Abiogenesis and evolution: James Tour

@moonbus said
You are mixing up completely different topics here.

DNA determines the physiological characteristics of a body, things such as hair color, eye color, and susceptibility to various diseases. This is not the same thing as identifying a person using DNA samples; this is a forensic procedure, not a natural process.

Identical twins have identical DNA and cannot be uniquely identified/distinguished by forensic DNA analysis.

It identifies the specific person, because it not only shows what are the physical features are from what type of life form it narrowls it to the individual. We can read it, it isn’t just a string of genetic material, in addition to this the arrangement of the things like the sugars and amino acids have very specific properties in the material that makes them up to the arrangement of their makeup.

@kellyjay said
It identifies the specific person, because it not only shows what are the physical features are from what type of life form it narrowls it to the individual. We can read it, it isn’t just a string of genetic material, in addition to this the arrangement of the things like the sugars and amino acids have very specific properties in the material that makes them up to the arrangement of their makeup.

DNA determines physical characteristics. That doesn’t mean a MIND did it. It’s still just a small number of molecules, adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C), in various combinations. The fact that we can figure out which combinations of genes determine eye color or hair color does not mean that a MIND wrote ‘instructions’ there. It just means that there are some very smart chemists. Smart chemists also figured out what makes crystals form and what makes water expand when it turns to ice and how to make tires out of rubber and a lot of other things; that means chemists are smart, not that a MIND makes ice to expand or crystals to form.

@kellyjay

How it works you have not addressed, even now you are not, and I have been begging for some mechanism you have that explains this through mindless processes.

How it works is this: the repeated operation of natural laws. That’s the short answer. If you want the detailed answer, study bio-chemistry. Have you read the article on dynamic kinetic stability to which dive linked, pages and pages ago? That’s a pretty good place to start.

BTW, calling it a “mechanism” is an anthropomorphic metaphor. There are no mechanisms in nature. Nature is not clockwork. Organisms are fundamentally different to mechanisms.

@moonbus said
How it works is this: the repeated operation of natural laws. That’s the short answer. If you want the detailed answer, study bio-chemistry. Have you read the article on dynamic kinetic stability to which dive linked, pages and pages ago? That’s a pretty good place to start.

BTW, calling it a “mechanism” is an anthropomorphic metaphor. There are no mechanisms in nature. Nature is not clockwork. Organisms are fundamentally different to mechanisms.

That is not how it works, so what you are saying is not true! What you are suggesting as natural law is more of a myth, a fairytale, a fabrication because things don't naturally move toward stability with more complex features, instead the real natural laws move everything toward equilibrium; therefore what you are suggesting isn't natural law, but flys in the face of natural laws.

Harnessing some power source to make it useful in life like photosynthesis, the process that has biological features that harnesses light for plants, and other living creatures some power input has to turn some power source to do specific work, this in the face of real nature laws that are actively working against that. The more parts and features required the greater the entropy I'd liken it to ground in an electrical circuit that is where it all goes by law, unless a circuit is designed to use power to do specific things.

@moonbus said
How it works is this: the repeated operation of natural laws. That’s the short answer. If you want the detailed answer, study bio-chemistry. Have you read the article on dynamic kinetic stability to which dive linked, pages and pages ago? That’s a pretty good place to start.

BTW, calling it a “mechanism” is an anthropomorphic metaphor. There are no mechanisms in nature. Nature is not clockwork. Organisms are fundamentally different to mechanisms.

You can keep crying about anthropomorphic metaphors all you like, it is a means to get a point across. Your denial should not be about metaphors, but the functions being described, Do they have stop-start features, and are there informational features in life that deal with input signals that cause a host of different other biological features to react until a stop signal occurs? If you don't deal with the features, you are only crying about descriptive language, not the topic, which is what you have been doing all along more times than not.

@kellyjay said
You can keep crying about anthropomorphic metaphors all you like, it is a means to get a point across. Your denial should not be about metaphors, but the functions being described, Do they have stop-start features, and are there informational features in life that deal with input signals that cause a host of different other biological features to react until a stop signal o ...[text shortened]... escriptive language, not the topic, which is what you have been doing all along more times than not.

Why do you keep repeating that Moonbus is “crying”?

The only pain in this thread is watching you contort your intellectual integrity out of all shape while you waffle on and on and on about what is ostensibly nothing much at all.

You don’t read up on your subject, you don’t respond in good faith, why do you childishly ignore people who “rub you up the wrong way”.

You’re a disgrace to Christianity with your denials of gravity and head in the sand pridefulness. You should be ashamed of yourself the way you behave,

@kellyjay said
You can keep crying about anthropomorphic metaphors all you like, it is a means to get a point across. Your denial should not be about metaphors, but the functions being described, Do they have stop-start features, and are there informational features in life that deal with input signals that cause a host of different other biological features to react until a stop signal o ...[text shortened]... escriptive language, not the topic, which is what you have been doing all along more times than not.

There are no start and stop signals in chemical reactions. You keep reading human metaphors into mindless causal processes. Reactions continue until they reach some kind of equilibrium, but there are no signals instructing them to do this.

@moonbus said
There are no start and stop signals in chemical reactions. You keep reading human metaphors into mindless causal processes. Reactions continue until they reach some kind of equilibrium, but there are no signals instructing them to do this.

When a cut occurs on bodies, blood clotting begins, and at the appropriate time, it stops! Is that magic to you?

@kellyjay said
When a cut occurs on bodies, blood clotting begins, and at the appropriate time, it stops! Is that magic to you?

The bleeding stops, but there is no appropriate time (as far as the clotting is concerned) and there is no signal instructing it to stop.

The idea that there is any such thing as an “appropriate” time in natural processes is another of your illegitimate anthropomorphisms.

I mention this to you again and again because you commit the same elementary logical fallacy again and again: you confuse reasons and causes, you confuse the map for the territory, you confuse the menu for the meal, you attribute properties of the net to fish in the net. You do this habitually, without realizing it. When some scientific paper speaks about DNA code, you leap to the unwarranted conclusion that DNA code, like computer code, must have had an author. This is the same blunder as saying there is an appropriate time for blood to clot. This is like saying that because there is a price on the menu, there must really be money in the food. It’s an elementary logical “category mistake” (Google that); you make this same blunder over and over, both here and in the spirituality forum.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-mistakes/

@moonbus said
The bleeding stops, but there is no appropriate time (as far as the clotting is concerned) and there is no signal instructing it to stop.

The idea that there is any such thing as an “appropriate” time in natural processes is another of your illegitimate anthropomorphisms.

I mention this to you again and again because you commit the same elementary logical fallacy again ...[text shortened]... r, both here and in the spirituality forum.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-mistakes/

If the clotting occurs where there is no cut it will occur internally, and you die, if it doesn't start when it needs to you die, and you think there is no appropriate time you are spending too much time disagreeing with me that you are not even considering the ramifications of what you are saying.

@kellyjay said
you are spending too much time disagreeing with me

Shouldn’t you be “spending your time” informing your neighbours that they are in danger of your version of Jesus burning them alive in hell for not reciprocating his love for them?

@kellyjay said
If the clotting occurs where there is no cut it will occur internally, and you die, if it doesn't start when it needs to you die, and you think there is no appropriate time you are spending too much time disagreeing with me that you are not even considering the ramifications of what you are saying.

What you or anyone else thinks is appropriate has nothing to do with the chemistry which causes blood to clot. No more so than what you or anyone else thinks is appropriate has anything to do with solar flares or micro-organisms at the bottom of the ocean.

@moonbus said
What you or anyone else thinks is appropriate has nothing to do with the chemistry which causes blood to clot. No more so than what you or anyone else thinks is appropriate has anything to do with solar flares or micro-organisms at the bottom of the ocean.

You are willfully ignoring the biological mechanisms in question, while you at the same time talk about the biological processes producing evolutionary changes. That however you can not show how through an undirected process could direct all the complex processes in question. So you reject what we can see for what you hope is there that you can’t explain.

I guess if you only have physiological reasons for your belief, actually being able to show the work only gets in the way what you want to be true.

@kellyjay said
You are willfully ignoring the biological mechanisms in question, while you at the same time talk about the biological processes producing evolutionary changes. That however you can not show how through an undirected process could direct all the complex processes in question. So you reject what we can see for what you hope is there that you can’t explain.

I guess if you ...[text shortened]... for your belief, actually being able to show the work only gets in the way what you want to be true.

You aren’t doing yourself any favours with this silly repetitive banter KellyJay.

@moonbus said
There are no start and stop signals in chemical reactions. You keep reading human metaphors into mindless causal processes. Reactions continue until they reach some kind of equilibrium, but there are no signals instructing them to do this.

You should simply do a little reading on biology you say some things that are just plain wrong. A huge portion of life is information processing, if that were not true nothing repeatable would occur within tight parameters, and nothing would continue to form correctly. Where do you get your information, from the school of "I see nothing?"