Elshamah

Who is moving the goal posts ? you present now a paper about irreducible complexity . Please define , what do you want to debate about ? evolution, abiogenesis, or irreducible complexity ? and please : just post a link, or youtube video, is a waste. Please present your arguments here at this thread.

Wrong. There is a commom knowledge, that all humans have, even aboriginies, indians etc. that kill, steal, cheat, betray etc. is wrong, and love, help, altruism etc. is good. Indeed, if God does not exist, than there is no basis for objective morality, and so being, nobody can say, Hitler was wrong, for example to exterminate the jews. Without a moral giver, morals become subjective, and are just based on different opinions. Therefore, no good, and bad really exists.

False from a peer review paper : http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3246854/ Unfortunately, the student is not taught that those theories still require complex and specified information contained in functioning proteins, which cannot be explained or self-generated Well, i think we do have just 3 mechanisms to explain the existence of the universe, and LIFE. 1. Physical necessity. 2. Chance 3. Intelligent design. If 1 and 2 are discarded, no.3 is a logical deduction. from my peer reviewed paper : http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3246854/ the student is not taught that the four nucleotides do not spontaneously form in nature (20). There is no self-organizing principle that would guide or facilitate alignment of nucleotides (21, 22). Any experimentally manufactured nucleotides are mixtures of L (left-oriented) and D (right-oriented) isomers. Since DNA is composed of only D isomers, the probability of alignment of thousands of specified D isomers becomes even more remote (23, 24). Even if there was a self-organizing pattern, the probability of even a short strand of nucleotides occurring in a precisely specified linear pattern that would code for even the smallest single-celled organism with approximately 250 genes has been calculated to be 1 in 10150—1 in 1070 less than the chance of finding a particular electron in the entire universe Are we debating Evolution, or Abiogenesis ??!! here a good number of peer reviewed papers, which do represent my standpoint : http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

False. DNA contains LITERALLY a code. http://www.dnatutorial.com/ An organism (be it bacteria, rosebush, ant or human) has some form of nucleic acid which is the chemical carrier of its genetic information. There are two types of nucleic acids, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) which code for all the information that determines the nature of the organism's cells. http://phys.org/news...na-insight.html Living systems owe their existence to a pair of information-carrying molecules: DNA and RNA. These fundamental chemical forms possess two features essential for life: they display heredity—meaning they can encode and pass on genetic information http://www.biology-o...information.htm Genetic Code Genes are sequences of DNA nucleotides that carry and transmit the information specifying amino acid sequences for protein synthesis. Each DNA molecule contains many genes. The genome refers collectively to the total genetic information coded in a cell. http://www.cosmicfin...eists/dna-code/ The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact: "Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

No. DNA is not information. DNA is a information carrier. It contains all the information to develop the functions of a body. here it goes : http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html common scientific knowledge is based on actual scientific evidence. De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning scientist writes: In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism’s proteins. Christian de Duve, “The Beginning of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, Vol. 83, Sept-Oct. 1995, p. 430

I have no obligation to respond to all posters. Please point out what i have posted that is close to preaching. thanks. DNA contains LITERALLY a code, by all means. http://www.cosmicfin...eists/dna-code/Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code. Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell." kkkk.... Do you really know what you are talking about ?? Francis Crick would strongly disagree with you....... http://nobelprize.or...e-code/how.html Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome. When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made. ">The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.

Is it not enough that i quote secular scientists, that are specialists in their field ? What i have quoted, is common knowledge. With a little research, you will find that find out.

Oh sure. BS. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838/ Life (at least today through the molecule DNA) contains huge amounts of information. As previously noted, the Darwinian mechanism requires replication, or reproduction. Prior to the origin of replication, life could only rely upon the basic laws of chemistry. But how could the basic laws of chemistry and physics create the information present in life? The origin of this information that is key to understanding the origin of life. As B. O. Küppers wrote, "the problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information."50 Yet, there are no known chemical laws that determine the order of the nucleotide bases in DNA (or any other self-replicating molecule). Küppers notes, "the properties of nucleic acids indicate that all the combinatorially possible nucleotide patterns are, from a chemical point of view, equivalent."48 Hubert Yockey writes that the sequence of the DNA is not affected by any physical or chemical law:Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors.49The first self-replicating molecule is not said to be DNA. But it is said to have been similar to DNA in that it carried the information needed for life. If there are no known chemical or physical laws which can create this complex and specified information needed for a self-replicating molecule, then this stage of the origin of life faces severe hurdles.

i am always very amused when reading such kind of answers. Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker: "Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

In that case you should be surely able to present just ONE example of codified, complex, specified information like DNA that has empirically proven a natural , aka non intelligent origin ? http://www.answersin...estigial-organs i don't argue to have absolute proofs. But the evidence points clearly to a intelligent designer. oh really ? please explain then how homochirality came to be, the information stored in dna , and how to overcome the oxygen problem. the cell is irreducibly complex. http://www.epm.org/r...es-not-exist-w/ To sum up the evolutionary dilemma: Even if the physical impossibility of forming and gathering the necessary physical building blocks of a cell were overcome, it would still require information. And it would still require a 'language." And it would need to immediately form a copying mechanism. Looking at it from a different angle, you need a cell to create a DNA molecule. But you need DNA to create a cell. What is required to create DNA and cells is information arising from intelligence. Which brings us back to the Biblical model. i know the talkorigins arguments. please present the arguments, which convince you, life arose by natural means. what evidence is that ? Its not me making absolute statements. Its obvious, if you make them, i will defy you to present the empirical proofs which do entitle you to talk like you know something with absolute certainty. Otherwise, it makes much more sense to say, i believe so and so, because it seems the evidence points to this direction, and x seems to be the best explanation to support y.

So you have a clue, how the natural laws of chemistry created life ? http://www.detecting...biogenesis.html Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is. why should there be all these attempts at all ? how do you KNOW ? http://www.icr.org/presence-of-God/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere

So how did your blueprints arise by chance ? A bluepring is ALWAYS the result of a thinking mind. Your " just " implies that reproduction capability and catalyze reactions is peanuts. Do you believe also in Santa Claus ? How do you possibly KNOW ? http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/20-typing.htm

abiogenesis is not possible because DNA contains complex, specified, codified information. And that can come only from a mind. In the same way as chance cannot create Shakespeares Hamlet, it cannot create the instruction script for life. Therefor, the best explanation for life is a intelligent, living creator.