New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Si modo]

Horizontal gene transfer takes care of that.

Here's what he's talking about, I said pieces of DNA had been acquired, not created.

Ok Drock,

What are the origins of DNA ? we can all conclude DNA is information.

Yes, it is information.

The origins of it? Like how the first DNA molecule formed?

The question of the origin of asymmetric induction has to be explained, first.

Sure, we can say God did that, but we can say God did everything, too. As there exists no actual or even hypothetical data set to falsify that particular theory, we just existed science by trying to apply that theory.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Here's what he's talking about, I said pieces of DNA had been acquired, not created.

Ok Drock,

What are the origins of DNA ? we can all conclude DNA is information.

Yes, it is information.

The origins of it? Like how the first DNA molecule formed?

The question of the origin of asymmetric induction has to be explained, first.

Sure, we can say God did that, but we can say God did everything, too. As there exists no actual or even hypothetical data set to falsify that particular theory, we just existed science by trying to apply that theory.

The first life came from bacteria so there's the first DNA, which came from self-producing RNA molecules.

 

[Si modo]

Ok Drock,

What are the origins of DNA ? we can all conclude DNA is information.

Yes, it is information.

The origins of it? Like how the first DNA molecule formed?

The question of the origin of asymmetric induction has to be explained, first.

Sure, we can say God did that, but we can say God did everything, too. As there exists no actual or even hypothetical data set to falsify that particular theory, we just existed science by trying to apply that theory.

The first life came from bacteria so there's the first DNA, which came from self-producing RNA molecules.

True. Yes, it did. I apologize for not being more specific. I'm talking about DNA from an abiotic source - life from something other than life. As DNA is an optically active chiral molecular, it's asymmetry must have been induced by something. But, so far, we have no abiotic explanation for chirality. (There recently was a paper about completely abiotic clay inducing asymmetry, so that is nice, but more work needs to be done.)

ETA link to the paper: Chiral interactions of histidine in a hydrated vermiculite clay

Recent work shows a correlation between chiral asymmetry in non-terrestrial amino acids extracted from the Murchison meteorite and the presence of hydrous mineral phases in the meteorite [D. P. Glavin and J. P. Dworkin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2009, 106, 5487–5492]. This highlights the need for sensitive experimental tests of the interactions of amino acids with clay minerals together with high level computational work. We present here the results of in situ neutron scattering experiments designed to follow amino acid adsorption on an exchanged, 1-dimensionally ordered n-propyl ammonium vermiculite clay. The vermiculite gel has a (001) d-spacing of order 5 nm at the temperature and concentration of the experiments and the d-spacing responds sensitively to changes in concentration, temperature and electronic environment. The data show that isothermal addition of D-histidine or L-histidine solutions of the same concentration leads to an anti-osmotic swelling, and shifts in the d-spacing that are different for each enantiomer. This chiral specificity, measured in situ, in real time in the neutron beam, is of interest for the question of whether clays could have played an important role in the origin of biohomochirality.​

And, a more lay summary, for those interested.

 

[HUGGY]

Life did not occur on earth before the addition of liquid water. This could not have happened unless a comet or several comets collided with earth. This makes sense because the solar system was far more disorganized early on and many orbits were in conflict "accidents predictably waiting(at great speed in random trajectories) to happen".

Now that the debris of the formation of our known solar system has sorted itself out for a few billion years it is difficult for some to visualize how violent our environment was in the early years.

The collision that formed the moon was especially catastrophic. Even if there was any life started before that event it was blown away into oblivion. My guess is that there were several early starts to life ending finally in the last one that we still enjoy when the major cataclysms stopped occurring.

Air breathing life did not occur on earth before "air" as we know it accumulated in the atmosphere. This could not have happened unless oxygen expelling life had not occurred in great abundance in the early liquid water. First came underwater magma plumes generating energy(heat) to catalyze the chemical accidents necessary to eventually result in the first replicating compounds.

IMO the first replicating phenomenon is/was the formation of water leached crystals under certain but less unlikely conditions. In a sense THAT was/were the first building blocks that made life possible. Life needed a rudimentary pattern to grow on. Before liquid water there was no erosion therefore no accumulation of pockets of life supporting chemical compounds available for chemical reactions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

See, this post about sums it up about your science skills: There is only one side in science - expanding knowledge and finding the truth. No 'sides'.

Really,you can't be more wrong, there has always been two sides.

No, there is not. Obviously, you were not trained in the sciences so you are speaking for a group to which you do not belong. That's pretty silly of you.

Really here is Dr.Marshalls comments about DNA not being a code, In the debate. Since you were the one first making the claim or the loudest claim this pertains to you.

Gentlemen (and Ladies too, my apologies for not acknowledging Lizzie earlier):

Good to be back. It's been more than 3 years now since this thread started.

First item of business today:

The scientific books and papers which define the pattern of DNA as a "code" - and explain the reasons behind this definition - the quantity of such documents is so large it would fill a modestly sized university library.

I have nearly unanimous backing of the vast body of scientific literature on this point. Therefore I will not waste any more time responding to further groundless assertions by anyone that "the pattern in DNA is not a code." Of course it is a code and everyone who's being honest with the literature knows it.

Those who argue to the contrary merely reveal their own lack of scientific training and objectivity. Anonymous PhD's at some government-owned health institution notwithstanding. If you disagree with me, write the journal and textbook publishers and get them to retract their statements.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Horizontal gene transfer takes care of that.

Here's what he's talking about, I said pieces of DNA had been acquired, not created.

Ah, thanks.

Yes, and that provides an explanation for macro-evolution.

Check that off the list.

You really don't understand the difference between Micro and Macro-evolution do you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok Drock,

What are the origins of DNA ? we can all conclude DNA is information.

Yes, it is information.

The origins of it? Like how the first DNA molecule formed?

The question of the origin of asymmetric induction has to be explained, first.

Sure, we can say God did that, but we can say God did everything, too. As there exists no actual or even hypothetical data set to falsify that particular theory, we just existed science by trying to apply that theory.

The first life came from bacteria so there's the first DNA, which came from self-producing RNA molecules.

So how did the bacteria get the information ? we can play this all day til we get to the source of the information.

 

[Si modo]

Here's what he's talking about, I said pieces of DNA had been acquired, not created.

Ah, thanks.

Yes, and that provides an explanation for macro-evolution.

Check that off the list.

You really don't understand the difference between Micro and Macro-evolution do you ?

Yes, I do.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, it is information.

The origins of it? Like how the first DNA molecule formed?

The question of the origin of asymmetric induction has to be explained, first.

Sure, we can say God did that, but we can say God did everything, too. As there exists no actual or even hypothetical data set to falsify that particular theory, we just existed science by trying to apply that theory.

The first life came from bacteria so there's the first DNA, which came from self-producing RNA molecules.

So how did the bacteria get the information ? we can play this all day til we get to the source of the information.

Here:

Yes, it is information.

The origins of it? Like how the first DNA molecule formed?

The question of the origin of asymmetric induction has to be explained, first.

Sure, we can say God did that, but we can say God did everything, too. As there exists no actual or even hypothetical data set to falsify that particular theory, we just existed science by trying to apply that theory.

The first life came from bacteria so there's the first DNA, which came from self-producing RNA molecules.

True. Yes, it did. I apologize for not being more specific. I'm talking about DNA from an abiotic source - life from something other than life. As DNA is an optically active chiral molecular, it's asymmetry must have been induced by something. But, so far, we have no abiotic explanation for chirality. (There recently was a paper about completely abiotic clay inducing asymmetry, so that is nice, but more work needs to be done.)

ETA link to the paper: Chiral interactions of histidine in a hydrated vermiculite clay

Recent work shows a correlation between chiral asymmetry in non-terrestrial amino acids extracted from the Murchison meteorite and the presence of hydrous mineral phases in the meteorite [D. P. Glavin and J. P. Dworkin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2009, 106, 5487–5492]. This highlights the need for sensitive experimental tests of the interactions of amino acids with clay minerals together with high level computational work. We present here the results of in situ neutron scattering experiments designed to follow amino acid adsorption on an exchanged, 1-dimensionally ordered n-propyl ammonium vermiculite clay. The vermiculite gel has a (001) d-spacing of order 5 nm at the temperature and concentration of the experiments and the d-spacing responds sensitively to changes in concentration, temperature and electronic environment. The data show that isothermal addition of D-histidine or L-histidine solutions of the same concentration leads to an anti-osmotic swelling, and shifts in the d-spacing that are different for each enantiomer. This chiral specificity, measured in situ, in real time in the neutron beam, is of interest for the question of whether clays could have played an important role in the origin of biohomochirality.​

And, a more lay summary, for those interested.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Life did not occur on earth before the addition of liquid water. This could not have happened unless a comet or several comets collided with earth. This makes sense because the solar system was far more disorganized early on and many orbits were in conflict "accidents predictably waiting(at great speed in random trajectories) to happen".

Now that the debris of the formation of our known solar system has sorted itself out for a few billion years it is difficult for some to visualize how violent our environment was in the early years.

The collision that formed the moon was especially catastrophic. Even if there was any life started before that event it was blown away into oblivion. My guess is that there were several early starts to life ending finally in the last one that we still enjoy when the major cataclysms stopped occurring.

Air breathing life did not occur on earth before "air" as we know it accumulated in the atmosphere. This could not have happened unless oxygen expelling life had not occurred in great abundance in the early liquid water. First came underwater magma plumes generating energy(heat) to catalyze the chemical accidents necessary to eventually result in the first replicating compounds.

IMO the first replicating phenomenon is/was the formation of water leached crystals under certain but less unlikely conditions. In a sense THAT was/were the first building blocks that made life possible. Life needed a rudimentary pattern to grow on. Before liquid water there was no erosion therefore no accumulation of pockets of life supporting chemical compounds available for chemical reactions.

Yes,the big bang would have created a huge disturbance.

But is that not weird that it calmed down ,and by chance created this planet so it could sustain life, and no other planet like it ?

Oxygen,gravity at the right amount,enough water to sustain life,sun,moon.

Once again you made a point for design.

 

[Si modo]

Really,you can't be more wrong, there has always been two sides.

No, there is not. Obviously, you were not trained in the sciences so you are speaking for a group to which you do not belong. That's pretty silly of you.

Really here is Dr.Marshalls comments about DNA not being a code, In the debate. Since you were the one first making the claim or the loudest claim this pertains to you.

Gentlemen (and Ladies too, my apologies for not acknowledging Lizzie earlier):

Good to be back. It's been more than 3 years now since this thread started.

First item of business today:

The scientific books and papers which define the pattern of DNA as a "code" - and explain the reasons behind this definition - the quantity of such documents is so large it would fill a modestly sized university library.

I have nearly unanimous backing of the vast body of scientific literature on this point. Therefore I will not waste any more time responding to further groundless assertions by anyone that "the pattern in DNA is not a code." Of course it is a code and everyone who's being honest with the literature knows it.

Those who argue to the contrary merely reveal their own lack of scientific training and objectivity. Anonymous PhD's at some government-owned health institution notwithstanding. If you disagree with me, write the journal and textbook publishers and get them to retract their statements.

You're going on about something that has nothing to do with my comment.

I'll repeat my comment: There are no sides in science except to get to the truth.

And, to your post, no one here is arguing that DNA is not a code, so you seem to be arguing with yourself.

And, please provide a citation/link for that transcript you posted.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The first life came from bacteria so there's the first DNA, which came from self-producing RNA molecules.

So how did the bacteria get the information ? we can play this all day til we get to the source of the information.

Here:

The first life came from bacteria so there's the first DNA, which came from self-producing RNA molecules.

True. Yes, it did. I apologize for not being more specific. I'm talking about DNA from an abiotic source - life from something other than life. As DNA is an optically active chiral molecular, it's asymmetry must have been induced by something. But, so far, we have no abiotic explanation for chirality. (There recently was a paper about completely abiotic clay inducing asymmetry, so that is nice, but more work needs to be done.)

ETA link to the paper: Chiral interactions of histidine in a hydrated vermiculite clay

Recent work shows a correlation between chiral asymmetry in non-terrestrial amino acids extracted from the Murchison meteorite and the presence of hydrous mineral phases in the meteorite [D. P. Glavin and J. P. Dworkin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2009, 106, 5487–5492]. This highlights the need for sensitive experimental tests of the interactions of amino acids with clay minerals together with high level computational work. We present here the results of in situ neutron scattering experiments designed to follow amino acid adsorption on an exchanged, 1-dimensionally ordered n-propyl ammonium vermiculite clay. The vermiculite gel has a (001) d-spacing of order 5 nm at the temperature and concentration of the experiments and the d-spacing responds sensitively to changes in concentration, temperature and electronic environment. The data show that isothermal addition of D-histidine or L-histidine solutions of the same concentration leads to an anti-osmotic swelling, and shifts in the d-spacing that are different for each enantiomer. This chiral specificity, measured in situ, in real time in the neutron beam, is of interest for the question of whether clays could have played an important role in the origin of biohomochirality.​

And, a more lay summary, for those interested.

Sadly a lot these YWC threads require a lot of repetition

 

[Si modo]

And, just a general comment on this entire topic - If scientists were ever to entertain a non-falsifiable theory, such as ID or some version of 'God did it', their work would be forever done. All the publications, peer-reviewed or otherwise would simply say, "This is what we observed and God did it" and they would always be right because they have a non-falsifiable theory.

There would be no need for any further investigation.

 

[Si modo]

And, one more comment to those who have referred to me using a masculine pronoun. I am a woman.

Just FYI. I never take any offense to that assumption because it is very common.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And, one more comment to those who have referred to me using a masculine pronoun. I am a woman.

Just FYI. I never take any offense to that assumption because it is very common.

It's just the chauvinistic way of us males to equate science with being a man thing .


I have 2 younger sisters who have forgotten more about science than I will ever know, so they quickly cured me of that wrongful thinking .

 

[Si modo]

And, one more comment to those who have referred to me using a masculine pronoun. I am a woman.

Just FYI. I never take any offense to that assumption because it is very common.

It's just the chauvinistic way of us males to equate science with being a man thing .


I have 2 younger sisters who have forgotten more about science than I will ever know, so they quickly cured me of that wrongful thinking .

Meh, chauvinist? I don't know about that, at least it rarely is a conscious thing. It's just the way it is. Maybe 100 years from now it won't be that way. Who knows?

But, it is the natural assumption about my gender on a board in my experience. Just a funny/odd/interesting factoid.

Good for your sisters!

 

[Sky Dancer]

Maybe it has to do with your posting style.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And, one more comment to those who have referred to me using a masculine pronoun. I am a woman.

Just FYI. I never take any offense to that assumption because it is very common.

It's just the chauvinistic way of us males to equate science with being a man thing .


I have 2 younger sisters who have forgotten more about science than I will ever know, so they quickly cured me of that wrongful thinking .

Meh, chauvinist? I don't know about that, at least it rarely is a conscious thing. It's just the way it is. Maybe 100 years from now it won't be that way. Who knows?

But, it is the natural assumption about my gender on a board in my experience. Just a funny/odd/interesting factoid.

Good for your sisters!

One is an engineer and the other finishing vet school, I'm so proud of them because my family kind of has a history of the "woman be a homemaker " types. Which that is ok, but I like the idea of them being independent and not NEEDING to rely on a man financially.

 

[Si modo]

It's just the chauvinistic way of us males to equate science with being a man thing .


I have 2 younger sisters who have forgotten more about science than I will ever know, so they quickly cured me of that wrongful thinking .

Meh, chauvinist? I don't know about that, at least it rarely is a conscious thing. It's just the way it is. Maybe 100 years from now it won't be that way. Who knows?

But, it is the natural assumption about my gender on a board in my experience. Just a funny/odd/interesting factoid.

Good for your sisters!

One is an engineer and the other finishing vet school, I'm so proud of them because my family kind of has a history of the "woman be a homemaker " types. Which that is ok, but I like the idea of them being independent and not NEEDING to rely on a man financially.

It's a good place to be.

 

[Youwerecreated]

While we are waiting for someone to answer this question;

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled Mr. Marshalls proof. All you need is one.

Here is a very interesting article from Mr. Marshall, and to read the whole article and the see the videos of Horizontal Gene Transfer go to the link provided.

Evolution: The Untold Story, Part 1


There are two kinds of evolution:

1) There’s the version that you read about in the bookstore. It’s two-thirds science fiction.


2) Then there’s the version that PhD biologists, cancer researchers and genetic engineers use to do their jobs.

The two are entirely different.

Popular books tell you evolution works like this:

“Mutations are the random changes in genes that constitute the raw material for evolution by non-random selection.”

-Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009

Dawkins would have you believe that all you need is the fantastically amazing power of natural selection, and given enough time, through random copying errors, the most extraordinary things become possible.

This is what casual bookstore readers and college freshmen are told. But it’s ridiculously oversimplified and it’s mostly false. It’s the “Dick and Jane” story of Evolution.

But there’s another version of evolution:

It’s rarely mentioned, or at best glossed over, by the atheist evolution lobby and the mainstream press. Yet it’s incredibly sophisticated and elegant. This is “Real World” evolution.

As you begin to discover Real World Evolution, you find it’s entirely different from the Dick and Jane story you were taught. 98% of people know nothing about this. Today, the first in a series where I share with you the incredible adaptive engineering that’s under the hood of all living things


Evolution: The Untold Story, Part 1 « Cosmic Fingerprints