Arc,

I think that you did a good job with your posts. I happen to agree with your perspective, but even if I didn't - I wouldn't fault your presentation. I always like to add one point to this discussion and that's DNA. DNA is so precise by nature as to clearly eliminate all but intelligent design as a source. It's like complex computer code but tens of thousands of times more sophisticated. This type of programming never occurs randomly in nature, or even in our technological world. Sophisticated computer code only arises with the help of the programmer; remember - garbage in, garbage out.

Yetihunter

Just because you do not understand how these things come about naturally doesn't mean they were 'designed'.

[Fearisgood]

Just because you do not understand how these things come about naturally doesn't mean they were 'designed'.

Just because you don't understand how [put in anything you do not understand (eg windows Vista software)] operates, does not mean it came about naturally.

[Stellar]

Just because you don't understand how [put in anything you do not understand (eg windows Vista software)] operates, does not mean it came about naturally.

Which leaves us with the possibility for it to be intelligently designed, or naturally occuring.

[Fearisgood]

Which leaves us with the possibility for it to be intelligently designed, or naturally occuring.

And naturally occurring code-bearing matter is then automatically assumed to come about by natural processes. I can only think of 1 type (maybe someone can help me out) of naturally occurring code-bearing matter, life . So far, all other code-bearing matter (whether you discover an alien signal or a computer) will be assumed to have a designer. Why not life?

The universe is governed by laws (some yet to be discovered), yet these laws are assumed to be as a result of natural processes...

[Cradle of Fish]

Just because you don't understand how [put in anything you do not understand (eg windows Vista software)] operates, does not mean it came about naturally.

Windows Vista is just loads of code in a computer. DNA is natural material, all life has it. I'm no geneticist so I couldn't tell you how it came about, but just because I dont know how it came about doesn't mean God made it.

[Isis2200]

Sorry SherlockH,

But from an ecological point of view, this is simply not possible. Firstly, a species needs a minimum breeding population to survive, below a certain critical number a breeding population will collapse. One pair wouldn't have been enough, even in a "relatively empty" ecological niche (don't forget environmental factors such as harsh winters, pathogens causing illness, etc) . Secondly, what would the carnivore animals have lived off, in this post-flood world? Either they would have starved to death, or, what is more likely, would have predated on the other freed animals; so most of them would have been eaten, and then the rest of them would have starved to death. And no amount of evolution could account for the number of species we have alive today giving it just 6000 years or so, starting from these 8000 "kinds". Nor does it make sense when you look at the fossil record. You can slice it any which way, it's just not possible.

Interesting post, SeaMare. I've often thought of how the animals were kept aboard the ark and how they were adrift 40 days and 40 nights without fighting and killing each other off. How did predators not kill off their prey? These are things that baffled me UNTIL I read about an account(and people can choose to believe this or not to) up here at the Sherman Ranch in Utah where a couple had their 4 bulls disappear and later to appear in an old unused trailer which was locked. The bulls appeared to be in suspended animation.

The definition for suspended animation is "the slowing without termination of life processes by external means." This certainly would've prevented fighting and killing of prey. I just came across a very interesting article that claims that researchers are testing potentially life-saving techniques for keeping humans in a state of suspended animation while surgeons repair their wounds. This has already been done with mice, fish, and perhaps other animals.

But that doesn't answer the question of what happened to them after they came out of the ark. We must remember that all that is needed to create animals is DNA. If, while they were still in the ark, DNA was obtained from these animals while they were in suspended animation, they could easily be re-created if they later became prey or died by some other means after they left the ark. I believe this is what was done. For those people, however, who do not believe in a supreme Creator(s), this idea will never fly.

[Fearisgood]

Windows Vista is just loads of code in a computer.

DNA is an almost infinitely more complex code in a cell.

DNA is natural material, all life has it.

Yet there is no natural mechanism through which DNA exists, let alone form a coding system. DNA outside of cells degrade. You need life for DNA to exist, and DNA for life to exist, much like a computer needs software, and software needs a computer.

I'm no geneticist so I couldn't tell you how it came about, but just because I dont know how it came about doesn't mean God made it.

DNA is the only "naturally" occurring code. There is no known code that came to be as a result of natural processes, yet the assumption is that life and DNA came about by natural processes.

[Isis2200]

I wanted to add to my last post that remember, whatever technology we currently possess, I believe the God(s) already had it and possibly eons ago.

[laveticus666]

Here are a couple, both from the Answers In Genesis web site.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Geology.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

Both of these have links to numerous articles on this and related topics. Some of the links take you to other sites with information about ththese topics.

Man these people just live in a dream world. Seems to me there just making up this crap as they go on. Nothing in any of those articles that i read has in logical evidence behind it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH5zfTVt9X4 Watch that. "you tell the story of noahs ark to an 8 year old retarded boy....and hes gona have some questions"

[Cradle of Fish]

DNA is an almost infinitely more complex code in a cell.

Yet there is no natural mechanism through which DNA exists, let alone form a coding system. DNA outside of cells degrade. You need life for DNA to exist, and DNA for life to exist, much like a computer needs software, and software needs a computer.

DNA is the only "naturally" occurring code. There is no known code that came to be as a result of natural processes, yet the assumption is that life and DNA came about by natural processes.

Yet, instead of using your inquisitive nature to find out how it came about, you just say God did it to justify your beliefs.

[Fearisgood]

Yet, instead of using your inquisitive nature to find out how it came about, you just say God did it to justify your beliefs.

Very little empirical science in "how it came about". A lot of empirical science in "how it works". Feel free bumping your head trying to figure how everything came about, you just aren't going to come to rock-solid conclusions. You will however choose the one which suits your philosophy and outlook on life. Naturalism does seem to be a favourite at the moment. The fact that DNA is a bonified coding system (most complex) squarely points to a designer, frees a mind up into figuring out "how" everything works, instead of forever pondering "how it came about".

Im still interested in "how it came about", but i dont limit myself to one perspective.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Stellar]

And naturally occurring code-bearing matter is then automatically assumed to come about by natural processes. I can only think of 1 type (maybe someone can help me out) of naturally occurring code-bearing matter, life .

Code-bearing is a very poor description of life... unless you wish to consider crystals "code bearing", etc.

So far, all other code-bearing matter (whether you discover an alien signal or a computer) will be assumed to have a designer. Why not life?

Not true. As I said, code-bearing is a very poor qualifier to use. Give me an example of a code-bearing matter which is assumed to have a designer?

DNA is an almost infinitely more complex code in a cell.

Comparing DNA to computer code is a very poor comparison. DNA "code" is only a series of chemicals which, through certain reactions, produce a certain other product, similarily to other chemical reactions which do indeed simply occure naturally.

Yet there is no natural mechanism through which DNA exists

What do you mean?

DNA outside of cells degrade. You need life for DNA to exist, and DNA for life to exist, much like a computer needs software, and software needs a computer.

What is your point?

DNA is the only "naturally" occurring code. There is no known code that came to be as a result of natural processes, yet the assumption is that life and DNA came about by natural processes.

Thats because calling DNA "code" gives it a poor connotation.

The fact that DNA is a bonified coding system (most complex) squarely points to a designer

Why?

[Fearisgood]

Code-bearing is a very poor description of life... unless you wish to consider crystals "code bearing", etc.

Why are crystals "code-bearing" material? You can heat or cool a crystal (INPUT) to form different kinds of crystals OUTPUT), but the same INPUT wont give you the same OUTPUT, as in the case of snow-flakes.

Not true. As I said, code-bearing is a very poor qualifier to use. Give me an example of a code-bearing matter which is assumed to have a designer?

If you were to discover a signal from outer-space that has a code that is possible to decipher, that signal is in effect "code-bearing matter". Would you assume it came about by natural processes? Saying the constant frequency emitted by a quasar (not a code) is not the same as finding a non-repetitive frequency with meaning or language.

Comparing DNA to computer code is a very poor comparison. DNA "code" is only a series of chemicals which, through certain reactions, produce a certain other product, similarily to other chemical reactions which do indeed simply occure naturally.

A computer code is also only a series of commands with inputs and outputs, and only responds to specific inputs that will give specific outputs, just like DNA reactions within cells.

Let's look at the p53 signaling pathway that controls apoptotis and cell division. (See pic: www.biocarta.com)

1) Ionizing radiation will cause breaks in DNA (INPUT).

2) Various proteins are able to respond to this signal (INPUT). ATM protein/enzyme is activated by this signal (SIGNAL TRANSLATION) and will cause the phosphorylation and stabilization of the p53 protein. p53 is a transcription factor and once it is stabilized, will signal to DNA to transcribe for various proteins that sensitize the cell to undergo apoptosis (BAX) and halt cell division (p21).

3) If the DNA break is substantial enough to cause enough p53 to be stabilized, the cell will undergo apoptosis (OUTPUT).

As you can see, cells do not randomly respond to chemical signals, as there are whole "programs" that respond to input in very specific ways that will give a very specific output. Genes (DNA) can be switched on and off by a mutitude of signals and responds to INPUTS, TRANSLATE it in very specific ways to give specific OUTPUT signals. This makes it a code, and the most complex one we are aware of. DNA is at the centre of this code.

What do you mean?

Are you aware of any hypothesis of abiogenesis whereby DNA will come about by natural processes and duplicate? DNA on its own is inherently unstable, and requires many systems for it to be stable and replicate.

What is your point?

One cannot function without the other...

Thats because calling DNA "code" gives it a poor connotation.

How so?

Why?

Do you know of a code that came about by natural processes?

Edited May 6, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Stellar]

Why are crystals "code-bearing" material? You can heat or cool a crystal (INPUT) to form different kinds of crystals OUTPUT), but the same INPUT wont give you the same OUTPUT, as in the case of snow-flakes.

Because crystals are formed by a certain molecular structure, just as every other chemical is also formed by a certain molecular structure.

If you were to discover a signal from outer-space that has a code that is possible to decipher, that signal is in effect "code-bearing matter".

The problem with your analogy is that anything can be a "code". a series of high and low strength signals can be a "code", hence I could classify anything as being "code-bearing". If I started barking randomly all of a sudden, THAT can also be a code.

Would you assume it came about by natural processes? Saying the constant frequency emitted by a quasar (not a code) is not the same as finding a non-repetitive frequency with meaning or language.

Excuse me, but such signals do not contain "meaning" or "language". The way we judge whether they are intelligently produced or not is by detecting mathematical equations/values produced by the signal.

A computer code is also only a series of commands with inputs and outputs, and only responds to specific inputs that will give specific outputs, just like DNA reactions within cells.

Not quite. The problem with your analogy is that computer code produces a certain specific effect when *proper* syntax is used. DNA, on the other hand, there is no real "wrong" "syntax" with DNA. Everything will produce something. Not only that, but different DNA can infact have the same output.

Combining hydrogen with water will produce water... combining sodium with chlorine will produce table salt, this is also comparable with the goal of your analogy and comparable to DNA in the sense that a certain combination will produce a certain outcome. Do you consider all chemical reactions to be produced by an intelligent designer?

1) Ionizing radiation will cause breaks in DNA (INPUT).

And whether the DNA is broken or not, it doesnt change that RNA can still be synthesized from it before the cell dies... it wont be the same RNA sequence but it still will be one.

2) Various proteins are able to respond to this signal (INPUT). ATM protein/enzyme is activated by this signal (SIGNAL TRANSLATION) and will cause the phosphorylation and stabilization of the p53 protein. p53 is a transcription factor and once it is stabilized, will signal to DNA to transcribe for various proteins that sensitize the cell to undergo apoptosis (BAX) and halt cell division (p21).

3) If the DNA break is substantial enough to cause enough p53 to be stabilized, the cell will undergo apoptosis (OUTPUT).

As you can see, cells do not randomly respond to chemical signals, as there are whole "programs" that respond to input in very specific ways that will give a very specific output.

I never said they respond randomly, to the contrary I said they respond quite specifically. Different situations will lead to different chemial reactions, and the chemical reaction determines the outcome... In this case, DNA is no different than any highschool chemistry experiment. A specific chemical reaction will takes place... that does not make it intelligently designed.

This makes it a code, and the most complex one we are aware of. DNA is at the centre of this code.

As I said, poor analogy unless you are willing to accept everything a code. Every chemical reaction produces something. Does that make it a code?

Are you aware of any hypothesis of abiogenesis whereby DNA will come about by natural processes and duplicate? DNA on its own is inherently unstable, and requires many systems for it to be stable and replicate.

Yes... but what is your point? That DNA can not exist without life?

One cannot function without the other...

You mean DNA can not exist without life, and life can not exist without DNA?

How so?

As I said before, any DNA sequence will produce something specific, just as any chemical reaction will produce something specific. DNA is no more "code" than any chemical reaction in this case. The reason DNA is called "programming code" is because, in laymans terms, thats a good basis for it. In discussions like this, laymans terms only lead to problems and misunderstandings and shouldnt be used.

Do you know of a code that came about by natural processes?

Read my replies about chemical reactions.

Finally, assuming we are to call DNA a "code", what does it matter if all other "code" is deemed intelligently designed? That does not make every "code" intelligently designed.

[laveticus666]

Hey fearisgood. Do you realize EVERYTHING in this universe is code bearing. Every single particle structure down to the smallest size. To say dna is the only natural code is just plan stupid.

[Fearisgood]

Because crystals are formed by a certain molecular structure, just as every other chemical is also formed by a certain molecular structure.

No, crystals are formed by a certain molecular mechanism to form a crystal molecular structure, just as every other chemical is also formed by a certain mechanism to form a certain molecular structure. No mechanism exists for DNA to exist by natural processes, become stable, and replicate.

The problem with your analogy is that anything can be a "code". a series of high and low strength signals can be a "code", hence I could classify anything as being "code-bearing". If I started barking randomly all of a sudden, THAT can also be a code.

Point taken. Randomly. If you find a frequency from outer space, repeating in non-random fashion (much like a music piece from Bach or Beethoven), will you assume it to the result of natural processes? There is no natural selection on the molecular level that we know of that will lead to the formation of a functional, replicating DNA molecule from simple molecules. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but so far the evidence speaks volumes.

Excuse me, but such signals do not contain "meaning" or "language". The way we judge whether they are intelligently produced or not is by detecting mathematical equations/values produced by the signal.

Ever seen Contact (Jodie Foster)? The signal contained "meaning" and "language", but the "code" had to be mathematically deciphered. It's only a movie, but if a similar thing were to happen, would you assume it to be the result of natural processes?

Not quite. The problem with your analogy is that computer code produces a certain specific effect when *proper* syntax is used.

Actually, a specific output will be reached with the correct input in DNA as well.

DNA, on the other hand, there is no real "wrong" "syntax" with DNA.

Code for the wrong protein and it will get ubiquitinated (broken down)... DNA doesn't just churn out proteins and wait for only the functional to operate. Specific INPUT, specific OUTPUT and errors get corrected (non-functional proteins get broken down to be reused)

Everything will produce something.

An example please, not sure what you mean.

Not only that, but different DNA can infact have the same output.

Again, not sure what you mean, example please.

Combining hydrogen with water will produce water... combining sodium with chlorine will produce table salt, this is also comparable with the goal of your analogy and comparable to DNA in the sense that a certain combination will produce a certain outcome.

How is it comparable, what is naturally going to combine to form stable, replicating DNA?

Do you consider all chemical reactions to be produced by an intelligent designer?

No, do you consider all chemical reactions to be equally probable?

And whether the DNA is broken or not, it doesnt change that RNA can still be synthesized from it before the cell dies... it wont be the same RNA sequence but it still will be one.

So... useless mRNA will be broken down, and useless proteins formed by "broken mRNA" get broken down. This will result in increase in autophagic (a hallmark of cell death) and lysosomal activity in order to regain amino acids from useless proteins that is needed in the repar process.Yet another "program/software" being activated in response to "useless/wrong" syntax.

In this case, DNA is no different than any highschool chemistry experiment. A specific chemical reaction will takes place... that does not make it intelligently designed.

DNA does somehow control only the important chemical reactions to be performed, just like teachers in the class... Is that as a result of natural selection on a molecular basis? If it was, then you would be able to produce cells by adding all the raw materials (DNA mRNA, protein cell wall etc) and wait for the best, naturally selected reactions to take over and produce a cell.

As I said, poor analogy unless you are willing to accept everything a code. Every chemical reaction produces something.

Only the genetic code can select for the important reactions to take place. Edited May 7, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Fearisgood]

Yes... but what is your point? That DNA can not exist without life?

Yes, do you know of any natural DNA floating around and replicating?

You mean DNA can not exist without life, and life can not exist without DNA?

Yep, unless you do not count viruses as life, and even they need other life-forms to replicate.

As I said before, any DNA sequence will produce something specific, just as any chemical reaction will produce something specific.

And the useless "syntax" is removed/broken down/ubiquitinated etc..

DNA is no more "code" than any chemical reaction in this case.

Even when DNA is the only known molecule to control reactions in order for it to replicate and exist. All other reactions reaches an endpoint whereby the end products are simple molecules or atoms.

The reason DNA is called "programming code" is because

...maybe it is a code?

Finally, assuming we are to call DNA a "code", what does it matter if all other "code" is deemed intelligently designed? That does not make every "code" intelligently designed.

It would be strange if it was the only non-intelligently designed code, wouldn't it?

Hey fearisgood. Do you realize EVERYTHING in this universe is code bearing. Every single particle structure down to the smallest size. To say dna is the only natural code is just plan stupid.

How is hydrogen code bearing? Its structure is governed by laws, what does it code for? Edited May 7, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Stellar]

No, crystals are formed by a certain molecular mechanism to form a crystal molecular structure, just as every other chemical is also formed by a certain mechanism to form a certain molecular structure. No mechanism exists for DNA to exist by natural processes, become stable, and replicate.

You misunderstand what I mean. Crystals are crystals because they have a particular molecular structure, that is what I meant. As for DNA... You are quite wrong. A natural way for DNA to be formed may very well exist... our lack of certainty of how DNA came into existence does not mean it hasnt.

Point taken. Randomly.

Randomly?

If you find a frequency from outer space, repeating in non-random fashion (much like a music piece from Bach or Beethoven), will you assume it to the result of natural processes?

Indeed. Why not? A pendulum oscillates in a non-random fashion... the wavelengths and frequencies of sunlight are not "random"... do you not assume they aren't the result of natural processes?

There is no natural selection on the molecular level that we know of that will lead to the formation of a functional, replicating DNA molecule from simple molecules.

Natural selection is not a process that works abiologically, it works on biological organisms...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but so far the evidence speaks volumes.

What evidence are you refering to? I know of no evidence that points to DNA being created by an intelligent designer... This is why science is more or less indifferent and still looking for an explenation. Science does already know, however, that it is possible for the building blocks of life to indeed come about naturally, and from there they see many potential ways for DNA to form. From this evidence and extrapolation, it seems that the "natural" answer has a step up upon the "intelligent" designer.

Ever seen Contact (Jodie Foster)? The signal contained "meaning" and "language", but the "code" had to be mathematically deciphered. It's only a movie, but if a similar thing were to happen, would you assume it to be the result of natural processes?

Read above. THere are many "ordered" signals that are also naturally occuring. In either case, what does it have to do with DNA? When speaking of such contact, the way the SETI scientists determin whether it is intelligently produced or not is if they pick up a series of mathematical equations/values/etc... the more that they find, the lower the probability that it is natural and the higher the probability that it is intelligently produced. Note the word "probability". What mathematics does DNA involve that can be used to determine whether it is intelligently produced or not? What can you compare DNA to to determine whether it is naturally produced or not? Please, tell us... dont keep this incredible information from science and the rest of the world! This is what science has been looking for for decades!

Actually, a specific output will be reached with the correct input in DNA as well.

You miss my point. Objectively, there is no "correct" DNA sequence in this discussion. Any DNA sequence will produce a certain output. On the other hand, in computer code, there is a syntax that is supposed to be used, if not used, the program will not compile and you will have nothing.

Code for the wrong protein and it will get ubiquinated (broken down)... DNA doesn't just churn out proteins and wait for only the functional to operate. Specific INPUT, specific OUTPUT and errors get corrected (non-functional proteins get broken down to be reused)

Not quite. I trust you know what mutations are, no? They change the DNA sequence, thus a new amino acid can be formed, and if it is, a new protein is formed. It doesnt necessairly kill the organism, nor the DNA. When the cell does die, it is because the mutation was harmful to the cell (note, harmful to the cell, not harmful to the DNA), and if the cell dies, the DNA then degrades and dies.

An example please, not sure what you mean.

Well, if you change one of the base pairs, it will still "code" for something. I will still produce something.

Again, not sure sure what you mean, example please.

When DNA codes for an amino acid, it uses a combination of 3 of the basepairs to create a specific amino acid (or an "end" signal). For example, AAC will code for a specific amino acid. There are more possible combinations though than there are amino acids, so AAC and AGC, for example, could code for the same amino acid. Each amino acid has one or more combinations that will produce it.

How is it comparable, what is naturally going to combine to form stable, replicating DNA?

Well, its comparable because chemical formulas are "code" just as much as DNA is "code". I think we can all agree that certain chemicals do come about naturally... no? So this "code-bearing" matter does occure naturally.

No, do you consider all chemical reactions to be equally probable?

Probable under what circumstances?

[Stellar]

So... useless mRNA will be broken down, and useless proteins formed by "broken mRNA" get broken down.

Let me ask you this... how is it "broken down"?

This will result in increase in autophagic (a hallmark of cell death) and lysosomal activity in order to regain amino acids from useless proteins that is needed in the repar process.Yet another "program/software" being activated in response to "useless/wrong" syntax.

The protein is still created, no? "program/software"? How about cellular function? At this point the cell is already deemed "living", no? What causes the breakdown in this "useless/deficient" protein is not the DNA, but a seperate molecule. Are you claiming this molecule is alive? It seems to me that the way it functions, with its helper molecules, it through dictated molecular reactions.

DNA does somehow control only the important chemical reactions to be performed, just like teachers in the class... Is that as a result of natural selection on a molecular basis? If it was, then you would be able to produce cells by adding all the raw materials (DNA mRNA, protein cell wall etc) and wait for the best, naturally selected reactions to take over and produce a cell.

And maybe you indeed are able to. How do you know you're not? (Minus the naturally selected reactions, natural selection plays no part in this).

Go read up on the Urey-Miller experiment.

Only the genetic code can select for the important reactions to take place.

What do you mean it can "select" for the important reactions to take place? The genetic code "selects" for nothing. The reactions take place according to the sequence, just as any chemical reaction takes place according to what is available in the system. If you have only Na and Cl ions in a system, its not going to produce H2SO4.

Yes, do you know of any natural DNA floating around and replicating?

Viruses fit more or less into that definition.

How do you know that DNA and the rest of a cell structure did not occure separately? That is similar to how plant cells are thought to have came about. The chlorophyll and the cell were infact seperate at first, and then the chlorophyll became encompassed by the cell and they worked together, and thus the first plant cell was created.

Yep, unless you do not count viruses as life, and even they need other life-forms to replicate.

Viruses are DNA or RNA sequences. At this point the definition of "life" is quite strained, but a virus that infects an empty cell can infact replicate. The cell would probably not be deemed "living" at first, nor would the virus, but once the virus has infected the cellular structure, it can be deemed alive.

And the useless "syntax" is removed/broken down/ubiquinated etc..

Quite wrong. How do you deem what is useless? This is how mutations and evolution occurs, the DNA sequence changes and a new product is formed. It might be "useless" for the previous organism, but quite vital to the new organism formed by the mutation.

Even when DNA is the only known molecule to control reactions in order for it to replicate and exist.

Im still not quite sure what you mean by DNA controlling reactions? DNA exhibits no such control.

...maybe it is a code?

Only as much as everything in life is a code.

It would be strange if it was the only non-intelligently designed code, wouldn't it?

Why would it? Maybe its not and we just havent found the others?

How is hydrogen code bearing? Its structure is governed by laws, what does it code for?

Well, hydrogen and oxygen produce something that Na and Cl dont, no?

[Fearisgood]

Crystals are crystals because they have a particular molecular structure, that is what I meant.

What is the point of this fact then?

As for DNA... You are quite wrong. A natural way for DNA to be formed may very well exist... our lack of certainty of how DNA came into existence does not mean it hasnt.

It does exist, the chances of it happening are just so astronomical that it is in effect impossible. Abiogenesis "scientists" (it cannot be proven false) are just trying to lower the odds to make it feasible, so far without luck.

Randomly?

Just thought the term "randomly" and code cannot be used in the same sentence.

Indeed. Why not? A pendulum oscillates in a non-random fashion... the wavelengths and frequencies of sunlight are not "random"... do you not assume they aren't the result of natural processes?

So Bach or Beethoven's music is just a bunch of non-random notes following one after the other with a possible natural origin? What are the odds? Wonder what they will think of it?

Natural selection is not a process that works abiologically, it works on biological organisms...

You need some form of selection, otherwise the chances of it happening is astronomically impossible, work it out yourself.

What evidence are you refering to?

Evidence against or lack of evidence for abiogenesis.

I know of no evidence that points to DNA being created by an intelligent designer...

And I know of no evidence that it formed as a result of natural processes.

Science does already know, however, that it is possible for the building blocks of life to indeed come about naturally

All of them? For how long will they remain stable? Probable?

and from there they see many potential ways for DNA to form.

Actually they only found about all the ways it cant form within the realms of probability. At least there is progress.

Read above. THere are many "ordered" signals that are also naturally occuring. In either case, what does it have to do with DNA?

So if you find a signal that encodes for all the best recipies for desserts, will you ask...Mmmm how did this orderly signal come about naturally?

Note the word "probability". What mathematics does DNA involve that can be used to determine whether it is intelligently produced or not? What can you compare DNA to to determine whether it is naturally produced or not? Please, tell us... dont keep this incredible information from science and the rest of the world! This is what science has been looking for for decades!

You said it, probability.

Objectively, there is no "correct" DNA sequence in this discussion. Any DNA sequence will produce a certain output.

Yes there is. Specific transcription factors and RNA polymerase control/dictate the correct mRNA sequence to be formed from a gene. One gene can form several protein. This is exquisitely controlled. Only once the correct transcription factors and RNA polymerase binds to the promoter of a gene will the correct mRNA be made. Therefore the correct syntax is needed to form the correct protein.

On the other hand, in computer code, there is a syntax that is supposed to be used, if not used, the program will not compile and you will have nothing.

In genetic code, there is a syntax(transcription factors in the correct ration & RNAP) that is supposed to be used, if not used, the protein will not compile and you will have no protein. Maybe im still missing the point, please try and explain. Edited May 9, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Fearisgood]

Mutations... They change the DNA sequence, thus a new amino acid can be formed, and if it is, a new protein is formed. It doesnt necessairly kill the organism, nor the DNA. When the cell does die, it is because the mutation was harmful to the cell (note, harmful to the cell, not harmful to the DNA), and if the cell dies, the DNA then degrades and dies.

I think you can see that a mutation does "necessarily" kill the cell. It is harmful to the cell, and therefore the DNA (damage the cell, damage the DNA functionality), because a previously functional protein is not doing its correct function anymore.

Well, if you change one of the base pairs, it will still "code" for something. I will still produce something.

When DNA codes for an amino acid, it uses a combination of 3 of the basepairs to create a specific amino acid (or an "end" signal). For example, AAC will code for a specific amino acid. There are more possible combinations though than there are amino acids, so AAC and AGC, for example, could code for the same amino acid. Each amino acid has one or more combinations that will produce it.

This is part of the genetic "code". You will find many computer programs having different code essentially doing the same thing.

Well, its comparable because chemical formulas are "code" just as much as DNA is "code".

First the reactions are a code, now the formula? Still how is the formation of salt coparable to the formation of DNA, one is probable and observable, the other improbable and not yet observed? Both have chemical formulas?

I think we can all agree that certain chemicals do come about naturally... no?

Yes

So this "code-bearing" matter does occure naturally.

Just like I said... but did it form naturally?

Probable under what circumstances?

Observable, theoretically possible and probable ones.

Let me ask you this... how is it "broken down"?

RNase break down mRNA. Expression and activity of RNases is also relatively tightly controlled to allow for correct post-transcriptional modification of mRNA. Functionless proteins are tagged with ubiquitin proteins. Ubiquitin-tagged proteins are designated for proteolysis. Ubiquitylation is also tightly regulated process which plays a normal part in cell growth, development, and homeostasis.

The protein is still created, no? "program/software"? How about cellular function? At this point the cell is already deemed "living", no? What causes the breakdown in this "useless/deficient" protein is not the DNA, but a seperate molecule. Are you claiming this molecule is alive? It seems to me that the way it functions, with its helper molecules, it through dictated molecular reactions.

Yet DNA controls the formation of the molecule. DNA (actually the nucleus) dictates which molecular reactions to perform in the cell by reacting to the environment, with the end result being homeostasis. Cells constantly thrive to reach homeostasis, and this is controlled by DNA (nucleus).

And maybe you indeed are able to. How do you know you're not? (Minus the naturally selected reactions, natural selection plays no part in this).

Go read up on the Urey-Miller experiment.

Lol the experiment does not produce cysteiene, and automatically assumes a reducing atmosphere, when it is thought that the atmosphere was in oxidizing state when life was suppose to start.

Will reply to other comments later.

I think it will be best if a new topic is started, it is getting long and a bit off-topic. Good?

Edited May 9, 2007 by Fearisgood

[Fearisgood]

What do you mean it can "select" for the important reactions to take place? The genetic code "selects" for nothing. The reactions take place according to the sequence, just as any chemical reaction takes place according to what is available in the system.

So you must therefore think that once the amino acid sequence is formed after translation, the natural, best fitting protein will fold into place. Ever heard of the Levinthal paradox? Protein chaperones (also coded for by DNA) "guide" an amino acid into the correct 3d-conformation (native state) to form the correct functional protein structure. Even if you can by some "miracle" get DNA to naturally form, be stable, and replicate and code for an amino acid, you still need chaperones to guide proteins into the correct formation. An amino acid sequence can give an almost infinite number of structures across the a broad pH range. So if you think bare DNA, churning out billions of amino acid sequences by the second, will lead to some functionality, think again. You will need to select for the functional ones that do form, otherwise it will get lost in the "noise".

How do you know that DNA and the rest of a cell structure did not occure separately?

Observation? Ever seen it happen, is it theoretically possible?

That is similar to how plant cells are thought to have came about. The chlorophyll and the cell were infact seperate at first, and then the chlorophyll became encompassed by the cell and they worked together, and thus the first plant cell was created.

So the story goes. (Same story for how eukaryotes got a mitochondia). We just do not observe this now... why should it happen?

Viruses are DNA or RNA sequences. At this point the definition of "life" is quite strained, but a virus that infects an empty cell can infact replicate. The cell would probably not be deemed "living" at first, nor would the virus, but once the virus has infected the cellular structure, it can be deemed alive.

How is it possible for a virus to replicate in an empty cell? Viral RNA/DNA needs the functional machinery and energy of a living cell to replicate. Infinite number of viruses can infect an empty (not sure what you mean here, is it hollow, functionless, dead, but i guess you are going to define it to suite the argument when presented) cell, it still wont be deemed alive. The DNA/RNA in the infected "empty" cell will just degrade.

Quite wrong. How do you deem what is useless? This is how mutations and evolution occurs, the DNA sequence changes and a new product is formed. It might be "useless" for the previous organism, but quite vital to the new organism formed by the mutation.

Yes... mutations most of the time (99.99%) are negative, the few that do seem to be positive is as the result of loss of function...Dont see how new families are going to evolve if current species keep losing functions of proteins.

Im still not quite sure what you mean by DNA controlling reactions? DNA exhibits no such control.

Protein folding, transcription factors (through positive and negative feedback loops in order to reach homeostasis) etc...

Only as much as everything in life is a code.

Still not seeing how DNA code for life to exist? Just a bunch of random reactions with the accidental outcome of life? To each his own then...

Why would it? Maybe its not and we just havent found the others?

Going on faith here then?

Well, hydrogen and oxygen produce something that Na and Cl dont, no?

And that makes it a code? I think it is just a law. There is no law that states how DNA will naturally form. Edited May 9, 2007 by Fearisgood