Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I'd like to see an atheist explain this...

B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:17:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

Protein can exist without DNA if RNA is present.

Protein synthesis might actually be possible with just RNA and a few amino acids, the building block of protein. It would start with RNA that binds to amino acids, allowing the RNA to serve as a template to non-random polymerization of a couple different amino acids.

It is also possible that certain ribozymes, like ones that have been created in labs, could have existed and acted worked with amino acids to potentially lead to protein synthesis.

Even if the original protein synthesis would be crude it would improve drastically by the catalysis of peptide bond formation, which has no problem in the evolutionary process.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:22:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 7:17:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

Protein can exist without DNA if RNA is present.

Protein synthesis might actually be possible with just RNA and a few amino acids, the building block of protein. It would start with RNA that binds to amino acids, allowing the RNA to serve as a template to non-random polymerization of a couple different amino acids.

It is also possible that certain ribozymes, like ones that have been created in labs, could have existed and acted worked with amino acids to potentially lead to protein synthesis.

Even if the original protein synthesis would be crude it would improve drastically by the catalysis of peptide bond formation, which has no problem in the evolutionary process.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Then how do you explain protein folding, and protein chaperons? Proteins cannot fold correctly without help. And the chaperons are proteins themselves. So. proteins cannot fold properly without their chaperons, and the chaperons wouldn't even exist unless there were proteins to chaperon. Do you see the paradox?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?

It's all supported by chemical experimental evidence into the behavior of RNA and associated chemicals, and each step is a chemically plausible explanation for exactly what exactly what you are asking for. It is indeed a possible explanation for what you imply is unexplainable.

Now, as you have changed the subject from your original question, essentially moving the goalposts, I will point out that analysis of most proteins shows that most are related to some degree: IE a gene for one complex protein has been copied and modified, meaning that in all likelihood a very limited set or even one protein is the progenitor of all the ones we see now, including enzyems related to DNA repair.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:24:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 7:22:32 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:17:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

Protein can exist without DNA if RNA is present.

Protein synthesis might actually be possible with just RNA and a few amino acids, the building block of protein. It would start with RNA that binds to amino acids, allowing the RNA to serve as a template to non-random polymerization of a couple different amino acids.

It is also possible that certain ribozymes, like ones that have been created in labs, could have existed and acted worked with amino acids to potentially lead to protein synthesis.

Even if the original protein synthesis would be crude it would improve drastically by the catalysis of peptide bond formation, which has no problem in the evolutionary process.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Then how do you explain protein folding, and protein chaperons? Proteins cannot fold correctly without help. And the chaperons are proteins themselves. So. proteins cannot fold properly without their chaperons, and the chaperons wouldn't even exist unless there were proteins to chaperon. Do you see the paradox?

How about you start by reading the link I provided, then I will answer your questions (I don't like answering questions for people who do little to no research)
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:42:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 7:23:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?

It's all supported by chemical experimental evidence into the behavior of RNA and associated chemicals, and each step is a chemically plausible explanation for exactly what exactly what you are asking for. It is indeed a possible explanation for what you imply is unexplainable.

Now, as you have changed the subject from your original question, essentially moving the goalposts, I will point out that analysis of most proteins shows that most are related to some degree: IE a gene for one complex protein has been copied and modified, meaning that in all likelihood a very limited set or even one protein is the progenitor of all the ones we see now, including enzyems related to DNA repair.

How did I move the goal posts? LOL. Read my original post. You know. The one about DNA and PROTEINS. And what, exactly, would this supposed progenitor protein do? It would be useless by itself. Come on. You can do better than that. Here's another question for you. Do you have any idea how complex even the simplest cell is? Thousands of components must come together at the same time in order for a cell to function. If just one is missing, the cell dies. Then there is the cell membrane itself. Do you have any concept of what a miraculous creation it is? You might want to read up on that. How can anyone look at the immense complexity of the simplest form of life and not see a Creator? Your feeble attempts to explain it all through naturalistic processes are laughable. The simple fact is that scientists don't have a clue how life began. They can't even invent a plausible explanation that would stand up to serious scientific scrutiny. That's nothing but the truth.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 8:24:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 7:42:24 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:23:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?

It's all supported by chemical experimental evidence into the behavior of RNA and associated chemicals, and each step is a chemically plausible explanation for exactly what exactly what you are asking for. It is indeed a possible explanation for what you imply is unexplainable.

Now, as you have changed the subject from your original question, essentially moving the goalposts, I will point out that analysis of most proteins shows that most are related to some degree: IE a gene for one complex protein has been copied and modified, meaning that in all likelihood a very limited set or even one protein is the progenitor of all the ones we see now, including enzyems related to DNA repair.

How did I move the goal posts? LOL. Read my original post. You know. The one about DNA and PROTEINS. And what, exactly, would this supposed progenitor protein do? It would be useless by itself. Come on. You can do better than that. Here's another question for you. Do you have any idea how complex even the simplest cell is? Thousands of components must come together at the same time in order for a cell to function. If just one is missing, the cell dies. Then there is the cell membrane itself. Do you have any concept of what a miraculous creation it is? You might want to read up on that. How can anyone look at the immense complexity of the simplest form of life and not see a Creator? Your feeble attempts to explain it all through naturalistic processes are laughable. The simple fact is that scientists don't have a clue how life began. They can't even invent a plausible explanation that would stand up to serious scientific scrutiny. That's nothing but the truth.

You wanted an explanation of how the protein DNA interdependence could be generated. That's what I gave you. Is it, or is it not exactly what you asked for?

You essentially completely dismissed this, even though it was exactly what you asked for, and then asked a different question.

Moreover I have an evidentially supported explanations on the origins of proteins too. Do you not agree that my second explanation provided exactly what you asked for about the origins of proteins too?

Once you have answered that, then I will answer your new set of questions.

We do not know all the specific details of the origin of life, but to say science has no clue is simply wrong; we know some methods are potentially possible, some are not, and we know that the steps required are not as complex as once thought.

Moreover, we also know which explanations are wrong concerning the origins of life as the evidence refutes them. This includes creationism.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:00:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 8:24:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:42:24 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:23:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?

It's all supported by chemical experimental evidence into the behavior of RNA and associated chemicals, and each step is a chemically plausible explanation for exactly what exactly what you are asking for. It is indeed a possible explanation for what you imply is unexplainable.

Now, as you have changed the subject from your original question, essentially moving the goalposts, I will point out that analysis of most proteins shows that most are related to some degree: IE a gene for one complex protein has been copied and modified, meaning that in all likelihood a very limited set or even one protein is the progenitor of all the ones we see now, including enzyems related to DNA repair.

How did I move the goal posts? LOL. Read my original post. You know. The one about DNA and PROTEINS. And what, exactly, would this supposed progenitor protein do? It would be useless by itself. Come on. You can do better than that. Here's another question for you. Do you have any idea how complex even the simplest cell is? Thousands of components must come together at the same time in order for a cell to function. If just one is missing, the cell dies. Then there is the cell membrane itself. Do you have any concept of what a miraculous creation it is? You might want to read up on that. How can anyone look at the immense complexity of the simplest form of life and not see a Creator? Your feeble attempts to explain it all through naturalistic processes are laughable. The simple fact is that scientists don't have a clue how life began. They can't even invent a plausible explanation that would stand up to serious scientific scrutiny. That's nothing but the truth.

You wanted an explanation of how the protein DNA interdependence could be generated. That's what I gave you. Is it, or is it not exactly what you asked for?

You essentially completely dismissed this, even though it was exactly what you asked for, and then asked a different question.

Moreover I have an evidentially supported explanations on the origins of proteins too. Do you not agree that my second explanation provided exactly what you asked for about the origins of proteins too?

Once you have answered that, then I will answer your new set of questions.

We do not know all the specific details of the origin of life, but to say science has no clue is simply wrong; we know some methods are potentially possible, some are not, and we know that the steps required are not as complex as once thought.

Moreover, we also know which explanations are wrong concerning the origins of life as the evidence refutes them. This includes creationism.

Then refute this.

Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA. Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.
Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously. Some have referred to such systems as "irreducibly complex" in that if any one part is removed, the higher "emergent" function of the collective system vanishes. This apparent irreducibility of the living cell is found in the fact that DNA makes the proteins that make the DNA. Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained. Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from. No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned. Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered. Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication. They simply do not replicate by themselves. How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans?
This really is quite a problem to try and explain. After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:04:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 10:00:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 8:24:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:42:24 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:23:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?

It's all supported by chemical experimental evidence into the behavior of RNA and associated chemicals, and each step is a chemically plausible explanation for exactly what exactly what you are asking for. It is indeed a possible explanation for what you imply is unexplainable.

Now, as you have changed the subject from your original question, essentially moving the goalposts, I will point out that analysis of most proteins shows that most are related to some degree: IE a gene for one complex protein has been copied and modified, meaning that in all likelihood a very limited set or even one protein is the progenitor of all the ones we see now, including enzyems related to DNA repair.

How did I move the goal posts? LOL. Read my original post. You know. The one about DNA and PROTEINS. And what, exactly, would this supposed progenitor protein do? It would be useless by itself. Come on. You can do better than that. Here's another question for you. Do you have any idea how complex even the simplest cell is? Thousands of components must come together at the same time in order for a cell to function. If just one is missing, the cell dies. Then there is the cell membrane itself. Do you have any concept of what a miraculous creation it is? You might want to read up on that. How can anyone look at the immense complexity of the simplest form of life and not see a Creator? Your feeble attempts to explain it all through naturalistic processes are laughable. The simple fact is that scientists don't have a clue how life began. They can't even invent a plausible explanation that would stand up to serious scientific scrutiny. That's nothing but the truth.

You wanted an explanation of how the protein DNA interdependence could be generated. That's what I gave you. Is it, or is it not exactly what you asked for?

You essentially completely dismissed this, even though it was exactly what you asked for, and then asked a different question.

Moreover I have an evidentially supported explanations on the origins of proteins too. Do you not agree that my second explanation provided exactly what you asked for about the origins of proteins too?

Once you have answered that, then I will answer your new set of questions.

We do not know all the specific details of the origin of life, but to say science has no clue is simply wrong; we know some methods are potentially possible, some are not, and we know that the steps required are not as complex as once thought.

Moreover, we also know which explanations are wrong concerning the origins of life as the evidence refutes them. This includes creationism.

Then refute this.

Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA. Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.
Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously. Some have referred to such systems as "irreducibly complex" in that if any one part is removed, the higher "emergent" function of the collective system vanishes. This apparent irreducibility of the living cell is found in the fact that DNA makes the proteins that make the DNA. Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained. Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from. No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned. Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered. Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication. They simply do not replicate by themselves. How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans?
This really is quite a problem to try and explain. After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

You lifted that from here......

http://www.detectingdesign.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:06:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

You are doubling-up o your posts.

But that does not make then any less wrong.

Here is an article that shows how proteins DO NOT need DNA.......

From the Health and Science Website "IFL Science" article on proteins and their role in genetics..........

n our cells, proteins are the tiny machines that do most of the work. And the instructions for making proteins -- and for piecing together their building blocks, called amino acids -- are laid out by DNA, then relayed through RNA. But now, researchers show for the first time that amino acids can be assembled by another protein -- without genetic instructions. These surprising findings were published in Science this week.

If a cell is an automobile-making factory, then ribosomes are the machines on the protein assembly line that links together amino acids in an order specified by DNA and messenger RNA (mRNA), an intermediate template. If something goes awry and a ribosome stalls, the quality control team shows up to disassemble the ribosome, discard that bit of genetic blueprint, and recycle the partially-made protein.

Turns out, that assembly line can keep going even if it loses its genetic instructions, according to a large U.S. team led by University of Utah, University of California, San Francisco, and Stanford researchers. They discovered an unexpected mechanism of protein synthesis where a protein, and not the normal genetic blueprint, specifies which amino acids are added.

"In this case, we have a protein playing a role normally filled by mRNA," UCSF"s Adam Frost says in a news release. "I love this story because it blurs the lines of what we thought proteins could do."
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:08:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

This explains it!

A nice easy slide show. With pics!

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:47:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

Brains cannot exist without a body, and the body is worthless without a brain. So how did BOHICA get both from a single fertilized cell through blind chemical reactions? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

My theory is that BOHICA is lacking one or the other since both arising through blind chance is clearly impossible. I'll let the gentle reader decide which one he is missing.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:48:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 10:00:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 8:24:53 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:42:24 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:23:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?

It's all supported by chemical experimental evidence into the behavior of RNA and associated chemicals, and each step is a chemically plausible explanation for exactly what exactly what you are asking for. It is indeed a possible explanation for what you imply is unexplainable.

Now, as you have changed the subject from your original question, essentially moving the goalposts, I will point out that analysis of most proteins shows that most are related to some degree: IE a gene for one complex protein has been copied and modified, meaning that in all likelihood a very limited set or even one protein is the progenitor of all the ones we see now, including enzyems related to DNA repair.

How did I move the goal posts? LOL. Read my original post. You know. The one about DNA and PROTEINS. And what, exactly, would this supposed progenitor protein do? It would be useless by itself. Come on. You can do better than that. Here's another question for you. Do you have any idea how complex even the simplest cell is? Thousands of components must come together at the same time in order for a cell to function. If just one is missing, the cell dies. Then there is the cell membrane itself. Do you have any concept of what a miraculous creation it is? You might want to read up on that. How can anyone look at the immense complexity of the simplest form of life and not see a Creator? Your feeble attempts to explain it all through naturalistic processes are laughable. The simple fact is that scientists don't have a clue how life began. They can't even invent a plausible explanation that would stand up to serious scientific scrutiny. That's nothing but the truth.

You wanted an explanation of how the protein DNA interdependence could be generated. That's what I gave you. Is it, or is it not exactly what you asked for?

You essentially completely dismissed this, even though it was exactly what you asked for, and then asked a different question.

Moreover I have an evidentially supported explanations on the origins of proteins too. Do you not agree that my second explanation provided exactly what you asked for about the origins of proteins too?

Once you have answered that, then I will answer your new set of questions.

We do not know all the specific details of the origin of life, but to say science has no clue is simply wrong; we know some methods are potentially possible, some are not, and we know that the steps required are not as complex as once thought.

Moreover, we also know which explanations are wrong concerning the origins of life as the evidence refutes them. This includes creationism.

Then refute this.

Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA. Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.
Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously. Some have referred to such systems as "irreducibly complex" in that if any one part is removed, the higher "emergent" function of the collective system vanishes. This apparent irreducibility of the living cell is found in the fact that DNA makes the proteins that make the DNA. Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained. Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from. No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned. Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered. Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication. They simply do not replicate by themselves. How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans?

The refutation? The explanation i just gave. The RNA world explains all these issues, RNA first, then proteins, from RNA then DNA later. Really, this solves every issue you just raised, and has evidential support.

This really is quite a problem to try and explain. After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence?
Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

The life and features you are talking about is likely the result of evolution from a first proto-cell that is much simpler. Many aspects of that are indeed subject to selective pressure that can drive better replication and functional proteins. The modern cell is complex, but the suggestion that the cell and it's machinery came together as you suggest is not what any science attempts to show.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 2:17:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?

To make thousands of proteins is not really a big deal to evolution, it already produced millions of different creatures you know...
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 3:55:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 2:17:26 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?

To make thousands of proteins is not really a big deal to evolution, it already produced millions of different creatures you know...

I would love to continue our discussion, but your lack of communication skills, not to mention a general lack of intelligence, prevent me from doing so. It would be like taking candy from a baby.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 4:07:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

Why an atheist? Theists are pretty good at science too... its not like the vast majority of our nobel prizes haven't gone to theists or anything...

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 5:44:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

Bohica, for clarity:

People who research science are called scientists. The term was coined in 1834 by Rev William Whewell, as a hybride of science and artist. It's scientists (biologists in particular) who think life can occur abiogenically. A lot of them think that, and I imagine some are Christian -- if we look, I believe we'll find some.

Atheists are people who reject religious claims to authority. The term was borrowed from a similar French word in the 1570, and means 'without gods'. Atheists do not need to believe in abiogenesis to be atheists, and even if you think terrestrial life were created, you don't have to worship a life-creator as a god.

For you this means that if you are trying to convince people to follow your faith, arguing against abiogenesis is a waste of time.

On the other hand, if you want to promote the fear and ignorance of science by pitting hollow and bankrupt theological authority against scientific investigation, you're doing a magnificent job.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 6:32:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"It's scientists (biologists in particular) who think life can occur abiogenically."

That's what they think happened. There is no proof. They can't even propose a believable hypothesis of how it could happen. And when you look at all of the celluler components that need to come together at the same time for even the simplest cell to exist, you can see why I doubt their explanations.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 6:37:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 5:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:32:31 PM, B0HICA wrote:
It's scientists (biologists in particular) who think life can occur abiogenically.
They can't even propose a believable hypothesis of how it could happen.
Bohica, I understand that you are either claiming relevant scientific credentials to support your authority in this assessment, or are quoting a respected research biologist.

If the credentials are yours, what are they? If it's a quote, please list the source.

Else, you've overreached your authority.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 7:33:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 6:37:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 5:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:32:31 PM, B0HICA wrote:
It's scientists (biologists in particular) who think life can occur abiogenically.
They can't even propose a believable hypothesis of how it could happen.
Bohica, I understand that you are either claiming relevant scientific credentials to support your authority in this assessment, or are quoting a respected research biologist.

If the credentials are yours, what are they? If it's a quote, please list the source.

Else, you've overreached your authority.

My authority comes from God. Make of that what you will. I've seen the evidence for abiogenesis and evolution and I find it lacking. There are also people who are more knowledgeable than you or ir, who also discount it. When it comes right down to it. Evolution is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 7:41:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:33:14 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:37:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 5:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:32:31 PM, B0HICA wrote:
It's scientists (biologists in particular) who think life can occur abiogenically.
They can't even propose a believable hypothesis of how it could happen.
Bohica, I understand that you are either claiming relevant scientific credentials to support your authority in this assessment, or are quoting a respected research biologist.
My authority comes from God.

You have no intellectual authority to identify any of the documents you reference as having the moral authority of God.

You also clearly, have no intellectual authority to evaluate the state of biological science, to identify a plausible hypothesis -- or perhaps even define what makes a good hypothesis scientifically.

What you have instead, Bohica, is vanity: the vanity of insisting that your beliefs have authority because they're yours. Of denying all accountability to evidence; of any prospect of fallacy -- despite many theological claims having been shown to be fallacious.

In other words, you're like the rube in a Vegas casino who, having lost shirt and pants to his ignorance of roulette, now insists that he can not only keep his shoes and hat, but break the bank too -- and wants everyone else in the casino to bet as he does. :)
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 7:57:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:41:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:33:14 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:37:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 5:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:32:31 PM, B0HICA wrote:
It's scientists (biologists in particular) who think life can occur abiogenically.
They can't even propose a believable hypothesis of how it could happen.
Bohica, I understand that you are either claiming relevant scientific credentials to support your authority in this assessment, or are quoting a respected research biologist.
My authority comes from God.

You have no intellectual authority to identify any of the documents you reference as having the moral authority of God.

You also clearly, have no intellectual authority to evaluate the state of biological science, to identify a plausible hypothesis -- or perhaps even define what makes a good hypothesis scientifically.

What you have instead, Bohica, is vanity: the vanity of insisting that your beliefs have authority because they're yours. Of denying all accountability to evidence; of any prospect of fallacy -- despite many theological claims having been shown to be fallacious.

In other words, you're like the rube in a Vegas casino who, having lost shirt and pants to his ignorance of roulette, now insists that he can not only keep his shoes and hat, but break the bank too -- and wants everyone else in the casino to bet as he does. :)

I may not be a scientists. But I know when I'm being fed a bunch of BS. Every scientific explanation I hear about how life started and evolved contains numerous "mayby's" 'might have's" and "possibly's". It's a fact that scientists simply don't know. All of the evidence they have is inconclusive. What we have is scientists starting with a hypothesis. then trying to make the evidence fit. They twist it. warp it. and even lie about it. Remember Piltdown man? Enough said. The more we learn, the worse it looks for evolution. There are many strikes against it. Many of it's claims cannot stand up to honest scrutiny. Genetics and microbiology are making discoveries that raise some serious doubts that life could have evolved by naturalistic processes. The evidence is clear. It points to Creation. And I really don't care what a bunch of biased atheist scientist have to say. I have seen the evidence for God, Jesus and the Bible. I find it compelling. You believe what you like. I'm hedging my bets. If you're right, I lose nothing. If I'm right, I gain everything and avoid eternal torment. Seems like the smart choice to me.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 8:34:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:57:47 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:41:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:33:14 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:37:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 5:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:32:31 PM, B0HICA wrote:
It's scientists (biologists in particular) who think life can occur abiogenically.
They can't even propose a believable hypothesis of how it could happen.
Bohica, I understand that you are either claiming relevant scientific credentials to support your authority in this assessment, or are quoting a respected research biologist.
My authority comes from God.

You have no intellectual authority to identify any of the documents you reference as having the moral authority of God.

You also clearly, have no intellectual authority to evaluate the state of biological science, to identify a plausible hypothesis -- or perhaps even define what makes a good hypothesis scientifically.

What you have instead, Bohica, is vanity: the vanity of insisting that your beliefs have authority because they're yours. Of denying all accountability to evidence; of any prospect of fallacy -- despite many theological claims having been shown to be fallacious.

In other words, you're like the rube in a Vegas casino who, having lost shirt and pants to his ignorance of roulette, now insists that he can not only keep his shoes and hat, but break the bank too -- and wants everyone else in the casino to bet as he does. :)

I may not be a scientists. But I know when I'm being fed a bunch of BS. Every scientific explanation I hear about how life started and evolved contains numerous "mayby's" 'might have's" and "possibly's". It's a fact that scientists simply don't know. All of the evidence they have is inconclusive. What we have is scientists starting with a hypothesis. then trying to make the evidence fit. They twist it. warp it. and even lie about it. Remember Piltdown man? Enough said. The more we learn, the worse it looks for evolution. There are many strikes against it. Many of it's claims cannot stand up to honest scrutiny. Genetics and microbiology are making discoveries that raise some serious doubts that life could have evolved by naturalistic processes. The evidence is clear. It points to Creation. And I really don't care what a bunch of biased atheist scientist have to say. I have seen the evidence for God, Jesus and the Bible. I find it compelling. You believe what you like. I'm hedging my bets. If you're right, I lose nothing. If I'm right, I gain everything and avoid eternal torment. Seems like the smart choice to me.

BOHICA......

Do this, please: Google something called "The God of the Gaps"

Because it is my humble opinion that this is the notion you are employing here when you debate Evolution and genetics.

Just becasue science cannot explain 100% of how we got here does not mean that it is fair for a non-believer in Evo to say "Aha! You can't explain how it happened becasue God did it!"

Because when you think about it, this sort of dogma could have been used thousands of times in history before certain dynamics that we NOW fully agree upon and have proved and that we take for granted were totally explained.

Like Copernicus and his heliocentric theory superseding the old Geocentric one.

Or germ theory. Or radio or TV. Or computers. Or space travel. All that was once the province of Sci Fi only!

Isaac Newton--like Copernicus--was almost KILLED by the Catholic Church when he said his telescopic observations proved Copernicus's theories.

This is merely one example of how blind religious faith has impeded science.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 8:54:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:57:47 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:41:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:33:14 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:37:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 5:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:32:31 PM, B0HICA wrote:
It's scientists (biologists in particular) who think life can occur abiogenically.
They can't even propose a believable hypothesis of how it could happen.
Bohica, I understand that you are either claiming relevant scientific credentials to support your authority in this assessment, or are quoting a respected research biologist.
My authority comes from God.
You have no intellectual authority to identify any of the documents you reference as having the moral authority of God.
You also clearly, have no intellectual authority to evaluate the state of biological science, to identify a plausible hypothesis -- or perhaps even define what makes a good hypothesis scientifically.

I really don't care what a bunch of biased atheist scientist have to say.
Yes, you really don't. To the point of not understanding what they're actually saying.

You know, European scientists started out as all either Christian or Deist?

They became nontheists for a reason. They didn't 'adopt' an atheist bias, Bohica. They escaped a Christian one, that was being proven wrong again and again and again.

You believe what you like. I'm hedging my bets. If you're right, I lose nothing. If I'm right, I gain everything and avoid eternal torment. Seems like the smart choice to me.
If smart is understanding the world around us, then what you've described isn't a smart choice, but a lazy, cowardly one.

Lazy because you don't read anything written by the smartest minds on the planet working with the best instruments ever devised, but what theological spin-doctors tell you to think about them.

Cowardly because if you aspire to better morality, then embracing religion because you're scared of death is the meanest, most selfish reason of all. The best morality we've ever produced didn't come from the child-killing, misogynistic genocidal xenophobic patriarchs who founded your faith, but from compassionate inquiry into the state of humanity and the world around us. In isolating yourself from the results of that inquiry, you're modelling yourself on an ignorant and superseded culture for whom there is no place in the modern world anyway -- and doing so not with Biblical authority, but with theological conjecture about documents written by people not of your culture, language or political environment, whose provenance and purpose you barely understand.

And that's a 'smart choice', is it? Being unable to debate informedly because you lack critical information? Circling the wagons to protect yourself from the debris of your own collapsed intellectual edifice?

There are smart Christians, Bohica. They embrace science, and don't stand on hollow claims to religious authority. They admit what they don't know, and don't try to control others from their own ignorance.

That could be you too.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:16:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:57:47 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:41:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:33:14 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:37:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 5:44:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:32:31 PM, B0HICA wrote:
It's scientists (biologists in particular) who think life can occur abiogenically.
They can't even propose a believable hypothesis of how it could happen.
Bohica, I understand that you are either claiming relevant scientific credentials to support your authority in this assessment, or are quoting a respected research biologist.
My authority comes from God.

You have no intellectual authority to identify any of the documents you reference as having the moral authority of God.

You also clearly, have no intellectual authority to evaluate the state of biological science, to identify a plausible hypothesis -- or perhaps even define what makes a good hypothesis scientifically.

What you have instead, Bohica, is vanity: the vanity of insisting that your beliefs have authority because they're yours. Of denying all accountability to evidence; of any prospect of fallacy -- despite many theological claims having been shown to be fallacious.

In other words, you're like the rube in a Vegas casino who, having lost shirt and pants to his ignorance of roulette, now insists that he can not only keep his shoes and hat, but break the bank too -- and wants everyone else in the casino to bet as he does. :)

I may not be a scientists. But I know when I'm being fed a bunch of BS. Every scientific explanation I hear about how life started and evolved contains numerous "mayby's" 'might have's" and "possibly's". It's a fact that scientists simply don't know. All of the evidence they have is inconclusive. What we have is scientists starting with a hypothesis. then trying to make the evidence fit. They twist it. warp it. and even lie about it. Remember Piltdown man? Enough said. The more we learn, the worse it looks for evolution. There are many strikes against it. Many of it's claims cannot stand up to honest scrutiny. Genetics and microbiology are making discoveries that raise some serious doubts that life could have evolved by naturalistic processes. The evidence is clear. It points to Creation. And I really don't care what a bunch of biased atheist scientist have to say. I have seen the evidence for God, Jesus and the Bible. I find it compelling. You believe what you like. I'm hedging my bets. If you're right, I lose nothing. If I'm right, I gain everything and avoid eternal torment. Seems like the smart choice to me.

How can you tell you are being fed BS?

Humans have believed all sorts of rubbish throughout history; as you claim "Evolutionists" are doing now; how do you know that you aren't the one who is deluded into believing something that isn't true.

If you were faced with a choice concerning trusting a group of people who beleived wherever the evidence led; vs a group who state that they will never beleive anything differently from what they do now; who is most likely to come to the right conclusion.

Why does God even care if you beleive he created the earth in 7 days 10,000 years ago (even though we know that is not true) vs believing that he was super smart and created an elegant set of physical rules through which intellndigent life would evolve? Why does it matter? You're not rejecting God, or his morals.

Why the heck would God give people an inquisitive mind, and a compulsion to explore, explain and understand the world in which we live, and then compell them to not use their brain by explaining how everything works?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 5:26:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:57:47 PM, B0HICA wrote:

I may not be a scientists. But I know when I'm being fed a bunch of BS. Every scientific explanation I hear about how life started and evolved contains numerous "mayby's" 'might have's" and "possibly's". It's a fact that scientists simply don't know. All of the evidence they have is inconclusive. What we have is scientists starting with a hypothesis. then trying to make the evidence fit. They twist it. warp it. and even lie about it. Remember Piltdown man? Enough said. The more we learn, the worse it looks for evolution. There are many strikes against it. Many of it's claims cannot stand up to honest scrutiny. Genetics and microbiology are making discoveries that raise some serious doubts that life could have evolved by naturalistic processes. The evidence is clear. It points to Creation. And I really don't care what a bunch of biased atheist scientist have to say. I have seen the evidence for God, Jesus and the Bible. I find it compelling. You believe what you like.

If this is your position (which has been obvious from your first post), it kind of begs the question. Why are you posting in the Science forum? You aren't here to discuss science.

I'm hedging my bets. If you're right, I lose nothing. If I'm right, I gain everything and avoid eternal torment. Seems like the smart choice to me.

*sigh* Pascal trots out his tired older wager yet again. Ooh.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:38:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 7:12:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/20/2015 7:03:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 6:45:30 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Proteins cannot exist without DNA, and DNA is worthless without proteins. So how did either one arise through blind chance? Can anyone even attempt to explain this?

http://books.google.com...

RNA can exist without proteins.
RNA can produce proteins with some basical naturally occurring chemical help.
Once proteins are produced with selection, they can eventually take over functions the RNA did leading to circular dependence.
With these functions removed, DNA production isn't a large step, as its closely related to RNA.
Thus you end up with DNA dependent on proteins and proteins produced through DNA

Speculation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. It's nothing but a wild guess. And even if it was true, you still can't explain the hundreds of thousands of different proteins, each folded a certain way. Each essential for life. And what about the protein chaperons? Explain their existence. They make sure the proteins fold properly, and can even correct mistakes. Do you not see the intelligence behind this? Do you really believe that it all happened by chance?

http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 10:59:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:57:47 PM, B0HICA wrote:
I may not be a scientists.
And I really don't care what a bunch of biased atheist scientist have to say. I have seen the evidence for God, Jesus and the Bible.

So, you don't know anything about evolution or science and have embraced the Bible and it's nonsense, which is fine if you wish to remain completely ignorant of the world around you. But, to start threads about science and what you erroneously believe it entails, making sweeping denials of things you clearly don't understand only makes you look like a complete raving lunatic.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth