Originally posted by @lemon-limeWhich is exactly what it should be. Do you get the part of the heading? EVOLUTION?
Yes, a code is just a system of rules.
But asking why can't biochemical codes and evolution coexist doesn't address how those codes came into existence, or how they developed into the complex codes needed for directing various operations within cells.
( The order of complexity increases when cells are working together )
In order to answer the question ...[text shortened]... DNA allows for evolution, without explaining where that DNA came from (or could have come from).
Is there anything in that word about ORIGIN?
It turns out that very intelligent people can indeed separate the two and not be stymied as to how RNA and DNA came about, evolution is about what came after. Get over it, there is nothing you can say or do that will change that and the more you try to coflate evolution and origin the more you make yourself look ever more like an uneducated idiot with no grasp of modern science. In fact I think it worse than that, that you may even know some science but your arrogance makes you think you are so much more intelligent than all those stupid evolutionists only YOU have the answer. Which of course, from you, Goddidit. Which doesn't explain shyte. It only tries to shove a stupid answer down our throats, we who try to understand the whole picture and we start with what we can see and measure, which is aging fossils and matching features in a meaningful way. You don't need to know how DNA arrived on the planet to figure out how an elephant morphed into a manatee, you study the frigging fossil record.
In fact, if mankind was never studied geologically and evolutionarily, theists would have no doubt found it very interesting and a good way of seeing the world for what it is.
Throw humans in the mix, all of a sudden, our place as the pinnacle of creation is knocked out from under us, finding we and apes had a common ancestor, NEVER.
That is just theistic arrogance talking, no more and no less.
05 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThanks (sincerely) for a real answer!
Yes, a code is just a system of rules.
But asking why can't biochemical codes and evolution coexist doesn't address how those codes came into existence, or how they developed into the complex codes needed for directing various operations within cells.
( The order of complexity increases when cells are working together )
In order to answer the question ...[text shortened]... DNA allows for evolution, without explaining where that DNA came from (or could have come from).
Correct, evolution does not address origins of complex molecules. I wouldn't dare call that a theory killer though. Do we need to know everything about where it came from before we study its mechanisms? If that were true, we'd never learn anything new.
The idea of reverse engineering evolution is a very interesting one, and is being studied and attempted (mostly at the theoretical level). But the argument that everything needs to be answered for evolution to be true is like Metal Brain's argument that "there are things we don't know about our climate, therefore man-made climate change must not exist."
06 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassCorrect, evolution does not address origins of complex molecules. I wouldn't dare call that a theory killer though.
Thanks (sincerely) for a real answer!
Correct, evolution does not address origins of complex molecules. I wouldn't dare call that a theory killer though. Do we need to know everything about where it came from before we study its mechanisms? If that were true, we'd never learn anything new.
The idea of reverse engineering evolution is a very interest ...[text shortened]... e are things we don't know about our climate, therefore man-made climate change must not exist."
I wouldn't call origins of complex molecules a theory killer either, because we don't need to go back to the origins of DNA. I actually had something else in mind when I said "theory killer". The mere existence of DNA (what it is and what it does) is enough to kill someones faith in evolution. It was enough to kill mine, so yeah... I'd call it a killer.
I'm sure you are already aware of a process known as transcription, so I won't bore you with a long winded explanation. There's a good documentary called Unlocking the Mystery of Life and it can probably be found on youtube, so if anyone is interested in knowing how proteins are assembled they can see it for themselves.
One of the questions I can't seem to find an answer to is which came first... the molecular machines used in transcription, or the information and instructions (contained in DNA) for building those machines?
Another question is, what is guiding those machines to go exactly where they are needed? A micro-biologist (molecular biologist?) might know...
Is there a micro-biologist in the house? Okay then, how about a normal sized biologist?
06 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThis part I can't grasp. For most scientists, the existence of DNA fortifies evolutionary theory (it's veritably not faith-based) rather than undermining it. It's the critical unit of inheritance that generates the diversity and variation of life through near infinite combinations. Evolution is a descriptive theory of life's function, not its origins.
The mere existence of DNA (what it is and what it does) is enough to kill someones faith in evolution. It was enough to kill mine, so yeah... I'd call it a killer.
At a given locus, you can compare DNA sequences in mouse vs. human vs. hedgehog vs. zebrafish. Versions of the same gene (and gene duplications) are predictably similar between some organisms and not others. Mouse vs. human is more similar than mouse vs. zebrafish, as the prediction is that they share more recent common ancestry. These genetic elements can be linked to specific aspects of development that correspond to shared functions in mammals that are not shared with fish. It actually looks like a document that has been modified over and over and over again for millions of years, yielding the immense diversity of life that we can physically observe and measure and study. It is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.
Of course you can't definitively answer the prehistoric philosophical what came first questions. No one was there, and there's no evidence. All we have is what's available in fossils and living organisms. The complexity of transcription, however, is not a logical argument against evolution.There are speculative theories that might explain how it originated. Why does complexity necessarily indicate intelligent design?
p.s. microbiology and molecular biology are different things. One deals with microbes. The other deals with molecules.
06 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe which came first question seems to be paradoxical.
This part I can't grasp. For most scientists, the existence of DNA fortifies evolutionary theory (it's veritably not faith-based) rather than undermining it. It's the critical unit of inheritance that generates the diversity and variation of life through near infinite combinations. Evolution is a descriptive theory of life's function, not its origins.
...[text shortened]... molecular biology are different things. One deals with microbes. The other deals with molecules.
Why would molecular machines (used to access DNA) exist before there was DNA?
And how could instructions for building the molecular machines used in transcription exist before those machines existed?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeRNA must have existed before DNA so you are asking the wrong question. The first life is unlikely to have DNA and much more likely to have just RNA or at least a RNA-like chemical with DNA only evolving later from RNA. Research has revealed that RNA molecules can act simultaneously as BOTH genes AND the molecular machinery (in effect enzymes made of RNA) for replicating those genes thus allowing the creditable possibility that complex enzymes made of proteins evolved only later after the first life formed; so no unsolvable chicken-or-egg problem there.
Why would molecular machines (used to access DNA) exist before there was DNA?
We already know from physical simulations in the lab of conditions of early-Earth that RNA-like molecules must have spontaneously formed and oily films for the membranes for the first photocells must have spontaneously formed; it takes little imagination to see how from that the first truly viable photocell might have creditably formed.
06 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIt's not a paradox, just a (good) question. The short answer is: no one knows. We can only speculate.
The which came first question seems to be paradoxical.
Why would molecular machines (used to access DNA) exist before there was DNA?
And how could instructions for building the molecular machines used in transcription exist before those machines existed?
The long answer is really long. Humy brought up the RNA world hypothesis, which draws on evidence that RNA acts as an enzyme. It could have conceivably been the unit of inheritance and a polymerization catalyst. It is unstable though, so the version 2.0 deoxy became the long term storage molecule. In archaea and other prokaryotes, transcription is also much much simpler.
Do you really want to kill off evolution, which explains so much about biology, merely because it can't explain life's origins?
06 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassDo you really want to kill off evolution, which explains so much about biology, merely because it can't explain life's origins?
It's not a paradox, just a (good) question. The short answer is: no one knows. We can only speculate.
The long answer is really long. Humy brought up the RNA world hypothesis, which draws on evidence that RNA acts as an enzyme. It could have conceivably been the unit of inheritance and a polymerization catalyst. It is unstable though, so the version 2. ...[text shortened]... evolution, which explains so much about biology, merely because it can't explain life's origins?
Why would anyone want to kill off something they believe (or want to believe) is true? If evolution dies off it will be because it was never true. And if it is true, then evolutionists can stop trying to shame people into not opposing it.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeit isn't something we believe because "want" to believe because it is something we believe is true because of the EVIDENCE (proof, in fact) ; get it now? I don't "want" evolution to be true. If hypothetically the evidence pointed to something else other than evolution (even if it means the absurdity of a 'god' or the 'tooth fairy' ) then I would believe that something else, no problem. If I were to ever see real evidence of a god, I would believe there is a god, no problem.
Why would anyone want to kill off something they believe (or want to believe) is true?
Many people that believe/believed evolution is true, including Darwin himself, hate/hated the theory of evolution and hope it is wrong so certainty do NOT "want" it to be true. That is because they base their belief that it is true solely on the evidence. They desperately looked at the evidence to see how it could be wrong and failed; the evidence says it is correct. It is only those religious extremists that base their beliefs on what they want to believe that often disbelieve evolution precisely because they don't want evolution to be true. But that is just a delusional religious belief that ignores all evidence.
Originally posted by @humyIf evolution was an 'investment opportunity', and someone told me I was a fool for not putting money into it, I would not put money into it to avoid looking like a fool.
it isn't something we believe because "want" to believe because it is something we believe is true because of the EVIDENCE (proof, in fact) ; get it now?
Your shaming tactics are not only ridiculous, they are counterproductive; get it now?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeit isn't. And it isn't us that base our beliefs on whatever we want to be true; it is you.
If evolution was an 'investment opportunity'
06 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeFrom an energy POV, RNA is simpler to make than DNA so naturally if the cell from slime theory is correct, RNA came first then more complex reactions driven by uv and such.
The which came first question seems to be paradoxical.
Why would molecular machines (used to access DNA) exist before there was DNA?
And how could instructions for building the molecular machines used in transcription exist before those machines existed?
The thinking goes UV light is needed to drive the reactions leading to prebiotic and then to biological molecules.
06 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeBefore DNA was discovered, it was known that evolution occurs, and that traits can be passed on through reproduction, an essential ingredient for natural selection. But it was not known how this passing on of traits worked in practice, nor how new traits could be formed. DNA beautifully explains how this works in practice, and as such is a very strong piece of evidence in favour of evolution. That you would consider it evidence against evolution is peculiar indeed. It seems like you reject the theory of evolution on the basis that it doesn't explain everything, but none of our scientific theories do that.
[b]Correct, evolution does not address origins of complex molecules. I wouldn't dare call that a theory killer though.
I wouldn't call origins of complex molecules a theory killer either, because we don't need to go back to the origins of DNA. I actually had something else in mind when I said "theory killer". The mere existence of DNA (what it is ...[text shortened]... ow...
Is there a micro-biologist in the house? Okay then, how about a normal sized biologist?[/b]
06 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraTrees, please come meet the forest.
Before DNA was discovered, it was known that evolution occurs, and that traits can be passed on through reproduction, an essential ingredient for natural selection. But it was not known how this passing on of traits worked in practice, nor how new traits could be formed. DNA beautifully explains how this works in practice, and as such is a very strong ...[text shortened]... on on the basis that it doesn't explain everything, but none of our scientific theories do that.
The existence of DNA is part and parcel the problem of evolution (although clearly, it is but one of many fatal flaws).
Evolution--- or any other pseudoscience known to man--- cannot explain the very existence of the intelligent code found in all of creation.
Originally posted by @freakykbhYeah sure, says the man who thinks Earth is flat and the moon is self illuminating. Totally credible, right?
Trees, please come meet the forest.
The existence of DNA is part and parcel the problem of evolution (although clearly, it is but one of many fatal flaws).
Evolution--- or any other pseudoscience known to man--- cannot explain the very existence of the intelligent code found in all of creation.
I wonder about that lunar self illumination deal, why can't we see the moon during a solar eclipse if it is self illuminating? It looks really dark to me.