DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[ignoramus]

I feel great that I found the answers I was looking for in DNA and the fine-tuning of the universe. 

You win man! Your parents must be so proud ...

Please answer 2 questions for me if you have a moment.
Would you have accepted any other answer other than the one reinforcing ID?
Last question is are you intelligent enough to define for me what a logical fallacy is?

catch...

[pocaracas]

What your tiny brain can't comprehend is that it's not about probabilities.
It's about chemistry. Self assembly happens and is inevitable given the right conditions.
Show that those conditions have never been present on Earth. If you can't, then that's how it happened. No Intelligence required!
(I hope you see the irony in this sort of arguing, but maybe... just maybe... that's the sort of argument that you accept)

You obviously didn't watch the video I posted.  It addresses that exact problem.

Others did it for me
"" by M. Scott Veach, 4 months ago:
This video makes the same perplexing mistake that all of these videos make. They assume that abiogenesis must have popped out a 200-300 amino acid in a single trial but over and over scientists have shown that there are amino acid chains of length as small as 32 that begin driving the process toward longer and longer chains. In other words, we've shown the process gets rolling with very high probability.
"


"" Michael Hill, 4 months ago:
I am glad that the person who put this video up was at least honest enough to allow comments. People like Philip C and many other creationists know they are lying so will not allow any comments which they know will prove them wrong.

No one but creationists claim that anyone else says that living MODERN HUMAN cells suddenly appeared. The chances of that happening are impossible.

The first life, possibly a tiny self replicating strip of RNA which we would not now say it is alive, appeared some 3.8 billion years ago, and then through millions of changes over that time got to where we are today, through evolution (where whatever is better able to replicate or breed survives and carries improvements onto future generations), which is provably true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html

As to complex organic chemicals and the pre-cursors of life and proteins forming in the right conditions, we know that can happen even in space:

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sta...51220.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...t-67P.html

The point here is that all believers are singularly ignorant of the bible. It portrays a dull witted god who would struggle to get his sandals on the right feet, and yet they claim he made something s complicated as modern DNA. That is as likely some chimps in the jungle making a Moon rocket.
""

So clearly, no. That video does not address the issue I brought up.
And I'm not going to waste 13 minutes of my day on it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

What creationists think is that it is easier to design something than to evolve it. It isn't. I evolve my AI precisely because it's far easier than trying to design it myself. Most of the time, I don't even know how my AI works. To find out normally takes months of work and I don't have that time to spare.

[CDF47]

You obviously didn't watch the video I posted.  It addresses that exact problem.

Others did it for me
"" by  M. Scott Veach, 4 months ago:
This video makes the same perplexing mistake that all of these videos make. They assume that abiogenesis must have popped out a 200-300 amino acid in a single trial but over and over scientists have shown that there are amino acid chains of length as small as 32 that begin driving the process toward longer and longer chains. In other words, we've shown the process gets rolling with very high probability.
"


"" Michael Hill, 4 months ago:
I am glad that the person who put this video up was at least honest enough to allow comments. People like Philip C and many other creationists know they are lying so will not allow any comments which they know will prove them wrong.

No one but creationists claim that anyone else says that living MODERN HUMAN cells suddenly appeared. The chances of that happening are impossible.

The first life, possibly a tiny self replicating strip of RNA which we would not now say it is alive, appeared some 3.8 billion years ago, and then through millions of changes over that time got to where we are today, through evolution (where  whatever is better able to replicate or  breed survives and carries improvements onto future generations), which is provably true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html

As to complex organic chemicals and the pre-cursors of life and proteins forming in the right conditions, we know that can happen even in space:

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sta...51220.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...t-67P.html

The point here is that all believers are singularly ignorant of the bible. It portrays a dull witted god who would struggle to get his sandals on the right feet, and yet they claim he made something s complicated as modern DNA. That is as likely some chimps in the jungle making a Moon rocket.
""

So clearly, no. That video does not address the issue I brought up.
And I'm not going to waste 13 minutes of my day on it.

Even a 32 character long chain of amino acids is an impossibility.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Even a 32 character long chain of amino acids is an impossibility.

[Citation required]

[Angrboda]

Probability of making a protein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQoQgTqj3pU

I responded to this argument in post #531 (HERE), and your response?  Silence.

This clearly demonstrates that your claim that all that atheists have presented in this thread is name calling and straw man arguments is false.

It shows that you are a liar.  The argument I replied to is very much your position on the matter and is not a straw man.



From Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:

A primordial protoplasmic globule

So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below.



The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12].



Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle [3, 5, 15, 26, 28]. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator [24]. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles [9].

No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.



Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].

Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]

Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further?

[Joods]

The non existence of God is not dependent on how many atheists there are. The popularity or non popularity of a belief has
absolutely no bearing on how true it is. To suggest that it has is to commit a logical fallacy namely argumentum ad populum

I agree with that.  Was just pointing out it is not as popular as made to seem.

Who the fuck cares and what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

---

It does not matter if it popular idiot .

Well, hardly anyone classifies themselves this way so it says at least that.  It is great to see people can still see through the BS arguments thrown out by atheists.

Really? And what bs arguments would that be?

[CDF47]

Probability of making a protein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQoQgTqj3pU

I responded to this argument in post #531 (HERE), and your response?  Silence.

This clearly demonstrates that your claim that all that atheists have presented in this thread is name calling and straw man arguments is false.

It shows that you are a liar.  The argument I replied to is very much your position on the matter and is not a straw man.



From Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:

A primordial protoplasmic globule

So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below.



The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12].



Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle [3, 5, 15, 26, 28]. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator [24]. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles [9].

No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.



Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].

Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]

Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further?

There is no evidence of going from one step to the next.  That would be a leap.  No, ID does not always just talk about going from simple chemicals to bacteria.

[Angrboda]

Do you believe that information cannot arise through a natural process?  Is there a limit to the amount of information that a natural process can create?

Natural processes cannot create sophisticated extremely complex and specific functional information processing systems as found in DNA.

And your proof that natural processes cannot produce such information is what exactly?

[CDF47]

I agree with that.  Was just pointing out it is not as popular as made to seem.

Who the fuck cares and what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

---

Well, hardly anyone classifies themselves this way so it says at least that.  It is great to see people can still see through the BS arguments thrown out by atheists.

Really? And what bs arguments would that be?

BS argument = nothing created everything (just natural processes) - yeah right