How human language refutes atheism

[spinoza99]

Everything of what you say, Coito, is true, but there is something you're not understanding. The T C A G fit onto the DNA backbone and any order is possible. T C A G cannot possibly be aware of the correct order to form the first cell. So how then is a correct order formed?

[spinoza99]

Here's an analogy of what you're doing. I look at a typewriter and ask how is it that the keys push themselves such that an English sentence is formed. You say because the keys are linked steel rods, which have an imprint of a letter on the end with ink of them, the ink impression hits the paper and a letter is formed. And I say, no, how is that they keys know what an English sentence is?

[Coito ergo sum]

Everything of what you say, Coito, is true, but there is something you're not understanding. The T C A G fit onto the DNA backbone and any order is possible. T C A G cannot possibly be aware of the correct order to form the first cell. So how then is a correct order formed?

Correct order? What are on about? The nucleotides form a string that goes on and on, in every possible order. So it is impossible to say what is the correct order. Every nucleotide pairs with another, like: A pairs with T, and G pairs with C. Those pairs appear in every possible order somewhere in the genome.

[Coito ergo sum]

Here's an analogy of what you're doing. I look at a typewriter and ask how is it that the keys push themselves such that an English sentence is formed. You say because the keys are linked steel rods, which have an imprint of a letter on the end with ink of them, the ink impression hits the paper and a letter is formed. And I say, no, how is that they keys know what an English sentence is?

Covalent bonding of certain molecules to other molecules, which doesn't occur with typewriter strikers and paper. The molecules don't "know." They bond with other molecules they can bond with.

[Feck]

[spinoza99]

The nucleotides form a string that goes on and on, in every possible order.

Is any DNA order? yes. is any order possible to form life? no. Let me quote from from Albert's Microbiology of the cell:

Proteins are so precisely built that the change of
even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the
whole molecule so severely
that all function is lost

Even small changes to the amino
acids in the interior of a protein molecule can change its three-dimensional
shape enough to destroy a binding site on the surface.

Mycoplasma genitalium
It has only about 480 genes in its genome of 580,070
nucleotide pairs

The minimum number of genes for a viable cell in today’s environments is
probably not less than 200–300, although there are only about 60 genes in the
core set shared by all living species without any known exception.


If the minimum number number of genes is 300 then that means the minimum number of DNA pairs is about 300,000. The possible number of sequences is around 10^1800. And yet how many species of all gene length are there? Between 10 and 100 million, that's a max of 10^8, sure, let's be generous, let's say the max number of possible sequences is 10^16, the odds of forming a correct sequence when there are 10^16 correct sequences out of a possible 10^1800 sequences would be one in 10^1784. You read Albert, DNA cannot be sequenced in any order.

[Clinton Huxley]

Is this a Poe? No-one could be so remorselessly obtuse. Could they?

[stripes4]

Piffle and Twaddle

[Thinking Aloud]

Date of London Bombings: 7/7/2005. 7+7+2+0+0+5 = 21. OMG!!! It's (11 * 2) - 1 (which is half the number 11)!!

[GenesForLife]

Mycoplasma Schmycoplasma Self replicating systems don't require a mycoplasma genome, FUCK IT.

[GenesForLife]

Again you start with the piffle of irreducible complexity when it is NOT an issue when treating the evolution of ancient, ancestral organisms, and this has been known since fucking 1922.

The Mullerian two step of [1] Add a part [2] make it necessary has the illusory effect of trying to suggest that is the basic level of complexity that could not have evolved, but the observed instances of the mullerian two step happening in nature, as in the evolution of the flagellum for instance.

In other words, in light of what we know about co-optation and the illusion of irreducible complexity, the idea that because an organism today requires a minimal complement to function therefore ancestral organisms must have had that minimal complement to function too is another piece of Timonenesque dimwittery.

Watch the video again, it doesn't have narration, and gets over the rubbish you've been spouting all along. Not to mention the one true sequence fallacy you are also committing the serial trials fallacy.

[spinoza99]

The Mullerian two step

When you find out how to reduce a Ribosome which is assembled of 22 proteins in the E Coli, let me know.

Not to mention the one true sequence fallacy you are also committing the serial trials fallacy.

No, I stated the odds of forming a sequence of 300,000 base DNA pairs long is 1 in 10^1800 and if you assume that there are 10^16 possible sequences then odds are still 10^1784.

[spinoza99]

The number of ways to add a part to a biological structure is virtually unlimited, as is the number of different ways to change a system so that a part becomes functionally essential
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

Not true. Proteins are formed in very precise ways.

[GenesForLife]

The number of ways to add a part to a biological structure is virtually unlimited, as is the number of different ways to change a system so that a part becomes functionally essential
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

Not true. Proteins are formed in very precise ways.

Due to transcription and translation, of course, which itself is not a prerequisite to abiogenetic replicators and the origin of life. NEXT.

PS- Any citations from peer reviewed literature to

[1] Indicate this is a problem for models of abiogenesis.
[2] That this limits ancestral organisms to the same minimum genome size as M.genitalium.

Cite or Retract, you get the jist.

My citations were presented in another thread, which you have continued to despicably ignore and pretend that they don't exist. The first one you got your arse handed to you in, remember?

[Coito ergo sum]

The nucleotides form a string that goes on and on, in every possible order.

Is any DNA order? yes. is any order possible to form life? no. Let me quote from from Albert's Microbiology of the cell:

You specifically talked about the order of nucleotides on the backbone of a DNA molecule. They are in all sorts of orders.

The molecules come together as molecules do under the right circumstances -- it is no different than CO2 or H2O forming - covalent bonding. Nothing needs to "know" anything. Certain molecules will bond certain ways. Others won't. You won't have H2O bonding with Petroleum, will you? Does the H2O "know" not to bond with Petroleum? No.

Proteins are so precisely built that the change of
even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the
whole molecule so severely
that all function is lost

So? Ammonia, NH3, is so precisely built that a change of even one atom in one amine disrupts the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function of that Ammonia is lost and it is no longer ammonia....in an aqueous solution it loses an H and we get H30 plus NH2.

If the minimum number number of genes is 300 then that means the minimum number of DNA pairs is about 300,000. The possible number of sequences is around 10^1800. And yet how many species of all gene length are there? Between 10 and 100 million, that's a max of 10^8, sure, let's be generous, let's say the max number of possible sequences is 10^16, the odds of forming a correct sequence when there are 10^16 correct sequences out of a possible 10^1800 sequences would be one in 10^1784.

Miracle? LOL - you thumbnail the statistics and they seem really high to you, so you figure it has to be a miracle?

But, you're stats are bollocks. One, your mistake is that you are assuming that DNA had to spring out of whole cloth - the pieces just happening to fit together out of pure chance. That's not how it worked. It was a gradual process over time, and at some point the first "replicator" molecules formed (not DNA).

Two, the odds of the first replicator molecule forming by chance would not be based, as you seem to think, on its complexity alone. The chances have to be calculated based on the number of materials available (e.g. more than one different molecule may serve the same purpose at any given point in a chain), the probability that they will form into collectives (e.g. amino-acids naturally chain, water molecules do not), and the number of tests (e.g. the number of chemical reactions that occur in a given environment, and the number of times any kind of chain or collective is formed in the population).

I read a good quote on this: "I think it is safe to say that any time you hear someone waving around statistics about the improbability of life, you can rest assured that they know absolutely nothing about the matter at all. Their statistics are going to be all but worthless, because they cannot know what they really need to know in order to make such calculations." - Richard Carrier

You read Albert, DNA cannot be sequenced in any order.

I provided the answer to your question, which was correct. See above. I'm not repeating anymore.