• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Creationists and DNA

arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Rumraket said:
abelcainsbrother said:
It is more logical to believe a creator created DNA than to believe it can be created by nature.
Except that we know beyond all reasonable doubt that DNA evolved, we have the evidence.

Present it then.I know you do not have evidence that demonstrates it formed naturally.Why must you lie in order to prop up naturalism?If you believe nature can create it then it must be demonstrated otherwise it is just a faith you put your faith in,no different than mine.Remember your evidence must demonstrate it happens naturally like you believe which means man cannot tinker with matter,etc at all.
 
arg-fallbackName="Visaki"/>
How come every time a creationists come here it's allways "if you can't prove natural cause, magic is an option"? It like saying "if you can't prove how you got your money, Gringotts Wizarding Bank is an option". Moreover they usually can't understand explanations why that kind of argument is silly. Even if we had no inkling on how DNA came about, magic still wouldn't be an option for the same reason that even if I didn't know how you got your money I wouldn't think that GWB was an option.
 
arg-fallbackName="Mugnuts"/>
When I was 10, I thought if I imagined hard enough, I would become a werewolf. I wanted it to happen and be my reality because the actual one wasn't what I could handle. Time passed as I borrowed from one fantasy to the next always proceeding forward to the next great wish. After a while I grew up and settled on what reality actually was and knew there was no other option but to accept it.

Now if I had some reinforcement of those wishes and imaginary possibilities, then I'd be pretty out of whack with the rest of the world, right? It's the group mentality of like minds that keep this going on, nothing else. Well, maybe the money that certain people or organizations can make might help too.

I don't think just anyone nor everyone can just break out of it unless the positive reinforcement stops.

Oh well, must be in our DNA (keeping on topic...barely)
 
arg-fallbackName="Rumraket"/>
abelcainsbrother said:
Rumraket said:
Except that we know beyond all reasonable doubt that DNA evolved, we have the evidence.
Present it then.
Okay, here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries
Patrick Forterre, Jonathan Filée, and Hannu Myllykallio.
Origin of DNA

DNA can be considered as a modified form of RNA, since the “normal” ribose sugar in RNA is reduced into deoxyribose in DNA, whereas the “simple” base uracil is methylated into thymidine. In modern cells, the DNA precursors (the four deoxyribonucleoties, dNTPs) are produced by reduction of ribonucleotides di- or triphosphate by ribonucleotide reductases (fig. 1). The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution. The direct prebiotic origin of is theoretically plausible (from acetaldehyde and glyceraldehyde-5-phosphate) but highly unlikely, considering that evolution, as stated by F. Jacob, works like a tinkerer, not an engineer.8,9

Figure 1. Metabolic pathways for RNA and DNA precursors biosynthesis: a palimpsest from the RNA to DNA world transition? The biosynthetic pathways for purine and pyrimidine nucleotides both start with ribose 5-monophosphate.
ch314f1.jpg

Figure 1

Metabolic pathways for RNA and DNA precursors biosynthesis: a palimpsest from the RNA to DNA world transition? The biosynthetic pathways for purine and pyrimidine nucleotides both start with ribose 5-monophosphate. The formation of the four bases requires several amino-acids, formate and carbamyl-phosphate. Nucleotide monophosphates (NMP) are converted into RNA precursors (NTP) by NMP kinases (k) and NDP kinases (K). These reactions probably are relics of the RNA-protein world. DNA precursors are produced from NDP and/or NTP by ribonucleotide reductases (RNR), except for dTTP, which results from methylation of dUMP. dTMP is produced from dUMP by Thymidylate synthases (ThyA or ThyX) and converted into dTTP by the same kinases that convert NMP into NTP. dUMP can be produced either by dUTPAse or by dCTP deaminase. In the U-DNA world, it could have been also produced by degradation of U-DNA. The mode of dTMP production clearly suggests that U-DNA was an evolutionary intermediate between RNA and T-DNA. Some viruses contain U-DNA, whereas others contain HMC-DNA (HMC= hydroxymethyl-cytosine). Transformation of C into HMC occurs at the level of dCMP, and conversion of dCMP into dHMCMP is catalyzed by a dCMP hydroxy-methyl transferase (dCMP HM transferase), which is homologue to ThyA (See refs. 11, 14, and 19 for more details).

Metabolic pathways for RNA and DNA precursors biosynthesis: a palimpsest from the RNA to DNA world transition? The biosynthetic pathways for purine and pyrimidine nucleotides both start with ribose 5-monophosphate. The formation of the four bases requires (more...)
The first step in the emergence of DNA has been most likely the formation of U-DNA (DNA containing uracil), since ribonucleotide reductases produce dUTP (or dUDP) from UTP (or UDP) and not dTTP from TTP (the latter does not exist in the cell) (fig. 1). Some modern viruses indeed have a U-DNA genome,10 possibly reflecting this first transition step between the RNA and DNA worlds. The selection of the letter T occurred probably in a second step, dTTP being produced in modern cells by the modification of dUMP into dTMP by thymidylate synthases (followed by phosphorylation).11 Interestingly, the same kinase can phosphorylate both dUMP and dTMP.11 In modern cells, dUMP is produced from dUTP by dUTPases, or from dCMP by dCMP deaminases (fig. 1).11 This is another indication that T-DNA originated after U-DNA. In ancient U-DNA cells, dUMP might have been also produced by degradation of U-DNA (fig. 1).

The origin of DNA also required the appearance of enzymes able to incorporate dNTPs using first RNA templates (reverse transcriptases) and later on DNA templates (DNA polymerases). In all living organisms (cells and viruses), all these enzymes work in the 5' to 3' direction. This directionality is dictated by the cellular metabolism that produces only dNTP 5' triphosphates and no 3' triphosphates. Indeed, both purine and pyrimidine biosyntheses are built up on ribose 5 monophosphate as a common precursor. The sense of DNA synthesis itself is therefore a relic of the RNA world metabolism. Modern DNA polymerases of the A and B families, reverse transcriptases, cellular RNA polymerases and viral replicative RNA polymerases are structurally related and thus probably homologous (for references, see a recent review on viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases.)12 This suggests that reverse transcriptase and DNA polymerases of the A and B families originated from an ancestral RNA polymerase that has also descendants among viral-like RNA replicases. However, there are several other DNA polymerase families (C, D, X, Y) whose origin is obscure (we will go back to this point below).

If DNA actually appeared in the RNA world, it was a priori possible to imagine that formation of the four dNTPs from the four rNTPs was initially performed by ribozymes. Most scientists, who consider that the reduction of ribose cannot be accomplished by an RNA enzyme, now reject this hypothesis.9,13-19 The removal of the 2' oxygen in the ribose involves indeed a complex chemistry for reduction that requires the formation of stable radicals in ribonucleotide reductases. Such radicals would have destroyed the RNA backbone of a ribozyme by attacking the labile phosphodiester bond of RNA. Accordingly, DNA could have only originated after the invention of modern complex proteins, in an already elaborated protein/DNA world. This suggests that RNA polymerases were indeed available at that time to evolve into DNA polymerases (as well as kinases to phosphorylate dUMP).

Three classes of ribonucleotide reductases (I, II and III) have been discovered so far (for a review, see refs. 9, 16-19) (fig. 1). Although they correspond to three distinct protein families, with different cofactors and mechanisms of action, these mechanisms are articulated around a common theme (radical based chemistry). In all cases, the critical step is the conversion of a cysteine residue into a catalytically essential thiol radical in the active center.18 Recent structural and mechanistic analyses of several RNR at atomic resolution have suggested that all ribonucleotide reductases originated from a common ancestral enzyme, favoring the idea that U-DNA was invented only once.17,18 It has been suggested that either class III (strictly anaerobic) or class II (anaerobic but oxygen tolerant) represent the ancestral form, and that new versions appeared in relation to different lifestyles by recruiting new mechanisms for radical activation (class III in strict anaerobes and class I in aerobes).9,18

The origin of U-DNA in a protein/RNA world logically implies that the second step in the synthesis of DNA precursors, the formation of the letter T, was catalyzed by ancestral thymidylate synthase. For a long time, it was believed that modern thymidylate synthases were all homologues of E. coli ThyA protein, indicating that the letter T was invented only once. However, comparative genomics has revealed recently that ThyA is absent in many archaeal and bacterial genomes, leading to the discovery of a new thymidylate synthase family (ThyX).19 ThyX and ThyA share neither sequence nor structural similarity between each other and have different mechanisms of action,19,20 indicating that thymidylate synthase activity was invented twice independently (fig. 1). T-DNA might have appeared either in two different U-DNA cells, or the invention of a second thymidylate synthase might have occurred in a cell already containing a T-DNA genome. The first possibility would indicate that T-DNA itself has been invented twice, thus suggesting a strong selection pressure to select for uracil modification. In the second case, one should imagine that the new enzyme (either ThyA or ThyX) brought a selective advantage over the previous one in the organism where it appeared first.


abelcainsbrother said:
I know you do not have evidence that demonstrates it formed naturally.
Turns yout you were wrong.
abelcainsbrother said:
Why must you lie in order to prop up naturalism?
I don't.
abelcainsbrother said:
If you believe nature can create it then it must be demonstrated otherwise it is just a faith you put your faith in,no different than mine.
That statement is false. We can know that things have happened without having directly witnessed them, because the process leaves evidence behind. When we have evidence we don't need faith, that's the whole point of evidence.

For example, footprints in the snow is evidence that an organism has walked in the snow. I do not need to see the organism actually walk in the snow, to have good evidence that an organism did in fact walk in the snow.
abelcainsbrother said:
Remember your evidence must demonstrate it happens naturally like you believe which means man cannot tinker with matter,etc at all.
That evidence has been provided.
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Visaki said:
How come every time a creationists come here it's allways "if you can't prove natural cause, magic is an option"? It like saying "if you can't prove how you got your money, Gringotts Wizarding Bank is an option". Moreover they usually can't understand explanations why that kind of argument is silly. Even if we had no inkling on how DNA came about, magic still wouldn't be an option for the same reason that even if I didn't know how you got your money I wouldn't think that GWB was an option.

This is the wrong approach to subjects as you are just close minded based on what this says and prefer to not believe in God and so reject it before you even look at the evidence.You should never do that to discover the truth.

The fact is whether you believe God created it or nature did it comes down to faith.This is the bottom line and so to me when it comes down to faith God wins everytime because hell is a real place.

I just heard a teaching on hell recently but if you are going to reject God creating life then you automatically have faith in naturalism and then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate and show that nature alone can create life,especially when you are promoting it as a scientific truth to society and excluding God.

If you are going to claim you don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence then how can you accept naturalism with the same problem no evidence?So it then comes down to what you put your faith in. Atheists are in denial of their faith though for some reason as I have no problem admitting that I have faith that God created the universe and life yet they believe in naturalism but then act like they don't and they say they are excluded from giving evidence for what they believe.

A person can choose to believe anything but only those really searching for the truth can really find it. I don't think there would be that many atheists if atheists demanded evidence for naturalism in science like they demand evidence for God.
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Rumraket

Thanks for the evidence but I already know about this evidence and I have looked at the evidence into naturalism and evolution which is why I reject it.That evidence you gave in no way proves nature alone created DNA and you know this,it is not even close to demonstrating it as you should know.

I am not some dumb Christian that ignores evidence as I focus on evidence for everything I accept as the truth especially if man says this is true even when it comes to church teaching,as I have found many doctrines of men in the church and I reject them,it even caused me to change denominations because of doctrines of men and the bible warns us too which is why I believe the bible is the true inspired word of God and reject naturalism and evolution.

But even if I was not a Christian I would still reject science fiction being promoted to society as scientific truth. I would demand that they stop trying to play me a fool and I think you should too. Don't just tolerate indoctrination because you don't believe in God because they are playing you a fool even if you do choose to reject God.Make the smart decision and accept the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ.
 
arg-fallbackName="Collecemall"/>
Out of curiosity how many of the world's religions did you examine in depth before you accepted one of them?
 
arg-fallbackName="sigen8"/>
The fact is whether you believe God created it or nature did it comes down to faith.This is the bottom line and so to me when it comes down to faith God wins everytime because hell is a real place.

Pascal's Wager anyone ? :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Darkprophet232 said:


No evidence has been presented that demonstrates nature alone can create DNA even when I make it clear that man cannot tinker with matter the evidence presented is man creating manipulating matter which I made clear does not prove it.And I am right it doesn't prove nature can create DNA. Most evolutionists shy away from abiogenesis and this is why because they know about the evidence too. What we have here is faith no matter which side you are on I believe God created DNA and naturalists believe nature can do it. So it is a Check mate! situation and so Jesus Christ wins when it comes down to faith.
 
arg-fallbackName="Mugnuts"/>
Why did he quote the image? I am actually facepalming now. So pointless.

Has anyone here ever read some old but classic comics called Groo the wanderer?

mindless.gif


This is who we are dealing with just minus the swords.
 
arg-fallbackName="abelcainsbrother"/>
Collecemall said:
Out of curiosity how many of the world's religions did you examine in depth before you accepted one of them?

It was later that I examined other religions of the world and I mostly only focused on religions of today,not religions that died out long ago but to be honest I have forgotten a lot of what I discovered when I did it as it was years ago but I know this it only reinforced my faith in Jesus Christ after I did it and compared religious text,evidence,etc.I do remember some things that I discovered when I did it.

1.Jesus is the only God that rose from the dead and actually did something for me.
2.All of the other religions I examined teach works for salvation and this is how you can peg a false religion.
3.Christianity is the only religion of today that says no matter what you do you cannot save yourself.
4.There is more evidence for the bible than for their holy book,etc and beliefs.
5.It actually helped me learn how to pick out the truth from a lie,theory,etc based on evidence from doing it.
6.I know they believe it as much as I believe in Jesus and it is not easy to admit you are wrong.
7.I don't understand how muslims believe Mahammad over Jesus Christ.
8.The Quran has bible stories in it.
9.Some Hindu's watch where they step to avoid stepping on a bug.
10.Hindu's gather around a decorated gold looking box with a picture of god's on it and lay things like an offering around the box.
11.Hindu people eat good tasting spicy food.
12.I like the dance with the sticks Hindu's do where they go around in a circle and hit each others sticks.
13.Jahovah Witnesses are very deceptive and they have the most deceptive false religion of all of them.
14.Mormons believe Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon over Jesus Christ and the bible.
15.Hare Krishna people will play a trick on you if you aren't aware of it.
 
arg-fallbackName="Mugnuts"/>
The addition of intentional humor is much appreciated.

I just wish that you would go back get to the list of unanswered questions others and myself have put to you over the months.
That might be a good way to show that your intentions here are in accordance with the reason people come here in the first place and sign up.
 
arg-fallbackName="Inferno"/>
Inferno said:
ablecainsbrother said:
1.Jesus is the only God that rose from the dead and actually did something for me.

Yeah, apart from Osiris, Baal, Melqart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Dionysus, Isthar, Persephone and Bari. To name but a few.
Source

Also don't forget that Lazarus was resurrected and the Daughter of Jairus was dead as well!
And don't forget the death of Jesus in, for example, Matthew 27:52ff: "...and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead."

Yo ACB, are you still repeating that crap?
 
arg-fallbackName="Darkprophet232"/>
No, no, no, Inferno. See that stipulation at the end? Jesus did something for acb. I'm assuming it was fixing his big wheel.

MarxBigWheel400.jpg
 
arg-fallbackName="Rumraket"/>
Mugnuts said:
Why did he quote the image? I am actually facepalming now. So pointless.
I have suspicions that we're actually dealing with a chat-bot of some sort. It's just spamming nonsensical faith-statements and declarations of denial to basically every post. I've seen more sign of thought in fungal growth.
 
arg-fallbackName="Mugnuts"/>
Rumraket said:
Mugnuts said:
Why did he quote the image? I am actually facepalming now. So pointless.
I have suspicions that we're actually dealing with a chat-bot of some sort. It's just spamming nonsensical faith-statements and declarations of denial to basically every post. I've seen more sign of thought in fungal growth.

He's being deliberate. There is quite a pattern throughout the boards.

If he would rather use humor and humility in some of those rehashes, then that I could stomach.
ACB could you choose this for your Avatar. Please..

78_GROO.jpg
 
arg-fallbackName="dandan"/>
abelcainsbrother said:
Rumraket

Thanks for the evidence but I already know about this evidence and I have looked at the evidence into naturalism and evolution which is why I reject it.That evidence you gave in no way proves nature alone created DNA and you know this,it is not even close to demonstrating it as you should know.

I am not some dumb Christian that ignores evidence as I focus on evidence for everything I accept as the truth especially if man says this is true even when it comes to church teaching,as I have found many doctrines of men in the church and I reject them,it even caused me to change denominations because of doctrines of men and the bible warns us too which is why I believe the bible is the true inspired word of God and reject naturalism and evolution.

But even if I was not a Christian I would still reject science fiction being promoted to society as scientific truth. I would demand that they stop trying to play me a fool and I think you should too. Don't just tolerate indoctrination because you don't believe in God because they are playing you a fool even if you do choose to reject God.Make the smart decision and accept the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ.

You are wasting your time, instead of admitting that they don´t know of any natural cause that would create DNA, RNA or some other kind of self-replicating agent, and admit that this is a valid objection against naturalism, they will try to do all sorts of word games, and post articles that don´t even attempt to explain the origin of self replication.

If you ask them what would falsify the idea that life or DNA has a natural origin, they won´t provide an unambiguous answer. They already presuppose that there must be a naturalistic explanation.
 
Back
Top