The Big Bang (Origins)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, May 14, 2010, 15:21 (5305 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Friday, May 14, 2010, 15:30

David,
> 
> 
> Your reasoning is based on a false assumption about my thoughts re' George. He is clearly using chemical evolution to get to one-handedness. I won't and can't do that. What you keep missing is that to have stable life that reproduces itself accurately, there are layers upon layers of control over DNA/RNA with microRNA, histones, etc. There are oodles of enormous molecules called enzymes that key-lock molecules to force extremely rapid reactions, that otherwise would take thousands or millions of years to potentiate. And then pile on the issue of chirality. Complex? Irreducibly complex. One part cannot work without the other. All have to be set up at the same time. Hoyle's 747 is an exact description of what is reqired, with all the jeering that George does. Don't denegrate Hoyle's intellect. He went to pan-spermia because he couldn't accept that the whirlwind did it here and here alone. Upset his atheism. All pan-spermia does is hide it elsewhere and not solve the problem of how it happened.-You say I keep missing the layers of DNA/RNA, but my point has been (for about the last year) that THIS kind of argument of yours assumes -1. Life as it exists today is functionally AND structurally identical to life at the time of origins. -2. All processes we see now MUST have been in place PRIOR to the origin of life.-These are assumptions David, and not facts. We reason according to 1 because its easier. I've recently argued that its time to stop reasoning this way. We won't find the origin of life by studying life. We'll only find it by trying to build life. Right now ANY version of life that we can synthesize is better than what we have now. 1 has its place (and shouldn't be discarded, as it is the basis for conservation of information) but the AND statement should be removed. -As for 2, this is simply the core component of traditional ID reasoning. The human body as we see it now is very complex, (sometimes too much so) and you make the mistake here by asserting that we can apply what we know to humans in the here and now all the way back to life at the very beginning when we KNOW for a FACT that life was definitely simpler than what we see now. -One of the other things suggested by my Linux post, is the fact that genes have a 1:M relationship with function. One gene has many functions. This is antithetical to human-design as we tend to build things in a 1:1 relationship because its easier to build AND maintain. Generally speaking, when a programmer builds a program from the 1:M paradigm, eventually he gets a program that works MOST of the time, but because of how convoluted the program is, no one (even the designer/programmer) can untangle the web to find where the problem is. I think this scenario explains alot about what we DON'T understand about life, and provides support for a non-designed (or poorly-designed) view of life.-[EDIT] As an addition to my paragraph on 1, I posit that life is only functionally similar today. Not necessarily structurally.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"