A new molecule that performs the essential function of life – self-replication – could shed light on the origin of all living things.If that wasn’t enough, the laboratory-born ribonucleic acid (RNA) strand evolves in a test tube to double itself ever more swiftly.”Obviously what we’re trying to do is make a biology,” says Gerald Joyce, a biochemist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. He hopes to imbue his team’s molecule with all the fundamental properties of life: self-replication, evolution, and function.Joyce and colleague Tracey Lincoln made their chemical out of RNA because most researchers think early life stored information in this sister molecule to DNA. And unlike the stuff of our genomes, RNA molecules can catalyse chemical reactions.”We’re trying to jump in at the last signpost we have back there in the early history of life,” Joyce says.
From JCC
He had to come from somewhere. Things don’t magically appear from nothing.
JCC
You apparently have a problem with causality. I’m sorry. That explains much!
djpoobah1:
According to the Big Bang theory, the universe did — but contrary to what What apparently thinks, the universe is not God.
What:
Oh? Please show me the error of my ways. Are you saying that effects don’t necessarily require causes — or, better yet, that effects can precede causes?
JCC
Did I say that the universe is god. I have no need for infantile god notions of any kind. It’s time to put away your childish things.
You should at least learn how to ask a decent question if you want people to respond to them.
JCC
So that we are on the same page why don’t you tell me your definition of a causal system. As a physicist I use a very succinct definition. Yours might be different. Let’s see
The Big Bang Theory cannot “unequivocally state” that “the Universe” began with the Big Bang, because nothing is known about anything that might have preceded the Big Bang, or about anything that might have caused it.
Kalam cosmological double-talk.
JCC dodges again,
“Speaking for myself, I’m more than happy to answer questions about my Christian faith — that is, as long as the people I’m having the discussion with show me the same respect that I show them.”
You are a liar, and you know god hates that. You never answer questions to defend your beliefs, you just cast shadows on the beliefs of others, and if you think that everyone to whom you have posted a response respects you, then you are even more insane than I imagined.
NeoWolfe
jeff-r
The USGS and Corps of Engineers have built and maintain scale models of the Mississippi and other major rivers to recreate their erosion rates which are extremely accurate.
Geology is its own field of science, not just “a fact.” Evolution is a theory within the science of biology.
Oh contraire. The entire domain of geology does not consist entirely of rock-solid (sorry for the pun) facts; there are many experimentally unverified theories and unknowns in it as well.
I think you overlooked my second question of, “is information really information to something that didn’t purposefully encode it or simply can’t recognize it?”
And that’s a mighty big difference.
It comes down to what the probability is of a self-replicating molecule getting the right nucleotide sequence needed to synthesize the necessary 25 or so cellular proteins when blind chance is what is supposedly the only external factor operating on it — it’s infinitesimally small; so small as to be statistically impossible in the ~13 billion year history of the universe.
JCC said,
“It comes down to what the probability is of a self-replicating molecule getting the right nucleotide sequence needed to synthesize the necessary 25 or so cellular proteins when blind chance is what is supposedly the only external factor operating on it — it’s infinitesimally small; so small as to be statistically impossible in the ~13 billion year history of the universe.”
Response,
Well, JCC, lets assume that your mathematics are correct and can be proven to the satisfaction of the most open minded of the scientific community. All that has qualified you to do is become agnostic.
Now let me quote you here:
“Speaking for myself, I’m more than happy to answer questions about my Christian faith — that is, as long as the people I’m having the discussion with show me the same respect that I show them.”
Now step up to the plate. Answer this one question. No more dodges. If your god created every species on this planet, and they can only reproduce according to their own kind, and evolution is a myth:
How did every dry land species presently alive on this planet find it’s way aboard the ark, and after the flood, find it’s way home again, across oceans and continental divides? What would you compute the infinitesamal odds of that to be?
You know that failure to answer will make you a liar in front of your god. Let’s read you support for your Christian beliefs.
You cast shadows, never light. Enlighten us instead on how your book of ancient gods and heroes should be our shining beacon. Will we hear your answer or more crickets chirping?
NeoWolfe
I didn’t overlook it. I couldn’t make sense out if it. I think you must be using a definition of “information” that I’m not aware of.
That might be a good argument if evolutionists actually proposed that living cells suddenly appeared out of nowhere by chance.
Neither of us seems to be having much luck making ourselves understood. I give up.
No, evolution is a fact, natural selection is the theory. & evolution is the backbone of biology.
Same tired semantics.
JCC
I’m still waiting for your definition of a causal system but in the mean time:
No it does not! There is no such thing as an observer independent probability. Therefore there is no ONE probability for a given event.
Why do so many people have so much trouble understanding what probability is. JCC you are obviously one of them or you are feigning your ignorance. Why don’t you tell me which?
The probability of an event’s outcome is a measure of our ignorance of the system in question and it’s dynamics. Since each predictor/observer of an outcome may have different a priori information about a system then the probability they assign to the same event will differ. If a predictor/observer has a lot of info then their computed probability approaches 1 – a certainty. So what is this talk about probability? It has no bearing at all on evolution. Evolution doesn’t depend on probability. What happened happened.
Really, are you that ignorant?
What:
Your words verbatim (emphasis mine):
Given that the word design carries an inherent and unambiguous implication of intelligence, what you asserted is no less than pantheism.
I do — it’s you who, in your arrogant pride, deliberately tries to distort my questions to make them seem unintelligent relative to how you think they should be asked. And I at least make a civil effort to answer questions asked of me; sadly, I can’t say the same for you.
And by the way, you’ve yet to give a direct answer to the question, “is it scientifically possible to determine if something has been designed?” It’s a simple question, requiring a Boolean answer.
And I’m still waiting for you to either confirm or deny that effects can precede causes.
I believe we have a great deal of a priori knowledge of how amino acids interact with each other — ergo we have a great deal of knowledge of what the probabilities are that they’d order themselves correctly to produce the needed proteins.
I wasn’t referring to evolution. Had you intentionally comprehended my question as asked, you wouldn’t have given that spurious response.
Yes, and the question is, what are the chances of it happening again, without the aid of an intelligent agent?
No, I’m not. And your arrogance and intentional misreading obviously haven’t changed a bit.
neowolfe:
No, I’m not.
A demonstrably false assertion — as evidenced by my replies to queries by djpoobah1 and jeff-r on this very thread. So, now who appears to be the “liar?”
Your continuing unwillingness to engage in a civil discourse makes conversing with you an exercise in futility.
I do not dodge. I answer questions that are presented in a civil and respectful manner.
It’s a matter of public record in previous threads on this blog that I’ve answered that question many times. But as a courtesy to you, I’ll repeat: the Genesis flood had to have been regional, not global. Given the many possible ways that the original Hebrew words used in the account can be used, interpreting it as such is not contradictory to the overall Biblical account.
Perhaps if you’d stop casting aspersions and acquire genuine curiosity you might be enlightened.
As I’ve previously demonstrated, I will not engage in a hostile, disrespectful conversation. If you wish to continue with this, drop the attitude.
neowolfe:
Your posts would be much easier to read if you would tag the text you’re quoting with blockquotes. It’s quite easy to do, precede it with a blockquote tag and close it with an end blockquote tag, like this:
<blockquote>Text to be blockquoted</blockquote>
Which will look like this when posted:
jeff-r:
Well, that seems to be what the fossil record suggests. So, what are your thoughts on how the nucleotide sequence managed to arrange itself correctly? And do you have any thoughts on how such a molecule managed to surround itself with a fully-formed and functioning cell membrane before it was destroyed by the environment it was in?
Ok, thanks for an enjoyable conversation.
Poor Krys, always seems to get everything mixed up: natural selection is a fact; evolution is a fantasy.
No, evolution is the man-made, deluded religion of the Godless, “progressive, free thinkers.”
Thank you JCC for this response,
” I’ll repeat: the Genesis flood had to have been regional, not global.”
Now, lets give you some credit, many mythologist hypothesize a similar “truth within the myth” as a spilling of a higland natural dyke into lowlands from the Med Sea. They also speculated that the Ten Plagues were caused by the Santorini eruption. But, open your divinely inspired scriptures and it will tell you that there was no land and that Noah had to release birds to find land, and that the ark came to rest on the top of Mount Ararat. Do you understand how tall that mountain is, and how deep the water would have to be? It would be an unimaginable GLOBAL flood. So, I must surmise from your response that you do not believe in the Bible is actually a divine communication but is a collection of myths, am I correct? Or do you cherry pick your bible the way you cherry pick responses on this site? Inquiring minds want to know.
NeoWolfe
JCC
You are one incoherent freak.
JCC
Only for somebody that sees life through gawd colored glasses.
No.I answered it take off your gwad blinders and you will find my response on this page.
Iasked you for your definition of causality but instead you asked my this bonehead question. OK I’ll play. No information carrying signal can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. So as long as one restricts oneself to physically possible events in space-time, ie ones such that the space-time separation of the two events in question is such that light is able to travel between the two space-time points, then the answer is no.
Would you like to actually understand what probability is. I can help. If you would rather remain ignorant … well that’s up to you.
Once again. Really! I can help you with your misunderstanding of what probability is. Just ask.
What:
Well, that certainly was an impeccably logical, well thought-out, highly reasoned and articulate reply.
Then I take that “no” to be your final answer because your earlier reply only danced around the question.
And you have the temerity to offer this:
after saying this about me:
Well, then you are an insufferably arrogant, egomaniacal, narcissistic blatherskite, obsessed with trying to make yourself appear to be the smartest person in the room, who, in reality, won’t directly answer questions and couldn’t construct a cogent, coherent, syntactically and/or semantically correct sentence to save your life.
No thanks. You’re the last person I’d ever ask.
It can’t be said that I didn’t give conversing with you another chance. You’re virtually impossible to reason with. See ya.
JCC
So now we have established that you do not understand that Special Relativity has specific implications with regard to causality and that you do not understand what probability is. We have also established that you do not desire to fix the voids in your understanding.
Understanding rudimentary 20th century science should have been a requirement for entering the 21st. JCC, you are being “left behind”.
Once again, I can try to help you. What do ya say?
That was possibly the most sane post of this weird weekend.