|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Thank you, ringo, for reminding me about our 'unpacking' we have to do.
ringo writes:
They called it a code. I have not disputed that it can be called a code. What I'm saying is that it is nothing beyond the structure of the molecule, nothing that every other molecule doesn't carry. ringo writes: The point you're (supposedly) responding to is the idea that life is a byproduct of DNA's structure. You claimed in Message 161 that Crick disproved that. Show us the disproof. I ASKED whether Crick had disproven this idea, I didn't state it as fact. But I was wrong in thinking that it was easy to verify; I can't locate the source that I got the info from. I must have heard about it in a lecture. So, I'll retract the mention of Crick 'attempting and failing' to prove your point and just compare what YOU are saying with what accepted scientists such as Crick have said about the chemistry of nucleic acids. Any normal high school biology student knows the gist of what Watson and Crick discovered about the chemistry of nucleic acids, so it will be an easy thing to discuss. Now, do you agree that scientists have found what Crick called a 'code' embedded in the nucleic acids?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
T1C writes: However, we could see just the RNA strand replicating itself based on laws of chemistry through chemical reactions. Yes, you can see it through the eyes of your Darwinian faith. But don't forget, this is a speculation; nothing to build an argument on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Taq writes: Can you show us where the code is in this picture? good one. Any high school student can tell you that - in the base pair arrangement, of course. No, seriously, you knew that, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Computer code is written by a designer to specify the details of a computer program, where as a segment of ATCG simply describes parts of a DNA molecule and does not alone mean that someone has designed it. Are you really that ignorant of what the code in DNA accomplishes? Again, this is high school stuff, here, guys. A segment of ATCG specifies the details of a cell-building program, just as a segment of computer code specifies the details of a computer program. Some of it specifies the construction of all proteins for each cell, and most of it specifies all the other details needed to build the entire organism, though scientists haven't been able to 'decode' most of it yet. This seems very difficult to grasp for some of the thread participants. I'm not sure what the problem is; this is basic knowledge. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes:
They called it a code. I have not disputed that it can be called a code. What I'm saying is that it is nothing beyond the structure of the molecule, NOTHING THAT EVERY OTHER MOLECULE DOESN'T CARRY. Ringo, do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell?You say the code in DNA is "NOTHING THAT EVERY OTHER MOLECULE DOESN'T CARRY?" That's one of the more ignorant statements I've read on this thread. I'm embarrassed for you. A little more attention in high school biology would have prevented your misunderstanding...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes: There is nothing "embedded" in the molecule; there is nothing "written on" the molecule; there is only the structure of the molecule. Someone disagrees:
quote:http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/...trieve/Narrative/SC/p-nid/153 Did you miss that part in school? Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes: Ed67 writes:ringo writes: There is nothing "embedded" in the molecule; there is nothing "written on" the molecule; there is only the structure of the molecule. Someone disagrees: No. They don't. Just because somebody uses the word "embedded" doesn't mean that they think there is anything "extra". quote:http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/...trieve/Narrative/SC/p-nid/153 I'd say that's a little extra Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Here, I'll make it easy for you- I'll put the quotes together:
quote: Did you happen to notice what they discovered?The CODE for building proteins necessary for life. In a molecule. Now you can't say that about salt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
frako writes: So you disagree with Watson and Crick? wohooo Defining the Genetic Coding Problem, 1954-1957 its been 60 years we made some progress in that time.
At what point in the last 60 years have scientists decided that is NOT a code? How do you think this genetic code of yours works? explain in as much detail as you can. Go back to high school. I'm not your grade 12 biology teacher. It was all there in high school.This is not "MY" code, or an original idea. the lengths of stupidity you are willing to go to in order to deflect from a point that bruises your world view. Poor little guy...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
frako writes: Where do you see the code? The same place Watson and Crick saw it, silly. This is getting really pathetic, dude. You can't even understand the basic function of DNA. I'm not going to entertain any more 'stupid' questions like "where is the code?". You could ask ringo; I just schooled him in the DNA code...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
DA writes: But it's not extra, that's the point that ringo's trying to make. You couldn't, for example, remove the "information" in the DNA but leave the chemistry, or remove the chemistry but leave the "information". Yes. Remarkably elegant, don't you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
CS writes:
frako writes:
The same place Watson and Crick saw it, silly. Where do you see the code? If you don't believe that, there's nothing i can do for you.
If you could be more specific about how you think you're saying the same things, then you might make more sense. If you can't make sense of what I've said so far, nothing I say will make sense to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
sore loser
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Larni writes: Hi Ed67, welcome to EvC!Ed67 writes: In a molecule. I think the point people are trying to make is that there is nothing in the molecule (other than the various bonds). The physical structure is the sum totality of the molecule and all of the effects it can have are a result of the physical structure. It simply is. It does not have something non physical embedded into it to act the way it does. Thank you , Larni
quote:http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/...trieve/Narrative/SC/p-nid/153 Now, can anyone find in this quote WHERE the code is? Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3360 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
I think you guys have spent too much time sitting around congratulating each other. You've got some kind of creepy 'group think' going on where you all have developed the same blind spots.
You all have to get out more...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024