Fishteacher73 Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 We still study ancient Greek (I did) and Latin for some reason beyond my reasoning. I believe Drakon just answered that.
GAHD Posted January 26, 2005 Report Posted January 26, 2005 On the aspect of DNA, there's a post I made in another thread that applies:In an effort to keep this on topic, here's an informative article that helps to explain why we don't see so many six armed monsters."Early guesses about the nature of the [genetic] code often started from an assumption that it would maximize information density...The concern with efficiency turned out to be misplaced...The concept that has replaced efficiency...is error-*tolerance..."- http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/37228 I'm still mulling over the specifics, but it holds true to some ideas I'd been kicking around. I particularly like the qwerty refrance. The article is entitled 'Ode to the Code'
pie Posted January 29, 2005 Report Posted January 29, 2005 Have you not noticed all the women giving head? Well, in the future, we will be all hermaphrodite's - that is we will be able to reproduce without an opposite sex. - Just like fish, depending on the temperature of the environment. So a green house effect on earth produces more homosexuals, and little to no reproduction occurs. In this way the earth has a self-governing effect of overpopulation and man-made pollution on earth. Sharks are still in the ocean, and only know sex and violence, and have evolved to perfection. What a design model for us all. So next time someone tells you to put your "disney ears on" - You can put your shark ears on instead.
pgrmdave Posted January 29, 2005 Report Posted January 29, 2005 Have you not noticed all the women giving head? Well, in the future, we will be all hermaphrodite's - that is we will be able to reproduce without an opposite sex. - Just like fish, depending on the temperature of the environment. So a green house effect on earth produces more homosexuals, and little to no reproduction occurs. In this way the earth has a self-governing effect of overpopulation and man-made pollution on earth. Sharks are still in the ocean, and only know sex and violence, and have evolved to perfection. What a design model for us all. So next time someone tells you to put your "disney ears on" - You can put your shark ears on instead. Do you have any evidence for your claims - human hermaphrodites, green house effect producing homosexuality, perfection = sharks? Please read the FAQ, those claims are definitely strange and radical enough that you should provide some evidence, or proof before you post them.
TeleMad Posted January 29, 2005 Report Posted January 29, 2005 Am I to understand the body of your arguement that "God must have created DNA because it is too complicated for him not to" ??? There are 4 base pairs that make up the sequence {A, T, G, P} (I forgot most of the amino acid names -- excuse me). I am beginning to think you don't know enough about logic. DNA is not made of amino acids: proteins are. The monomeric building blocks of DNA are nucleotides. The four deoxyribonucleotides are symbolized by the abbreviations for their nitrogenous bases, those being A, T, G, and C. There's a C, which you left out, and there's no P, which you added. I guess one might be justified in turning your own statement back on you, as in, "I am beginning to think you don't know enough about biology". :-) *********************By the way, did someone here point out how DNA can form naturalistically? All of the anti-IDists seem to believe it could, but I didn't see any of them provide any evidence supporting that position. By the way #2, DNA is not self-replicating, despite what several people here asserted.
pmaust Posted February 1, 2005 Report Posted February 1, 2005 To everyone who has contributed to this thread, thank you! I am way too busy to be able to participate and I don't have the necessary amount of knowlege anyway. But I am staying up way too late catching up on reading. :D I've enjoyed the heck out of this plus I am learning and thinking. If you step away from this as I am forced to do and them come back to it, it is wonderful to see the idea exchange that goes on here. :hyper: Paul
Fishteacher73 Posted February 1, 2005 Report Posted February 1, 2005 By the way, did someone here point out how DNA can form naturalistically? All of the anti-IDists seem to believe it could, but I didn't see any of them provide any evidence supporting that position. Complex molecules are thought to have begun abiotic synthesis through their formation upon ionicly carged clays. These parterns would attract specific paterns of molecules, which in turn would attract "negative" layers of silt clay again that would repeat the process. This began an early race for resources, and the most effecient would prevail.
TeleMad Posted February 3, 2005 Report Posted February 3, 2005 TeleMad: By the way, did someone here point out how DNA can form naturalistically? All of the anti-IDists seem to believe it could, but I didn't see any of them provide any evidence supporting that position. Complex molecules are thought to have begun abiotic synthesis through their formation upon ionicly carged clays. These parterns would attract specific paterns of molecules, which in turn would attract "negative" layers of silt clay again that would repeat the process. This began an early race for resources, and the most effecient would prevail. So you can point me to a prebiotically plausible experiment in which that method produced DNA from scratch?
Fishteacher73 Posted February 3, 2005 Report Posted February 3, 2005 I am not aware of any specific experiments, but it seems to be a simple probablity that you will randomly precipitate these ionized clays. Many paterns would result. and it is not beyond reason to conclude that the proto-DNA paterns could be among them. You would probably have a few 100 million years to run through the variants. I really do not know if this can be empirically tested, because of the time frame involved. Much like many of the early process on Earth, the time span makes its testing not really practical.
Freethinker Posted February 3, 2005 Report Posted February 3, 2005 I really don noy know if this can be emirically tested, because of the time frame involved. Much like many of the early process on Earth, the time span makes its testing not really ptactical.You are responding to the typical "God of the gaps" approach. You were being required to show existing documented proof as if lacking such automatically PROVES a god/ IDer. Funny how they demand proof to refute something they scream has and needs no proof!
pgrmdave Posted February 3, 2005 Report Posted February 3, 2005 I don't think that Telemad was implying that God was the only alternative, merely that he wanted to know of any experiments that tested the abiogenisis theory.
Freethinker Posted February 3, 2005 Report Posted February 3, 2005 ??? I don't see Telemad's name in my post ???
TeleMad Posted February 3, 2005 Report Posted February 3, 2005 I am not aware of any specific experiments... Right. So it's your personal opinion against the IDists personal opinion.
Fishteacher73 Posted February 3, 2005 Report Posted February 3, 2005 Granted that the origins of life are theoretical, but the contuation of abiotic origins into evolutionary theory has much proof. ID has a lot of holes and a lot of counter examples and falls short of a working theory. We have crated the amino-groups and early organic compounds neccessary for life in lab conditions much like that of the early Earth. All the parts are there, there is a workable explanation of how they began to fit together. This seems pretty straight forward. AS I stated in a previous post, the time frame required for this to occur is beyond our experimental capabilities. Scientists never saw Pangea, but though other evidence, it can be concluded that all the land masses were at one point joined. We have a lot of the pieces and this seems to be the most logical way for them to fit together. At least much more logical than some supreme being cooking us up in his oven.
Freethinker Posted February 3, 2005 Report Posted February 3, 2005 Right. So it's your personal opinion against the IDists personal opinion.IDers are adding an additional agent. In order for an additional agent to be brought into the discussion, there must be proofs provided of the existence of this agent and it's method of interaction. Lacking that, there is no valid reason to allow it to be brought into the discussion. Thus they are NOT equally valid.
MortenS Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 By the way, did someone here point out how DNA can form naturalistically? All of the anti-IDists seem to believe it could, but I didn't see any of them provide any evidence supporting that position. By the way #2, DNA is not self-replicating, despite what several people here asserted. This is just a short synopsis of the state of abiogenesis research as of now. No experiments exist that point out how DNA can form naturalistically from its components. Not that scientists have not tried. After Tomas Cech and coworkers discovered the enzymatic properties of certain RNA molecules (called ribozymes), scientists got their hopes up again. Maybe RNA was the precursor to DNA. After all, many viruses use RNA (both single-stranded and double-stranded) as their genetic molecule, so it is not unthinkable that RNA later evolved into DNA. RNA as a replicator before DNA are often referred to in the scientific literature as the "RNA world". The question then becomes how to synthesize RNA in a pre-biotic world. Phosphate, and the purines form easily under pre-biotic conditions. Pyrimidines are a bit more difficult, and ribose is also difficult. The difficulty in pre-biotic synthesis of pyrimidins are not that much of a problem, the first sequences could have been very rich on purines. What is more worrying is the difficulty in synthesizing ribose in a pre-biotic world. This difficulty has led some researchers to speculate about a pre-RNA world, where an even simpler molecule could be the first replicator. Several promising candidates have been suggested: PNA, TNA and a few others. PNA (peptide nucleic acid) is easily synthezised in the laboratory, and the peptide N-(2-aminoethyl)glycine that compose the skeleton in PNA, forms in prebiotic experiments with sparks through an atmosphere of nitrogen, ammonia, methane ammonia and water. No prebiotic experiments have yet managed to synthesize PNA, though. PNA can form Watson-Crick duplexes with itself and with RNA. The last word is not said with regards to the origin of nucleic acids. Some review articles from Nature that deals with these problems:http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418214a_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions= http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v338/n6212/full/338217a0.html&filetype=pdf Clay has been suggested to play an important role in the formation of the first nucleic acids. it is known that a clay named montmorillonite can create RNA molecules of 50 nucleotides in lenght. The questions remains however, could this take place on the prebiotic earth? A nice article that mentions the various hypothesis suggested, and some of the cave-at's with each of them is this one:http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2000/evans_may00.htm The field of abiogenesis has not said its last word on the topic of orgin of life on earth. I am expecting lot of interesting experiments in that field in the years to come.
maddog Posted February 4, 2005 Report Posted February 4, 2005 DNA is not made of amino acids: proteins are. The monomeric building blocks of DNA are nucleotides. The four deoxyribonucleotides are symbolized by the abbreviations for their nitrogenous bases, those being A, T, G, and C. There's a C, which you left out, and there's no P, which you added. I guess one might be justified in turning your own statement back on you, as in, "I am beginning to think you don't know enough about biology". :-) *********************By the way, did someone here point out how DNA can form naturalistically? All of the anti-IDists seem to believe it could, but I didn't see any of them provide any evidence supporting that position. By the way #2, DNA is not self-replicating, despite what several people here asserted.I think sometimes I do too much from memory. I appreciate you correction.Nucleotides, C instead of P and RNA is need to complete process of Mitosis. Good Points. Thank You! Maddog
Recommended Posts