DNA - Blueprint for Life?

[wellwisher]

Ammonia is a good degreaser and therefore will not induce the same level of phase separation with organics, as does water. Ammonia will form stable emulsions with organics and will have no need to evolve further via the second law. Water separates out much more efficiently.

Another problem with ammonia, is ammonia is an energy rich molecule, meaning it can be burned or metabolized to form water and NOx. Any potential life, evolving with ammonia, would eventually use its ammonia solvent as an energy rich food source and spontaneously combust. Water has better chemical stability, against self metabolism. Water is an energy floor and does not change.

Life in other solvents is science mythology. Nobody has yet to make life in water, even though we know so many of the details of water based life. Life in other solvents is total mythology since we know little of what is expected and what is needed for any solvent since there are not examples to study. DNA in ammonia is not functional, so we would need to develop a new type of genetic material, which is never included in this mythology. It assumes casino science can win that jackpot.

 

[Polymath257]

Ammonia is a good degreaser and therefore will not induce the same level of phase separation with organics, as does water. Ammonia will form stable emulsions with organics and will have no need to evolve further via the second law. Water separates out much more efficiently.

Another problem with ammonia, is ammonia is an energy rich molecule, meaning it can be burned or metabolized to form water and NOx. Any potential life, evolving with ammonia, would eventually use its ammonia solvent as an energy rich food source and spontaneously combust. Water has better chemical stability, against self metabolism. Water is an energy floor and does not change.

Life in other solvents is science mythology. Nobody has yet to make life in water, even though we know so many of the details of water based life. Life in other solvents is total mythology since we know little of what is expected and what is needed for any solvent since there are not examples to study. DNA in ammonia is not functional, so we would need to develop a new type of genetic material, which is never included in this mythology. It assumes casino science can win that jackpot.

I wouldn't call it mythology, but I would call it pure speculation. Until we have another example of a planet with life (or produce life in the lab), we are attempting to generalize from a single example. That is very risky, to say the least.

 

[wellwisher]

I wouldn't call it mythology, but I would call it pure speculation. Until we have another example of a planet with life (or produce life in the lab), we are attempting to generalize from a single example. That is very risky, to say the least.

The entire premise of alternate life, using solvents besides water, has no experimental basis. It is all based on the assumption of the omnipotent power of a mythological god of gambling and dice; statistics, who can do anything, if given enough time.

It is assumed there are finite odds for anything and everything. Therefore the god of gambling, although sometimes very slow, unexpected and often not on time, is nevertheless omnipotent over infinity. Take away that gambling god assumption, and there is no beef. I call that mythology.

A statistical approach is both good and bad. It is good because it deals in black boxes and therefore allows one to define all types of phenomena, without knowing how it works. This is good if the goal is a larger workforce, since more people can participate simply by following a common procedure for all types of different phenomena.

It is bad in the sense, one is not required to open the black box and see how it works. If I asked what will the genetic material look like in an ammonia world, since DNA does not work in ammonia? This is not answered since it lies in the black box. This where mythology gets dressed up in science clothing.

Relative to water, the terms hydrophilic and hydrophobic are misleading. Water can form hydrogen bonds with nearly any organic molecule, including oil. These hydrogen bonds are much weaker compared to water hydrogen bonding to other water. Water is not afraid to hydrogen bond to organics; hydrophobic. Rather it prefers to hydrogen bond to other water, due to the larger energy advantage.

The analogy is going to a party where they will serve hamburgers and filet minion. Although you like burgers, and eat then every week, you may eat only filet at that party, because it is tastier treat. You avoid the burgers at the party, not because of dislike of burgers, but because of the extra like for filet.

It is this strong preference of water for water, that cause the organic hamburgers of life to stay on the serving plate. Once the filet is gone, then the burgers are eaten. This is how water then drives change. Water has a very high melting and boiling point, compared to ammonia and methane, even though all have the same molecular weight. This difference is due to the energy advantages in the self assemble of water. This water segregation, driven by free energy, is what creates the contrast with organics and causes the organic phase separations needed for life to form.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ammonia is a good degreaser and therefore will not induce the same level of phase separation with organics, as does water. Ammonia will form stable emulsions with organics and will have no need to evolve further via the second law. Water separates out much more efficiently.

Another problem with ammonia, is ammonia is an energy rich molecule, meaning it can be burned or metabolized to form water and NOx. Any potential life, evolving with ammonia, would eventually use its ammonia solvent as an energy rich food source and spontaneously combust. Water has better chemical stability, against self metabolism. Water is an energy floor and does not change.

Life in other solvents is science mythology. Nobody has yet to make life in water, even though we know so many of the details of water based life. Life in other solvents is total mythology since we know little of what is expected and what is needed for any solvent since there are not examples to study. DNA in ammonia is not functional, so we would need to develop a new type of genetic material, which is never included in this mythology. It assumes casino science can win that jackpot.

Appreciate your input. BTW, welcome to RF.

 

[gnostic]

All procreating organisms ever found, and still being discovered, share the same building blocks...DNA, RNA, & proteins. (Some non-replicating viruses only have RNA.)

Because of this similarity within each organism's genetic code, scientists declare this as evidence that all living things are related, descended from a common ancestor. Passed on from one species to the next.

Don't we know from observation and experience that when complex information systems are discovered, there is always an intelligent source behind it?

Don’t you know that for there to be “intelligent source behind it”, that you would require to present horde of testable and verifiable evidences for the existence of this “God”, “Creator”, “Designer”, “Spirit”,”fairy”, or “alien”?

Without evidences for any of these “intelligent” entities, then we can only your words or your personal opinion or belief such a thing to exist.

You are still inside a trap, where you cannot present a single shred of evidence that intelligent beings are responsible for life, for DNA or RNA, or for proteins.

No evidence, then it is only a matter of your personal belief.

And to be brutally honest with you, I have not met a met single honest creationist or ID advocate in this forum, or outside the forum, that can present conclusive evidences, without him or her resorting to play evasive word game, without applying circular reasoning or other fallacies to their baseless claims.

And if any of them make dubious claims, then it is up to him or her to provide evidences to back up his or her claim, and not shift the burden of proof to others.

When any scientist want to present his hypothesis as a valid theory, then it is up to provide the evidences, the test results (eg from experiments) and the data, for his peers to review or to the large scientific community to examine.

1. Can you observe, detect, measure, quantify or test “the Creator” or “the Designer” or “the God”?
2. And if you think or believe that you can, can you show to everyone else, so they can independently verify your claim?

If you can’t (to both questions), then how can you really expect anyone to accept your words that it is all true?

 

[Audie]

No evidence, then it is only a matter of your personal belief.

And to be brutally honest with you, I have not met a met single honest creationist or ID advocate in this forum, or outside the forum, that can present conclusive evidences, without him or her resorting to play evasive word game, without applying circular reasoning or other fallacies to their baseless claims.

And to be brutally fair, it is asking the impossible.
Nobody can be an informed and intellectually honest creationist.

 

[dimmesdale]

Don’t you know that for there to be “intelligent source behind it”, that you would require to present horde of testable and verifiable evidences for the existence of this “God”, “Creator”, “Designer”, “Spirit”,”fairy”, or “alien”?

The evidence is in the effects in order to falsify natural nonintelligent processes. They reason from effect to cause based on possibles. Intelligent or nonintelligent. If nonintelligent is ruled out then intelligent advances.

Without evidences for any of these “intelligent” entities,

The evidence is in the observed effect.

You are still inside a trap, where you cannot present a single shred of evidence that intelligent beings are responsible for life, for DNA or RNA, or for proteins.

The evidence is in the codes. If there are codes, then there is intelligence.

And to be brutally honest with you, I have not met a met single honest creationist or ID advocate in this forum, or outside the forum, that can present conclusive evidences, without him or her resorting to play evasive word game, without applying circular reasoning or other fallacies to their baseless claims.

Perhaps the problem is with you and not out there. The fault dear Brutus is not with the stars.

When any scientist want to present his hypothesis as a valid theory, then it is up to provide the evidences, the test results (eg from experiments) and the data, for his peers to review or to the large scientific community to examine.

They can write books. So? They do not need to submit papers fo peer review which will be DOA. They can write books and end up peer reviewed anyway. They circumvent the process. Like Meyer did with Signature In The Cell.

1. Can you observe, detect, measure, quantify or test “the Creator” or “the Designer” or “the God”?

   No.
2. 
   

3. And if you think or believe that you can, can you show to everyone else, so they can independently verify your claim?

   You don't need direct observation nor is that a standard which can be applied consistently. They do not observe the killer. They observe the crime scene and deduce an unseen killer(s). Under your unscientific standard the killer could not be proposed because the killer not observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is in the effects in order to falsify natural nonintelligent processes. They reason from effect to cause based on possibles. Intelligent or nonintelligent. If nonintelligent is ruled out then intelligent advances.

Where is the supposed evidence that rules out the non-intelligent? Creationist make this claim but can never back it up.

The evidence is in the observed effect.

Nope, that is not evidence. I can help you with the concept.

The evidence is in the codes. If there are codes, then there is intelligence.

Nope, this is an equivocation fallacy. You are using two different definitions of "code".

Perhaps the problem is with you and not out there. The fault dear Brutus is not with the stars.

Nope, he is correct. There are no informed and honest creationists. You did not like your ignorance pointed out earlier, but the fact is that when it comes to the sciences you repeated demonstrate an ignorance of the basics.

They can write books. So? They do not need to submit papers fo peer review which will be DOA. They can write books and end up peer reviewed anyway. They circumvent the process. Like Meyer did with Signature In The Cell.

Scientists avoid the peer reviewed process when they know that they are wrong. It would be a huge boon to the creationists if an article that they submitted was rejected for poor reasons. Yet they do not provide their articles for peer review. They know that there is no conspiracy.

1. No.

Then there is no evidence for this creator.

2. You don't need direct observation nor is that a standard which can be applied consistently. They do not observe the killer. They observe the crime scene and deduce an unseen killer(s). Under your unscientific standard the killer could not be proposed because the killer not observed.

No one said "direct" observation. No one asked that. Right now you are trying to change his argument, this is a strawman fallacy on your part since the proper answer to his questions tells you that you have no evidence and therefore no logical reason to believe the creation myth.

 

[Jose Fly]

They can write books.

So can bigfoot enthusiasts, or flat-earthers, or genocentrists, or any believer in any crackpot idea. "I wrote a book on it" is hardly a compelling case for an idea's validity.

They do not need to submit papers fo peer review which will be DOA.

Then they must accept the consequences of refusing to participate in the scientific process.

They circumvent the process. Like Meyer did with Signature In The Cell.

And Meyer's book has had absolutely no impact at all on the state of science. None.

 

[Audie]

So can bigfoot enthusiasts, or flat-earthers, or genocentrists, or any believer in any crackpot idea. "I wrote a book on it" is hardly a compelling case for an idea's validity.


Then they must accept the consequences of refusing to participate in the scientific process.


And Meyer's book has had absolutely no impact at all on the state of science. None.

They circumvent the process

Yep. The do no science at all, just skip
to the predetermined conclusion.

 

[viole]

All procreating organisms ever found, and still being discovered, share the same building blocks...DNA, RNA, & proteins. (Some non-replicating viruses only have RNA.)

Because of this similarity within each organism's genetic code, scientists declare this as evidence that all living things are related, descended from a common ancestor. Passed on from one species to the next.

Don't we know from observation and experience that when complex information systems are discovered, there is always an intelligent source behind it? And considering the extreme complexity of DNA, the most complex of all functionally specific information ever found... it really amazes me how many people ignore those documented observations and experiences!

I mean, we're not talking about life forms without design, either...extremely few look like the Mucinex Mucus Man!

We observe elegant forms of life, with exquisite design. (And many are deadly to humans, that's true. [The Scriptures briefy explain this.] Was it that way, initially? That's another subject.)

The genetic similarity between organisms -- Homo sapiens included -- are extolled by many scientists as evidence for all organisms distant kinship with each other. Even tho the anatomical diversity is so great between living things, random mutations is supposed to account for it....most all within the 560-million-year time frame. Not the 3.8 billion year time frame, as some disingenuously promote.

This similarity of each lifeform's genetic coding proteins, to me, is not evidence of random chance, but rather evidence that only one God / Creator was behind all life discovered. He perfectly replicated these genes from one organism to another when creating, whatever provided the most beneficial function.

If scientists find silicon-based life, with a different blueprint other than DNA, I'll consider the possibility of another Creator. But I certainly would not accept a "mindless and random chance" explanation! Unless the discovered lifeforms do look like the Mucinex Mucus Man! Lol!

And this microevolution among living things that we do observe within species, the ability of the genetic code to change gradually, was actually engineered that way by Jehovah God....He wanted us humans - His children - each one to enjoy eternal life under His guidance. (That was and is God's purpose for man, here on Earth - Revelation 21:3-4) Living hundreds of years, and more, we would observe these changes, this evolution, within animal and plant kinds, so we could enjoy life to the full! Isn't variety called the 'spice of life'?

Just my opinion, based on what I see and know.

Peace to all.

So, your designer decided that the pinnacle of creation, the very reason He made the Universe for, the very being He will incarnate into, is better be an ape?

Cool. Apes are definitely cool, even thought being able to fly or to have 8 arms like spiders could offer some solid advantages. If you ask me, I would have preferred to have 8 arms like a spider, imagine the fugues I could have played on a harpsichord.

Anyway, I hope He asked His better third (Jesus) about it first. Not everyone, especially when they have some divine ambitions. likes to look like, or to be remembered like, a hairless gorilla for all eternity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Milton Platt]

All procreating organisms ever found, and still being discovered, share the same building blocks...DNA, RNA, & proteins. (Some non-replicating viruses only have RNA.)

Because of this similarity within each organism's genetic code, scientists declare this as evidence that all living things are related, descended from a common ancestor. Passed on from one species to the next.

Don't we know from observation and experience that when complex information systems are discovered, there is always an intelligent source behind it? And considering the extreme complexity of DNA, the most complex of all functionally specific information ever found... it really amazes me how many people ignore those documented observations and experiences!

I mean, we're not talking about life forms without design, either...extremely few look like the Mucinex Mucus Man!

We observe elegant forms of life, with exquisite design. (And many are deadly to humans, that's true. [The Scriptures briefy explain this.] Was it that way, initially? That's another subject.)

The genetic similarity between organisms -- Homo sapiens included -- are extolled by many scientists as evidence for all organisms distant kinship with each other. Even tho the anatomical diversity is so great between living things, random mutations is supposed to account for it....most all within the 560-million-year time frame. Not the 3.8 billion year time frame, as some disingenuously promote.

This similarity of each lifeform's genetic coding proteins, to me, is not evidence of random chance, but rather evidence that only one God / Creator was behind all life discovered. He perfectly replicated these genes from one organism to another when creating, whatever provided the most beneficial function.

If scientists find silicon-based life, with a different blueprint other than DNA, I'll consider the possibility of another Creator. But I certainly would not accept a "mindless and random chance" explanation! Unless the discovered lifeforms do look like the Mucinex Mucus Man! Lol!

And this microevolution among living things that we do observe within species, the ability of the genetic code to change gradually, was actually engineered that way by Jehovah God....He wanted us humans - His children - each one to enjoy eternal life under His guidance. (That was and is God's purpose for man, here on Earth - Revelation 21:3-4) Living hundreds of years, and more, we would observe these changes, this evolution, within animal and plant kinds, so we could enjoy life to the full! Isn't variety called the 'spice of life'?

Just my opinion, based on what I see and know.

Peace to all.

There is zero evidence for the existence of a creator, yours or any other. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a longer time period.

At what specific level is something not a complex system?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is zero evidence for the existence of a creator, yours or any other. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a longer time period.

The integrated complexity of DNA itself, along with cells' elegant, symbiotic systems including waste handling and manufacturing, even with the simplest of cells, are enough evidence alone of an intelligent designer.

You've just been programmed to disregard it, to please the powers-that-be.

(As if functional information systems arise by themselves through mindless forces....that's the fairy tale!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The integrated complexity of DNA itself, along with cells' elegant, symbiotic systems including waste handling and manufacturing, even with the simplest of cells, are enough evidence alone of an intelligent designer.

You've just been programmed to disregard it, to please the powers-that-be.

(As if functional information systems arise by themselves through mindless forces....that's the fairy tale!)

And this is a classic argument from ignorance. It amounts to "I don't know, therefore God". No one has been programmed, except for perhaps yourself. Why not ask a biologist that specializes in the field how it happened?

 

[Twilight Hue]

All procreating organisms ever found, and still being discovered, share the same building blocks...DNA, RNA, & proteins. (Some non-replicating viruses only have RNA.)

Because of this similarity within each organism's genetic code, scientists declare this as evidence that all living things are related, descended from a common ancestor. Passed on from one species to the next.

Don't we know from observation and experience that when complex information systems are discovered, there is always an intelligent source behind it? And considering the extreme complexity of DNA, the most complex of all functionally specific information ever found... it really amazes me how many people ignore those documented observations and experiences!

I mean, we're not talking about life forms without design, either...extremely few look like the Mucinex Mucus Man!

We observe elegant forms of life, with exquisite design. (And many are deadly to humans, that's true. [The Scriptures briefy explain this.] Was it that way, initially? That's another subject.)

The genetic similarity between organisms -- Homo sapiens included -- are extolled by many scientists as evidence for all organisms distant kinship with each other. Even tho the anatomical diversity is so great between living things, random mutations is supposed to account for it....most all within the 560-million-year time frame. Not the 3.8 billion year time frame, as some disingenuously promote.

This similarity of each lifeform's genetic coding proteins, to me, is not evidence of random chance, but rather evidence that only one God / Creator was behind all life discovered. He perfectly replicated these genes from one organism to another when creating, whatever provided the most beneficial function.

If scientists find silicon-based life, with a different blueprint other than DNA, I'll consider the possibility of another Creator. But I certainly would not accept a "mindless and random chance" explanation! Unless the discovered lifeforms do look like the Mucinex Mucus Man! Lol!

And this microevolution among living things that we do observe within species, the ability of the genetic code to change gradually, was actually engineered that way by Jehovah God....He wanted us humans - His children - each one to enjoy eternal life under His guidance. (That was and is God's purpose for man, here on Earth - Revelation 21:3-4) Living hundreds of years, and more, we would observe these changes, this evolution, within animal and plant kinds, so we could enjoy life to the full! Isn't variety called the 'spice of life'?

Just my opinion, based on what I see and know.

Peace to all.

When you see a baby developing in the uterus. Where is the intelligent Direction?

 

[Milton Platt]

The integrated complexity of DNA itself, along with cells' elegant, symbiotic systems including waste handling and manufacturing, even with the simplest of cells, are enough evidence alone of an intelligent designer.

You've just been programmed to disregard it, to please the powers-that-be.

(As if functional information systems arise by themselves through mindless forces....that's the fairy tale!)

I don’t disregard scientific facts and I have not been ‘programmed”.
I do disregard unsubstantiated claims.
DNA is often likened to an information system, but that is merely an analogy.
No matter how complex something may be, it is not evidence of an intelligent designer. You must demonstrate the existence of the designer first, and then you can begin to demonstrate the mechanisms the designer uses to create. You have done neither of those yet.
What would an uncreated thing look like, as a comparison? Is non-living matter uncreated, then?

 

[dimmesdale]

.
DNA is often likened to an information system, but that is merely an analogy.

They are integrating information technology in biology these days. Hello!

No matter how complex something may be, it is not evidence of an intelligent designer.

Like heck it isn't.

You must demonstrate the existence of the designer first,

The evidence is in the digital codes which are building instructions. Just keep moving the goalposts to avoid the obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are integrating information technology in biology these days. Hello!
Like heck it isn't. The evidence is in the digital codes which are building instructions. Just keep moving the goalposts to avoid the obvious.

There are no "digital codes". You were conflating a description with the thing itself.

If you want people to do more than laugh at you you should try to support your claims.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I do disregard unsubstantiated claims.

Then why accept CD? There is only circumstantial evidence backing it. Very flimsy, too. By accepting it, you’re ignoring other evidence against it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why accept CD? There is only circumstantial evidence backing it. Very flimsy, too. By accepting it, you’re ignoring other evidence against it!

What do you mean by "CD"? And I have my doubts that you understand the concept of evidence. When it comes to the theory of evolution the evidence for it is massive and there does not appear to be any against it nor is there any evidence for ID or other creationist nonsense.