The code that is DNA

[Abaddon_ire]

Mutations are constrained by chemistry, they can't be just anything and therefore can't be TOTALLY random. And natural selection is a de-randomizing process. In fact, when environmental conditions are stable, it is most likely to preserve the status quo, delaying or preventing speciation (though genetic drift would still be in play). I have a good layman's understanding of the modern synthesis of the theory of biological evolution and some familiarity with the ideas of the extended synthesis; and I've read a couple of Darwin's books so I believe that I have a good grasp of his initial proposals on the matter.

---

I suppose it would have been quite a coincidence if I had guessed right since I haven't seen the video. What was the one you were referring to?

You haven’t even seen tours video yet you proclaim falsely of a straw man. You are a classic case of dishonest stupidity!
When your friends here can’t combat honestly , they resort to childish name calling,
Very little cerebral activity here

Tour is full of it. I have no need to watch his video, but I did anyway just for the sake of completeness. Frankly, lying for jebus does not impress. I have no idea why you think it would.

Nor why YOU would also lie for jebus.

After they found DNA precursors in comets I stopped laughing at ID people and started laughing at their parents. Their kids can help it if they were born stupid.

---

https://youtu.be/VUfNEHl44hc

If you found something that looked like a piece of metal , would you assume an automobile would inevitably be created from it? There is no such thing as a simple cell and Tour highlights the profound impossibility of abiogenesis

Nope. Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy. Grow up.
Your problem here is that you are claiming that nobody can explain abiogenesis. Not you. Not James Tour, not anybody.

That is CURRENTLY true, but science is actively working on that.

But then you claim that YOU have a whole and complete explanation. Ex nihilo. You simply made it up and declared it to be an explanation. Just because. That is a childs explanation. Hell, even my own children are beyond such trite non-explanations that explain nothing.

Why is it that you are unable to move beyond childish things? Can you explain that? Can you explain yourself?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Jack, you don't know jack.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There is no such thing as a simple cell

This bit is nonsense on the face of it.  Cells vary in complexity, and some are 'simpler' than others.

Boru

[Simon Moon]

Mutations are constrained by chemistry, they can't be just anything and therefore can't be TOTALLY random. And natural selection is a de-randomizing process. In fact, when environmental conditions are stable, it is most likely to preserve the status quo, delaying or preventing speciation (though genetic drift would still be in play). I have a good layman's understanding of the modern synthesis of the theory of biological evolution and some familiarity with the ideas of the extended synthesis; and I've read a couple of Darwin's books so I believe that I have a good grasp of his initial proposals on the matter.

---

I suppose it would have been quite a coincidence if I had guessed right since I haven't seen the video. What was the one you were referring to?

You haven’t even seen tours video yet you proclaim falsely of a straw man. You are a classic case of dishonest stupidity!
When your friends here can’t combat honestly , they resort to childish name calling,
Very little cerebral activity here

---

After they found DNA precursors in comets I stopped laughing at ID people and started laughing at their parents. Their kids can help it if they were born stupid.

---

https://youtu.be/VUfNEHl44hc

If you found something that looked like a piece of metal , would you assume an automobile would inevitably be created from it? There is no such thing as a simple cell and Tour highlights the profound impossibility of abiogenesis

There is no such thing as a simple cell

This bit is nonsense on the face of it.  Cells vary in complexity, and some are 'simpler' than others.

Boru

This creationist claim that complex cells, like we see today, couldn't have come about via natural processes, is, among other things, al strawman.

No scientist is claiming that the first cells were anywhere as complex as the cells we see today, with their: organelles, microtubules, vacuole, etc already extant in early cells.

All that first cells were most likely constituted of, is RNA, lipid membrane, and a fluid.

[Abaddon_ire]

You haven’t even seen tours video yet you proclaim falsely of a straw man. You are a classic case of dishonest stupidity!
When your friends here can’t combat honestly , they resort to childish name calling,
Very little cerebral activity here

---

If you found something that looked like a piece of metal , would you assume an automobile would inevitably be created from it? There is no such thing as a simple cell and Tour highlights the profound impossibility of abiogenesis

This bit is nonsense on the face of it.  Cells vary in complexity, and some are 'simpler' than others.

Boru

This creationist claim that complex cells, like we see today, couldn't have come about via natural processes, is, among other things, al strawman.

No scientist is claiming that the first cells were anywhere as complex as the cells we see today, with their: organelles, microtubules, vacuole, etc already extant in early cells.

All that first cells were most likely constituted of, is RNA, lipid membrane, and a fluid.

Oh, the lipid thing. That is really intriguing. Simple lipids that spontaneously form cell walls using nothing but basic chemistry. Emergent behaviour is endlessly fascinating.

No gods were harmed in the making of this post, LOL.

Does Jack understand any of this do you think?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You haven’t even seen tours video yet you proclaim falsely of a straw man. You are a classic case of dishonest stupidity!
When your friends here can’t combat honestly , they resort to childish name calling,
Very little cerebral activity here

---

If you found something that looked like a piece of metal , would you assume an automobile would inevitably be created from it? There is no such thing as a simple cell and Tour highlights the profound impossibility of abiogenesis

This bit is nonsense on the face of it.  Cells vary in complexity, and some are 'simpler' than others.

Boru

This creationist claim that complex cells, like we see today, couldn't have come about via natural processes, is, among other things, al strawman.

No scientist is claiming that the first cells were anywhere as complex as the cells we see today, with their: organelles, microtubules, vacuole, etc already extant in early cells.

All that first cells were most likely constituted of, is RNA, lipid membrane, and a fluid.

I was actually thinking of the difference between pro- and eukaryotic cells.  It seems pretty obvious that a cell without membrane-bound organelles is necessarily simpler than a cell that has them.

Boru

[Yukon_Jack]

cm
James Tour :

“The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological
monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell
capable of further evolution appears to *require overcoming an information
hurdle of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have
happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a
miracle*



Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life ‘problem’ escalates
dramatically over this 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a
thermodynamic perspective:

“The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form
of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the
340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since
there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power)
electrons in the whole universe!”
(Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology

[The Architect Of Fate]

cm
James Tour :

“The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological
monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell
capable of further evolution appears to *require overcoming an information
hurdle of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have
happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a
miracle*

Argument from incredulity and think we have established Tour as a liar for christ .

Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life ‘problem’ escalates
dramatically over this 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a
thermodynamic perspective:

“The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form
of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the
340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since
there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power)
electrons in the whole universe!”
(Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology

Argument from incredulity.Too bad everyone disagrees with him .Just another celebrity you trotted out .Can' wait to see his noble prize for overturning the cornerstone of modern biology....Oh wait .Oh and argument from big numbers.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

cm
James Tour :

“The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological
monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell
capable of further evolution appears to *require overcoming an information
hurdle of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have
happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a
miracle*



Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life ‘problem’ escalates
dramatically over this 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a
thermodynamic perspective:

“The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form
of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the
340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since
there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power)
electrons in the whole universe!”
(Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology

I've read Morowitz's 'Energy Flow In Biology' (it was assigned reading at uni).  His writing tended to follow Darwin's style, in which he posited how unlikely something was, then went on to demonstrate that it wasn't so unlikely after all (Darwin famously did this with the evolution of the eye).

Morowitz did indeed write what was quoted above, but immediately demolished the idea, because the smallest, simplest form of life wasn't due to chance, but was constrained by chemistry and physics to occur along certain  pathways.  He held a pretty rigid view of the deterministic nature of evolution.  To imply that he believed the formation of life was mathematically impossible is simply quote mining of a particularly vile nature.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh and another issue with you using Harold Morowitz.He was staunchlynchly and an anti creationist and opposed intelligent design and accepted evolution and abiogenesis .

---

cm
James Tour :

“The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological
monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell
capable of further evolution appears to *require overcoming an information
hurdle of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have
happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a
miracle*



Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life ‘problem’ escalates
dramatically over this 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a
thermodynamic perspective:

“The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form
of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the
340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since
there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power)
electrons in the whole universe!”
(Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology

I've read Morowitz's 'Energy Flow In Biology' (it was assigned reading at uni).  His writing tended to follow Darwin's style, in which he posited how unlikely something was, then went on to demonstrate that it wasn't so unlikely after all (Darwin famously did this with the evolution of the eye).

Morowitz did indeed write what was quoted above, but immediately demolished the idea, because the smallest, simplest form of life wasn't due to chance, but was constrained by chemistry and physics to occur along certain  pathways.  He held a pretty rigid view of the deterministic nature of evolution.  To imply that he believed the formation of life was mathematically impossible is simply quote mining of a particularly vile nature.

Boru

And the fact he accepted  abiogenesis  and evolution .But it wouldn't matter even if he didn't .Science isn't built of celebrity opinions in books .It's built of peer review and convincing consensus your right .IDiots fail his hard .