Abiogenesis is impossible

[Fidel_Castronaut]

nice try, chas.

As my Sam would have said: you on drugs?

Jésus is his drug, and a powerful one it is too. Rots your brain though, presuming there was one in the first place.

[snowtracks]

nice try, chas.

No, seriously, what's your point?

seriously, the point is biochemical information is genuine information not merely a scientific metaphor.
---------------------------------
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/C...ucture.php
"And with these words, the way was made clear for tremendous strides in our understanding of the structure of DNA and, as a result our ability to work with and manipulate the information-rich DNA molecule. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh and by the way, both evolutionary biologists and creationist believe this. you and a few other on this board don't believe that but that's perfectly fine and admirable.

[Esquilax]

seriously, the point is biochemical information is genuine information not merely a scientific metaphor.

Damn, you're slow on the uptake. If you think that information exists as a non-conceptual thing that doesn't rely on minds to process it and determine the patterns in it, then please show us a unit of information? What is the measurement metric for information? How does one detect information? What does information do? How does it affect things?

You have a lot of ground to cover yet, Snowy. Nobody here has said that the word information isn't present in scientific records, nor that it has no use as a term, but when they say that a DNA molecule is "information rich," what is meant is that the DNA molecule contains numerous patterns and markers that we can conceptually show to result in a number of effects. Information isn't some intrinsic thing within DNA, it results from our ability to reliably determine what X, Y and Z chemical components of DNA will do in a given situation.

You're sitting here trying to characterize information as existing in DNA separate from human interaction with it, like coconut milk in a coconut, to which I say: Snowy, if you crack open a DNA molecule, "information" won't come spilling out, objectively extant and independent from our ability to read it.

[Rampant.A.I.]

No, seriously, what's your point?

seriously, the point is biochemical information is genuine information not merely a scientific metaphor.
---------------------------------
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/C...ucture.php
"And with these words, the way was made clear for tremendous strides in our understanding of the structure of DNA and, as a result our ability to work with and manipulate the information-rich DNA molecule. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh and by the way, both evolutionary biologists and creationist believe this. you and a few other on this board don't believe that but that's perfectly fine and admirable.

Are you saying you believe natural DNA contains information other than a genetic blueprint of the specific species and leftover bits and pieces from evolution?

Still not sure what is being argued here.

[Chas]

No, seriously, what's your point?

seriously, the point is biochemical information is genuine information not merely a scientific metaphor.
---------------------------------
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/C...ucture.php
"And with these words, the way was made clear for tremendous strides in our understanding of the structure of DNA and, as a result our ability to work with and manipulate the information-rich DNA molecule. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh and by the way, both evolutionary biologists and creationist believe this. you and a few other on this board don't believe that but that's perfectly fine and admirable.

You are conflating humans purposely using a chemical structure to store human-created data with a chemical that contains the instructions, sculpted by natural selection, for the development of organisms capable of surviving to pass on those chemical instructions.

You quote-mined that article; that article which is not a scholarly treatise, but a simplified overview.

[snowtracks]

darwin did the best he could using morphological features to outline the ascent of man. however, dna has now shown that the neanderthal man is not genetically related to human beings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164492/
so on those evolutionary ascent of man images, put a big X over the neanderthal.

[Esquilax]

darwin did the best he could using morphological features to outline the ascent of man. however, dna has now shown that the neanderthal man is not genetically related to human beings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164492/
so on those evolutionary ascent of man images, put a big X over the neanderthal.

So, your best effort here is a single, eleven year old paper? Bit weak, especially when in light of far more recent genetic evidence potentially indicating some level of interbreeding between archaic man and neanderthal. Here, take a look.

Equally interesting is the fact that, despite your assertions, neanderthals are still categorized in the Homo genus. Maybe you're just wrong here.

[Chas]

darwin did the best he could using morphological features to outline the ascent of man. however, dna has now shown that the neanderthal man is not genetically related to human beings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164492/
so on those evolutionary ascent of man images, put a big X over the neanderthal.

Wrong yet again, Snowy.

[Whateverist]

Makes me wonder if the particularly naive and smug xtians who never challenge their own assumptions may carry more inheritance from the neanderthal side of the family.

[Cyberman]

"Earthmen Xtians are not proud of their ancestors and never invite them round to dinner."