sino:


It is impossible for the synthetic genome to function without the machinery for reading and translating the information embedded in it, further replication after transplantation means that the synthetic genome contain the necessary information to continue living and not starting life from the scratch! The critical question you need to ask yourself is that was the recipient bacteria dead?! FYI, a dead cell cannot and will not translate or read any information transplanted into it! It is just like the OS analogy, if the computer is dead, there is absolutely nothing your new OS will do, except the computer is working, you format the hdd, and then install your own OS! I hope this is clear enough!

I have actually explained life up there. Go back there to read it and think after reading it.

The synthetic genome has all the information to start life or continue it. The bacteria cell is not alive if it's not carrying out homeostasis or metabolic reactions. And yeah inasmuch as the natural genome was excavated, the bacteria will die and the synthetic genome will restart or restore the life process and further continue it. The natural and synthetic genome carry out the same functions, if the natural genome can start the biological functions, so will the synthetic genome. Is that not the common sense you talked about earlier?

Lol, incoherent analogy again. Let me destroy it one more time. Can the computer function without the old OS? If the old OS contains the information that gives the computer life, and you put a new OS, you have given the computer new life by installing the new OS. Please learn to think properly before giving analogy.

The argument is the origin of life, processes that the information are encoded in the genome. The argument is not the origin of cell or origin of anything that contains life. Don't make the argument what it is not. Stay on point. Abiogenesis does not care about the cell or the bacteria compartments. Abiogenesis only cares about the biological functions that characterizes life. What is life, don't bring arguments about the bacteria cell being dead or not, does the synthetic genome made by humans give life or not? If you like call it continuation of life, in my dictionary something that continues life still gives life.

Now, that we have written epistles on the theory of abiogenesis, and evidence, journals and definitions have flown from left to right. Can you give us evidence on your part of how life started since you are rejecting the honest theories of science?

sino:


[s]I would repeat it again; my level of intelligence is way beyond your likes that are very lazy to do any form of research (including reading and understanding a published journal) but come on a faceless forum to brag about being a scientist or a biochemist! I would help you post the primary objective of the research by Venter, to show your ignorance the more:[/s]

Trash. What an irony about the understanding of the journal. Am I supposed to take someone who asked a silly question whether the genome functioned as a cell serious? You don't even know why the genome was inserted in the yeast cell and you're here talking about understanding the journal. Mtchew, lol Mr intelligent.

It was very important I mentioned that I am a biochemist when we started talking about abiogenesis, unlike you who is nobody, and keep misrepresenting a journal you purposely refused to post its source because of your sheer and obvious intellectual dishonesty. It was not a bragging, I only claimed the needed authority on the topic of discuss which is the origin of life, because biochemistry is the study of life at the molecular level. I know it has been giving you sleepless nights since a month ago that I announced what I studied in school,please I beg you sir Sino, deal with it.

sino:


"Here we report a new cell, JCVI-syn3.0 (abbreviated syn3.0), that is controlled by a 531–kilobase pair (kbp) synthetic genome that encodes 438 proteins and 35 annotated RNAs. It is a working approximation to a minimal cell. Its genome is substantially smaller than that of M. genitalium, and its doubling rate is about five times as fast." (Ibid.)

Like I said, you know zilch about this topic, I am not even supposed to be going back and forth with a novice like you. Tintingz actually said yoh studied science, maybe biology, but biochemistry is totally alien to you. You are empty when it comea to this field. It has been established that the total genome of all living things contains functional DNA(genes), and junk DNA that basically do nothing. In light of this, if the synthetic genome is a minimized genome compared to the natural, it only means that all or part of the junk DNA was not included. This does not mean that the synthetic genome will still not power the functions of life in the DNA.

But I still have to explain that to Mr intelligent who has in his mind claimed to be intelligent that the likes of us explaining simple processes to him.

sino:


So vreating

Craig didn’t claim to have proved abiogenesis, and moreover, he and his team still needed life, that of yeast and a bacterial cell for their synthetic genome to function.

This brings back to the quote from a leading geneticist again:

“To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,” said David Baltimore, a leading geneticist at Caltech. Dr. Baltimore described the result as “a technical tour de force” but not breakthrough science, but just a matter of scale…. [b]“He has not created life, only mimicked it,” [/b]Dr. Baltimore said."

Instead of all the unnecessary theatrics, long stories and attaching picture of a genetic code (does calling it a code also baloney since a code would definitely require a programmer?!), just show me my bogus lie and how I misrepresented him, don’t come quoting a Professor of practical ethics to me or making spurious claims, rather show how this research by Craig created life from just chemicals to prove abiogenesis!

Lol, I am not defining abiogenesis again for the umpteenth time
By now, if you have read the first two response to your trash, you must have gotten the picture. And if you don't, I wish you luck in your ignorance.

Anybody, of course religious bigots like you can claim that the synthetic bacteria is not giving life to the bacteria cell to shield your interests of Allah or God. It is allowed. But the fact is that, the bacteria is surviving on the synthetic genome made from ordinary chemicals. If this does not support the theory that life arose from chemicals, I don't know what else it supports. Lol.


Meanwhile, I am waiting for you to give me plausible hypothetical mechanisms on how God or Allah created life as I have given you on abiogenesis.

And remember, in case you argue this matter with someone else. Abiogenesis is not concerned about how cell came about, or how humans came about. It is how life came about. But then, you have to understand what life is in the first place. And don't also forget that the genome also contains the information of making a cell

Akin1212:


As much as this is laughable, once again you have succeeded in shooting yourself in the foot. And this time, you did exceptionally. Your desperation to establish that I have faith in science which is nothing but a laughable failed clapback has been noticed. But guess what, you're just making noise.

Anyone with knowledge in science will not find it difficult at all to see your obvious flaws littered in the jargon it took you two days to put together up there. But in the jargon, I will make bold your errors for you to see. It's left to you to see them.

- Just do yourself a favor and stop talking about science, amino acid don't give rise to life. Perhaps, you don't even know what life is, perhaps you think there's a particular thing called life in living things. I give up on your ignorance Sino.

- Amino acids are either D- amino or L-amino. But the ones found essential to life are L-amino, which were produced in the Urey-Miller experiment. This is however a plausible evidence that life through abiogenesis. But instead you believe that God breathe amino acids into humans, but can't prove it. Did God also breathe life into plants and other animals too? Explain to us or read to us from your trash book extensively how God gave life to living things, please.

"In Fig. 2 is shown a paper chromatogram run in n-butanol-acetic acid-water mixture followed by water saturated phenol, and spraying with ninhydrin. Identification of an amino acid was made when the Rf value (the ratio of the distance traveled by the amino acid to the distance traveled by the solvent front), the shape, and the color of the spot were the same on a known, unknown, and mixture of the known and unknown; and when consistent results were obtained with chromatogram using phenol and 77% ethanol. On this basis glycine, α-alanine and β-alanine are identified. The identification of the aspartic acid and a-amino-n-butyric acid is less certain because the spots are quite weak."

Source:Miller, S. L. (1953). A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. Science, 117(3046), 528–529.doi:10.1126/science.117.3046.528

The abstract of a recent research using advanced research tools to analyse the products from the Miller experiment, had the following information:

"some of Miller's remaining original samples were analyzed with modern equipment (Johnson et al. Science 322:404-404, 2008; Parker et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:5526-5531, 2011) and a total of 23 racemic amino acids were identified"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26508401

It should be noted that the product of this experiment being racemic is the least of the problems of this research, even from the construct of the title, Miller acknowledges the fact that the conditions of the primitive atmosphere was indeed speculative, and further research has shown this to be true!

Mr. Scientist Biochemist authority, the fact that the experiment produced both D and L form in a 50/50 ratio, portends trouble for abiogenesis since you yourself have acknowledged the L-form being the one essential to life! If your lecturers knew their onions, they would have mentioned the thalidomide disaster of 1962 while teaching you chirality of macromolecules, structures and functions!

Akin1212:

Lol, a scientist like you, or better a science critic like you who finds it difficult to criticize your faith is so obsessed with the word DESIGN because it so much fits and favors your narrative of a designer or a creator which you always hurriedly call your God or Allah. You see, it's not about a designer or anyone, just drop it and stop validating nonsense. They could use the word design in journals and they could also use code, they could as well use program, and the same way I can as well use DNAer or a builder. The only difference here is your particular choice and insistence in using the word designer which long last doesn't still prove anything. Please apply intellect, don't be a subject to your fantasies. Let's know what we're doing.

It doesn’t prove anything you say?! But the researcher who is an intelligent being, applying his intellect, synthesize a genome, he claims to have created a synthetic life, and you are here bragging about such achievement and intelligence that wasn’t as a result of any form of randomness, but a well detailed process of planning and execution. But the original life, which the researcher studied extensively to learn and copy from came from no intelligence?! And I am the one with fantasies?!

Akin1212:

You are getting a wrong notion and use of the word random or its use, arent you? Perhaps you don't deeply understand Science to that point. Do you know that something can randomly be organized? Do you know that certain atoms will only bond to specific atoms at certain conditions and will continue to bond if the condition persists? The bonding in the DNA can be organized by chance depending on the conditions present prior to the bonding which is important for the structure of these molecules. And this bonding is also controlled by enzymes providing reactive active sites for them to happen. There's no inherent intelligence behind it, you have just made another bold claim. You have just once again filled the gap of knowledge by attributing the observation to an intelligence that cannot be proven. Why, ehn why? If these enzymes are removed, if these conditions are changed, the bonding will not take place at all, no matter what the intelligence you claimed has done. And these conditions are what we have termed the natural laws in science. So has your intelligent creator not failed if humans can alter his intelligence?

I expected you to have claimed that the researchers who claim to have created a synthetic life would have done so out of shear randomness and chance too as abiogenesis suggests, but what we have is the contrary! The problem with your line of thought is that the DNA is not just a randomly organized molecule, it is specific and contains information that can be replicated and expressed to form meaningful macromolecules such as the enzymes you mentioned! If there is no inherent intelligence in these structures, how come there is a need for special enzymes to direct the proper bonding, winding and unwinding for specific functions?! How come there is a process of replication with checks for errors so as to maintain genetic integrity?! How come there is a genetic code that is translated into functional proteins for specific processes and pathways in the cell?! All these were just randomness and chance abi?! But for an intelligent scientist to do anything, he goes back to the unintelligent ‘designs’ all the time! Should you or anyone claim any form of intelligence superior to this unintelligent randomness?! You say I know now book, but you they copy me and you they pass, shey you sure say you get sense so?!

Akin1212:

Lol, so common sense is that if they designed a genome by looking at the natural one, then the natural one too was designed? Lwkmd, you will never cease to amuse me. Okay then, let's apply your common sense. If the artificial genome which is observable was designed by observable beings, common sense should also tell us that the natural genome which is also observable too should be designed by an observable being. Now, where is the designer who designed the natural genome? Don't give excuses here Sino, just provide the designer instanta. . Let's see how common sense is so common to you, Mr intelligent.

Let me guess, you cannot! You must be a joke bro.....

Your question about alphabets is a result of your childish reasoning. You must have skipped logic classes in maths in secondary school, or perhaps you didn't do permutation and factorial in mathematics. However, I will try to help you think better bro, after all you have claimed that you are more intelligent than us.

Given billions of years, I don't know for sure if a novel can be written from 26 letters, but if the conditions that can incluence iit are available, it will be written fine fine, despite the fact that the analogy is stupid as usual. Billions of years is not 100 thousand years. Open your mind and learn. And this looks plausible than the useless claim or excuse that Allah did it, Allah did nothing!

The 4 letters in DNA code is just informative letters that tell us how nucleotide bases are arranged in the genome, and different arrangements of the codes has lead to 8.7 million trials and errors. By saying it gave rise to a working order is another nonsense from you. It has created order and also chaos. We have seen people who were born malformed because of the chaos this randomness can cause. Or do you think humans or other animals are perfect? You are really a joke bro. You know nothing!

Childish reasoning?! What are the right conditions that are going to influence writing a novel by randomly writing 26 letters without intelligence?! Mr. science with an adult reasoning…I have said it before, billions of years is not an intelligent answer, because without intelligence, you possibly cannot achieve anything, our reality has proven this again and again, and the research in question also give credence to this! If my analogy is stupid, perhaps I should use that of Venter, I’m sure he isn’t stupid to have used an OS and a computer. Now tell me the possibility of creating a new OS using any programming language say Python, by randomly writing the codes for billions of years. Let me help you a little, one of the condition is getting the syntax right and debugging. So if per chance you found an OS, you spent all of your intelligence and other material resources to decode it, and then use that knowledge to write yours, would you sound intelligent to claim that the OS you found was as a result of an unintelligent randomness?!

You see when I stated that you are a lousy biochemist, it would seem like an insult, the DNA letters represents the bases in the DNA sequence, it holds information that can be interpreted, the reason for the analogy with the 26 letters. The information the DNA carries are replicated in a process that is almost error free due to inbuilt checks and repairs by specialized enzymes, there are rules that guide this process (it actually looks like it is programmed to do so and not deviate from such programe). A 200 level biochemistry student would tell you this, but because you want to argue, you suspended your brain to attack this basic and very important aspect of the DNA! It is not 8.7 million trials and errors, but rather millions of diverse unique living entities with functioning DNA, that specifically replicate with limited errors, to continue propagating these living entities!

"Replication Is Very Accurate

Replication proceeds with an extraordinary degree of fidelity. In E. coli, a mistake is made only once for every 109 to 1010 nucleotides added. For the E. coli chromosome of ~4.6 X10⁶ bp, this means that an error occurs only once per 1,000 to 10,000 replications." (Lehniger, Principle of Biochemistry) I hope you wouldn’t request for the link to this…

Again, there are some of human creation or let’s call it inventions that are purely chaotic, does that mean there was no intelligence behind it?! Are you sure you are thinking right like this?!

Akin1212:

Thank you for this. I suppose you omitted the source to cover your dishonesty once again. But to show you that before you even thought of misrepresenting the research once again,I have read the journal over and ober again. I will include my source and I will also highlight where you misrepresented in the journal. Aside from the fact thay you didn't specify your source which automatically disqualifes your jargon.

1. "They used whole genome design and chemical synthesis" specifies that chemical raw materials were used to make artificial or synthetic DNA which could carry out the same functions of a natural DNA inside a cell from scratch. What part of this is actually difficult for you to grab? This alone, proves that life can arise from chemicals or organic compounds which excellently explains abiogenesis.

2. Lol, you actually used your hand to bring a source, but the content of the source does not suit your narrative but you had to narrate it in a way that fits the Allah agenda. Let me explain the whole concept of life, genome and cells for you. Maybe, just maybe you'll wake up from your ignorance.

You see, living things are their genomes. The genome is the complete genetic information of an organism or a cell. The genome consists of coding genes(exons), non coding DNA(introns), the DNA inside the mitchondria and also inside the chloroplasts.

Now, life on earth is defined scientifically as a series of processes or metabolic reactions that give rise basically to the following biological functions. Movement or locomotion, Respiration, Nutrition, Irritability, Growth, Excretion, reproduction and death. This is basic integrated science. Right? And that's just on the basic level, but it also applies on all levels. In another explanation, biochemically precisely, anything that can perform anabolism and catabolism is alive.

Now, cells carry out the biological functions and they also carry out anabolism and catabolism, a cell is nothing but a compartment where these reactions take place.

The genome is the information bank for these biological functions and reactions. The genome is where the information of how these processes should be done is stored

So, if genomics is now moving from a descriptive phase to a synthetic phase where whole genomes can be built by chemical synthesis, it means we can build a whole genome from starting chemicals such as Carbon, Nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. This consequently means that we can build from ordinary chemicals the information required to sustain life or start life. This means that we can create life in its simplest form. Is it not easy to grasp?

Even if we learnt from the natural sequence and created our own sequence, does that mean we didn't create a synthetic life? Religious bigots have always asked scientists to create a life to convince them, now that it is done, they are coming up with excuses that it was copied from the natural one. Meanwhile, before, their bragging was that we can create things, but we can't give them life. This is becoming ridiculous lol.

The most important thing here is that, these scientists created a synthetic DNA, excavated the natural DNA without which the bacteria would be dead and incorporated the synthetic DNA which works just like the natural DNA. Is that the creation of life?

Their excuse now will be, why didn't you create a cell?

3. Your third flaw was also highlighted, its a shame you don't understand science, nor the research you're misrepresenting but you claim you do. Lol

A person who understands this research will not even ask if the genome started functioning as a cell. What kind of ignorance is this? In your quest to appear intelligent, you keep showing how unintelligent you are. This is another intellectual suicide. Can the DNA function as a cell? A cell without a DNA is dead. The artificial genome created was incorporated into

The following abstract says it all, the source is included in my own case.

Abstract
"We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication."

From the research article, if Sino by chance knows anything about molecular biology, he would know why the genome was inserted into yeast cells. But I guess I'll have to help him again, read below from the source.

"We developed a strategy for assembling viral-sized pieces to produce large DNA molecules that enabled us to assemble a synthetic M. genitalium genome in four stages from chemically synthesized DNA cassettes averaging about 6 kb in size. This was accomplished through a combination of in vitro enzymatic methods and in vivo recombination in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The whole synthetic genome [582,970 base pairs (bp)] was stably grown as a yeast centromeric plasmid (YCp) (7)."


It is obvious that the genome was assembled by enzymatic process and by recombination process in yeast. Sino wouldn't understand that, would he? I will not respond further, here is the link to the source, the link which Sino refused to post because of his dishonesty. Biochemistry is very simple.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.full

All this epistle isn’t really necessary, even at that, you cannot prove where I lied as you initially claimed, and your claim of misrepresentation is
very laughable. Seems you are discombobulated, and perhaps need glasses, didn’t you see the source in my post?! FYI, the research article I referenced is a 2016 paper, and you are quoting a 2010, although it is still the same work, but Venter and his team were able to create a minimal cell which was optimally functional called syn3.0 unlike the errors they encountered in the 2010 paper. This is very evident in the abstract I posted…If you do not have the means to get some exclusive scientific journals online, it isn’t my fault na…

Secondly, they didn’t create a cell from scratch and that is one of my point, what was said to have been created from scratch is the genome and that is why the title of the paper stated that “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome”, although this is after they had studied and copied the naturally occurring one…You know it is like copying an OS, use the information you gathered to create your own, then claiming that you created an OS from scratch, but we both know you copied!

The reason this does not support abiogenesis is the fact that they had to transplant the synthetic genome into a cell! Note, the DNA also contains the information for the synthesis of the ‘cell’, so when you want to claim abiogenesis, then we need to ask, was it the cell that was first to be formed or was it the DNA?! As I have stated earlier, the genome will do nothing if there isn’t a cell that would interpret the information, the DNA does contain the instructions to be used in a living cell, but without a living cell, it is useless! All you need here is to prove me wrong!

There is a need to correct you on the starting materials for this experiment, Venter and his team didn’t use just H, C, O, N, P etc. but rather a chemically activated nucleotide, just like in PCR, even at that, the artificial synthesis of the DNA sequence can only reach about 50bp (with all the intelligence o), hence the need to resort to natural living organism and their enzymes to help them reach the very long sequence found in a genome. All these were diagrammatically represented in my post, but you sha want to prove you understand the work, but ending up saying nothing!

The funny thing is that for a supposed unintelligent process of the origin of life, these intelligent scientist have been finding it extremely difficult to replicate, even with all the advancement, and the supposed synthetic genome, they still need the cell, the unintelligent created cell! So what does this tell you?! With all your intelligence, you can only copy, and the synthetic genome give credence to the fact that intelligence is really necessary for life, and not some form of chance or randomness!

Akin1212:


I have actually explained life up there. Go back there to read it and think after reading it.

The synthetic genome has all the information to start life or continue it. The bacteria cell is not alive if it's not carrying out homeostasis or metabolic reactions. And yeah inasmuch as the natural genome was excavated, the bacteria will die and the synthetic genome will restart or restore the life process and further continue it. The natural and synthetic genome carry out the same functions, if the natural genome can start the biological functions, so will the synthetic genome. Is that not the common sense you talked about earlier?

Lol, incoherent analogy again. Let me destroy it one more time. Can the computer function without the old OS? If the old OS contains the information that gives the computer life, and you put a new OS, you have given the computer new life by installing the new OS. Please learn to think properly before giving analogy.

The argument is the origin of life, processes that the information are encoded in the genome. The argument is not the origin of cell or origin of anything that contains life. Don't make the argument what it is not. Stay on point. Abiogenesis does not care about the cell or the bacteria compartments. Abiogenesis only cares about the biological functions that characterizes life. What is life, don't bring arguments about the bacteria cell being dead or not, does the synthetic genome made by humans give life or not? If you like call it continuation of life, in my dictionary something that continues life still gives life.

Now, that we have written epistles on the theory of abiogenesis, and evidence, journals and definitions have flown from left to right. Can you give us evidence on your part of how life started since you are rejecting the honest theories of science?

How can anyone who claims to know anything about biological science say abiogenesis has nothing to do with the origin of the cell?! I am honestly ashamed of you claiming to be a biochemist. A cell is defined as the basic unit of life, and as I have stated previously, without a cell, there is possibly nothing a DNA can do! If there is no computer, your OS is completely useless! The big question is how did the supposed DNA formed in the primitive earth, and was able to function without a cell?! The research in question have shown the difficulty in making a synthetic genome which still needed enzymes and a living organism! With this balderdash you have written up here, it is very evident that you knowledge about abiogenesis is just pedestrian!

Akin1212:


Trash. What an irony about the understanding of the journal. Am I supposed to take someone who asked a silly question whether the genome functioned as a cell serious? You don't even know why the genome was inserted in the yeast cell and you're here talking about understanding the journal. Mtchew, lol Mr intelligent.

It was very important I mentioned that I am a biochemist when we started talking about abiogenesis, unlike you who is nobody, and keep misrepresenting a journal you purposely refused to post its source because of your sheer and obvious intellectual dishonesty. It was not a bragging, I only claimed the needed authority on the topic of discuss which is the origin of life, because biochemistry is the study of life at the molecular level. I know it has been giving you sleepless nights since a month ago that I announced what I studied in school,please I beg you sir Sino, deal with it.

So with all your bragging biochemist authority, you don’t know how to get a journal fully referenced online except I post a link for you?! Would you also want me to give you access to journals you need to pay for?! Pathetic!

I am a nobody, I agree, but just show me where I misrepresented this research in question. If you do not know the importance of the question with regards to abiogenesis, then you have no business bragging about knowing anything! If you don’t know the importance of the cell as related to the genome to function, then what do you know?!

Akin1212:

Like I said, you know zilch about this topic, I am not even supposed to be going back and forth with a novice like you. Tintingz actually said yoh studied science, maybe biology, but biochemistry is totally alien to you. You are empty when it comea to this field. It has been established that the total genome of all living things contains functional DNA(genes), and junk DNA that basically do nothing. In light of this, if the synthetic genome is a minimized genome compared to the natural, it only means that all or part of the junk DNA was not included. This does not mean that the synthetic genome will still not power the functions of life in the DNA.

But I still have to explain that to Mr intelligent who has in his mind claimed to be intelligent that the likes of us explaining simple processes to him.

First of all don’t bother your mind about what I studied, but I am surely finding your claim to have studied biochemistry and now claiming authority as very ridiculous with your often repeated gaffes. You should note that even in this minimal synthetic genome, about 17% of it cannot be explained as regards the function, which is about 79 genes out of the 473 genes and these genes were important for the proper functioning of the cell. Mr. biochemist, the excerpt I quoted was to show you what the research is all about, and not your theory of abiogenesis! You need not explain anything to me, the text was very clear even to someone with minimal scientific knowledge!

Akin1212:

Lol, I am not defining abiogenesis again for the umpteenth time
By now, if you have read the first two response to your trash, you must have gotten the picture. And if you don't, I wish you luck in your ignorance.

Anybody, of course religious bigots like you can claim that the synthetic bacteria is not giving life to the bacteria cell to shield your interests of Allah or God. It is allowed. But the fact is that, the bacteria is surviving on the synthetic genome made from ordinary chemicals. If this does not support the theory that life arose from chemicals, I don't know what else it supports. Lol.


Meanwhile, I am waiting for you to give me plausible hypothetical mechanisms on how God or Allah created life as I have given you on abiogenesis.

And remember, in case you argue this matter with someone else. Abiogenesis is not concerned about how cell came about, or how humans came about. It is how life came about. But then, you have to understand what life is in the first place. And don't also forget that the genome also contains the information of making a cell

And I will keep telling you henceforth that you know next to nothing about abiogenesis and your knowledge about biochemistry cum molecular biology is very poor! This is not about defending my interest that Allah (SWT) is the creator, but rather the nitty-gritty of a research and your claim that it supports abiogenesis. How can you talk about origin of life and say that the cell isn’t part of it?! You have just shot yourself in the foot by stating the obvious, if the information for making life is in the genome, and you want us to believe that the genome is life giving, how did the first genome give birth to life?! Now I am not even asking too much as to how the genome was formed from the primitive earth constituents, without the enzymes and preexisting life in the first instance, but how did the first genome made its own cell?! Obviously, without the cell, the genome cannot function! And part of the question you should provide answers for is how did this genome randomly “knew” what it needed by making a cell and all its components with unique and specific functions to continue replicating?!

Nb: Venters synthetic genome, will remain a lifeless repository of information without a functional cell, and even if in the future they are able to synthesize a cell from chemicals by a more advance knowledge and tools, it only give credence to the fact that life on earth was never by accident, but definitely brought about by intelligence!

^^ @Sino. Do you think the formation of the galaxies, planet earth and evolution could come from an all-knowing intelligent being? While answering that can you describe how the universe and life would be without an intelligent being?


Let me agree with your last paragraph for assumption sake.

Since life is not an accident (which is false by the way), who or what is that intelligent being or entity?

sino:


It doesn’t prove anything you say?! But the researcher who is an intelligent being, applying his intellect, synthesize a genome, he claims to have created a synthetic life, and you are here bragging about such achievement and intelligence that wasn’t as a result of any form of randomness, but a well detailed process of planning and execution. But the original life, which the researcher studied extensively to learn and copy from came from no intelligence?! And I am the one with fantasies?!

How absurd is this argument!

The researcher is not an all-knowing intelligent being reason he's conducting "experiments" with different hypothesis to propose a theory of abiogenisis.

If it's not randomness and comes from an intelligent being, the research won't take this long with different experiments. It would be straight forward and with quick results.

You didn't consider the years they took to come up with those theories, the timeline between today and abiogenisis. Whether they created or replicated a genome and cell both still demonstrate abiogenisis with experiments, they were able to demonstrate what could happened billion years ago! That's an achievement!

And lastly, a random or spontaneous event can be studied, the only problem with spontaneous event is it has no purpose!

sino:


"In Fig. 2 is shown a paper chromatogram run in n-butanol-acetic acid-water mixture followed by water saturated phenol, and spraying with ninhydrin. Identification of an amino acid was made when the Rf value (the ratio of the distance traveled by the amino acid to the distance traveled by the solvent front), the shape, and the color of the spot were the same on a known, unknown, and mixture of the known and unknown; and when consistent results were obtained with chromatogram using phenol and 77% ethanol. On this basis glycine, α-alanine and β-alanine are identified. The identification of the aspartic acid and a-amino-n-butyric acid is less certain because the spots are quite weak."

Source:Miller, S. L. (1953). A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. Science, 117(3046), 528–529.doi:10.1126/science.117.3046.528

The abstract of a recent research using advanced research tools to analyse the products from the Miller experiment, had the following information:

"some of Miller's remaining original samples were analyzed with modern equipment (Johnson et al. Science 322:404-404, 2008; Parker et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:5526-5531, 2011) and a total of 23 racemic amino acids were identified"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26508401

It should be noted that the product of this experiment being racemic is the least of the problems of this research, even from the construct of the title, Miller acknowledges the fact that the conditions of the primitive atmosphere was indeed speculative, and further research has shown this to be true!

Mr. Scientist Biochemist authority, the fact that the experiment produced both D and L form in a 50/50 ratio, portends trouble for abiogenesis since you yourself have acknowledged the L-form being the one essential to life! If your lecturers knew their onions, they would have mentioned the thalidomide disaster of 1962 while teaching you chirality of macromolecules, structures and functions!

Your indoctrination is deep that you don't even realize your blunders. The question is, do you really read at all or you just go online to copy and paste statements? Do you know that amino acids can be interconverted? I shouldn't really be arguing biochemistry with someone who is as ignorant as you, seriously. You know little about all these concepts, but you're always quick to run online to look for points you don't even understand. 50% of L-amino acids does not mean that life cannot be formed. Lol


Further research have shown the primitive conditions to be speculative? Oya, show us the research, don't just come here and blab.

sino:


It doesn’t prove anything you say?! But the researcher who is an intelligent being, applying his intellect, synthesize a genome, he claims to have created a synthetic life, and you are here bragging about such achievement and intelligence that wasn’t as a result of any form of randomness, but a well detailed process of planning and execution. But the original life, which the researcher studied extensively to learn and copy from came from no intelligence?! And I am the one with fantasies?!

Lol, again another form of ignorance from you. An intelligent researcher is doing research based on what he can observe and not creating with his intelligence and creativity. Don't you think before you type? Randomness, in this case, means that something with equal chances of not happening happened. How hard is that for you to grasp?
A researcher trying to investigate if there is a possible chance that if certain conditions are replicated will what has been claimed that God created be created? If yes, then the conditions can be said to give rise to these things and not God, since we have evidence for the conditions and we don't have evidence for God.

It's not a matter of using intelligence, is it? It is a matter of humans or certain conditions being able to create what jesterss like you have claimed that God created. If humans can do it, then God ceases to be special and all-powerful, because we can do what he can do. Drop the argument of intelligence because it will not help your cause. And that's a piece of advice.

sino:


I expected you to have claimed that the researchers who claim to have created a synthetic life would have done so out of shear randomness and chance too as abiogenesis suggests, but what we have is the contrary! The problem with your line of thought is that the DNA is not just a randomly organized molecule, it is specific and contains information that can be replicated and expressed to form meaningful macromolecules such as the enzymes you mentioned! If there is no inherent intelligence in these structures, how come there is a need for special enzymes to direct the proper bonding, winding and unwinding for specific functions?! How come there is a process of replication with checks for errors so as to maintain genetic integrity?! How come there is a genetic code that is translated into functional proteins for specific processes and pathways in the cell?! All these were just randomness and chance abi?! But for an intelligent scientist to do anything, he goes back to the unintelligent ‘designs’ all the time! Should you or anyone claim any form of intelligence superior to this unintelligent randomness?! You say I know now book, but you they copy me and you they pass, shey you sure say you get sense so?!

Lol, the laws of nature are just enough to randomly and by chance bring up phenomena. If these laws are changed a little bit, humans might have not existed at all. Let me quickly explain this chance and randomness that is causing problems for you, I will use the same concept that surrounds your belief. You believe that God or Allah just existed, right? From the beginning, God just appeared. There was no prior event or anything that caused it. Right? So who planned the existence of Allah? It was either planned or random and by chance. That's exactly how it is, the only difference is that in science, there is evidence to show, while you don't have any. And that's why heathens like us have embraced science instead of religion.

sino:


Childish reasoning?! What are the right conditions that are going to influence writing a novel by randomly writing 26 letters without intelligence?! Mr. science with an adult reasoning…I have said it before, billions of years is not an intelligent answer, because without intelligence, you possibly cannot achieve anything, our reality has proven this again and again, and the research in question also give credence to this! If my analogy is stupid, perhaps I should use that of Venter, I’m sure he isn’t stupid to have used an OS and a computer. Now tell me the possibility of creating a new OS using any programming language say Python, by randomly writing the codes for billions of years. Let me help you a little, one of the condition is getting the syntax right and debugging. So if per chance you found an OS, you spent all of your intelligence and other material resources to decode it, and then use that knowledge to write yours, would you sound intelligent to claim that the OS you found was as a result of an unintelligent randomness?!

I don't know the conditions that will influence your ridiculous analogy, and that's why I used the conjunction "if." If there are conditions that will make your ridiculous analogy possible, then it will be possible fine fine.

Billions of years, laws of nature, conditions like lightning and radiation which are sources of energy can make many things happen, and they did!. What is intelligence sef? Do you think it is something divine or tangible? let's even define what intelligence is because it seems you are so blind by this term. To be intelligent at all, you have to learn and be rational. this intelligence that you have attributed to God, where did God learn it from? You don't really know how ridiculous you seem when you try to be smart, do you? Any intelligence that created this haven called earth must have been acquired, if this intelligence just popped out of nowhere(randomly appeared), you have not only shot yourself in the foot, you have blown yourself out of this argument into oblivion and the deepest ignorance pit that can ever exist.

sino:

You see when I stated that you are a lousy biochemist, it would seem like an insult, the DNA letters represents the bases in the DNA sequence, it holds information that can be interpreted, the reason for the analogy with the 26 letters. The information the DNA carries are replicated in a process that is almost error free due to inbuilt checks and repairs by specialized enzymes, there are rules that guide this process (it actually looks like it is programmed to do so and not deviate from such programe). A 200 level biochemistry student would tell you this, but because you want to argue, you suspended your brain to attack this basic and very important aspect of the DNA! It is not 8.7 million trials and errors, but rather millions of diverse unique living entities with functioning DNA, that specifically replicate with limited errors, to continue propagating these living entities!

Firstly, if someone who is ignorant claims something, it bounces back because it doesn't mean anything really. You are ignorant and anyone who is vast in science and honest will not waste time in seeing it. You keep posting pseudoscientific nonsense here. The letters of the DNA bases are just representative letters of how the DNA is constructed how does this compare to 26 letters Writing a perfect Novel? The DNA is not almost error free, it is filled with errors. The enzymes that repair the DNA are enzymes that also helps the DNA during replication. Don't mix these things up with your pseudoscience.

I don't blame you really, some scientists also believe that this their imaginary friend programmed everything but have failed to identify who programmed this their imaginary friend or he just puffed up and started existing "RANDOMLY and by CHANCE." If you apply your rejection of life existing randomly and by chance to God existing randomly and by chance, how will it come back?

Secondly, the DNA is not error free, it is filled with errors. And this basic reason was why scientists who have really worked with the DNA rationally reached a conclusion that no intelligence is behind these things.

sino:


"Replication Is Very Accurate

Replication proceeds with an extraordinary degree of fidelity. In E. coli, a mistake is made only once for every 109 to 1010 nucleotides added. For the E. coli chromosome of ~4.6 X10⁶ bp, this means that an error occurs only once per 1,000 to 10,000 replications." (Lehniger, Principle of Biochemistry) I hope you wouldn’t request for the link to this…

Again, there are some of human creation or let’s call it inventions that are purely chaotic, does that mean there was no intelligence behind it?! Are you sure you are thinking right like this?!

Lol, please and please, let us stay on science alone. I am tired of correcting your pseudoscience. For the records, REPLICATION IS NOT ACCURATE. And this inaccuracy shows that this is not a work of intelligence. I don't know where you saw that replication is accurate, but I am not surprised since you are a renowned pseudoscientist. Why would an error occur at all even once in E. coli if it was programmed by this intelligence you have so much hung up to? Can we say this intelligence is fallible? Or is there any purpose this intelligence programmed these errors for?
If humans have creations that are purely chaotic, and this your God also have creations that are also chaotic, are we now placing humans and this your God on par on their creations and intelligence? I have finally lured you out Sino, lol

Perhaps, randomness and chance are just purely responsible for the order and the chaos?

You really need to start thinking because you are already sinking.

sino:


All this epistle isn’t really necessary, even at that, you cannot prove where I lied as you initially claimed, and your claim of misrepresentation is
very laughable. Seems you are discombobulated, and perhaps need glasses, didn’t you see the source in my post?! FYI, the research article I referenced is a 2016 paper, and you are quoting a 2010, although it is still the same work, but Venter and his team were able to create a minimal cell which was optimally functional called syn3.0 unlike the errors they encountered in the 2010 paper. This is very evident in the abstract I posted…If you do not have the means to get some exclusive scientific journals online, it isn’t my fault na…

Secondly, they didn’t create a cell from scratch and that is one of my point, what was said to have been created from scratch is the genome and that is why the title of the paper stated that “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome”, although this is after they had studied and copied the naturally occurring one…You know it is like copying an OS, use the information you gathered to create your own, then claiming that you created an OS from scratch, but we both know you copied!

The reason this does not support abiogenesis is the fact that they had to transplant the synthetic genome into a cell! Note, the DNA also contains the information for the synthesis of the ‘cell’, so when you want to claim abiogenesis, then we need to ask, was it the cell that was first to be formed or was it the DNA?! As I have stated earlier, the genome will do nothing if there isn’t a cell that would interpret the information, the DNA does contain the instructions to be used in a living cell, but without a living cell, it is useless! All you need here is to prove me wrong!

There is a need to correct you on the starting materials for this experiment, Venter and his team didn’t use just H, C, O, N, P etc. but rather a chemically activated nucleotide, just like in PCR, even at that, the artificial synthesis of the DNA sequence can only reach about 50bp (with all the intelligence o), hence the need to resort to natural living organism and their enzymes to help them reach the very long sequence found in a genome. All these were diagrammatically represented in my post, but you sha want to prove you understand the work, but ending up saying nothing!

The funny thing is that for a supposed unintelligent process of the origin of life, these intelligent scientists have been finding it extremely difficult to replicate, even with all the advancement, and the supposed synthetic genome, they still need the cell, the unintelligent created cell! So what does this tell you?! With all your intelligence, you can only copy, and the synthetic genome give credence to the fact that intelligence is really necessary for life, and not some form of chance or randomness!

Trash, nothing is worth responding to here, I have explained everything I need to explain.

Just provide an alternative theory to the abiogenesis theory, and explain the process plausibly with a hypothetical mechanism.

sino:


How can anyone who claims to know anything about biological science say abiogenesis has nothing to do with the origin of the cell?! I am honestly ashamed of you claiming to be a biochemist. A cell is defined as the basic unit of life, and as I have stated previously, without a cell, there is possibly nothing a DNA can do! If there is no computer, your OS is completely useless! The big question is how did the supposed DNA formed in the primitive earth, and was able to function without a cell?! The research in question have shown the difficulty in making a synthetic genome which still needed enzymes and a living organism! With this balderdash you have written up here, it is very evident that you knowledge about abiogenesis is just pedestrian!

I said it, you studied biology. . And you are here arguing biochemistry and abiogenesis with me, what nonsense! Do you think abiogenesis can be understood by mediocre? You are supposed to be ashamed of yourself instead of me, I am not the biologist who is explaining Biochemistry, you are. Now read some biochemistry again below.

Seriously, I am tired of defining abiogenesis to you, I swear.
I said it, that you must be a biologist, everything you have said has been because you have zero knowledge of biochemistry. You have limited knowledge of this topic and hence you're introducing pseudoscience to help yourself, misrepresenting researches with quack knowledge. I don't want to type epistles, therefore I will just quote Lehninger here for you.

"About four billion years ago, life arose—simple microorganisms with the ability to extract energy from chemical compounds and, later, from sunlight, which they used to make a vast array of more complex biomolecules from the simple elements and compounds on the Earth’s surface. We and all other living organisms are made of stardust.
Biochemistry asks how the remarkable properties of living organisms arise from the thousands of different biomolecules. When these molecules are isolated and examined individually, they conform to all the physical and chemical laws that describe the behavior of inanimate matter—as do all the processes occurring in living organisms. The study of biochemistry shows how the collections of inanimate molecules that constitute living organisms interact to maintain and perpetuate life animated solely by the physical and chemical laws that govern the nonliving universe."

Source: Lehninger, principles of biochemistry, 6th edition, Page 1.

From the above, it is easy to deduce that life is molecular. In fact, biochemistry is the study of life at the molecular level.

In secondary school and the average biology studied in the university, they said the organization of life is cell > tissues > organs > system > organisms. But this is only for simple minds, Life is actually organized from the molecular level, even atomic level. as seen from this source: https://www.studyblue.com/notes/note/n/12-levels-of-biological-organization/deck/15168216

It is very obvious that Sino here is still using his secondary school knowledge to argue with me . Dear Sino, this matter of abiogenesis is beyond you, no wonder you find difficult to understand or fathom how possible it could be...

You don't need to create a cell before you can create life. Life is basically the organization of molecules, while a cell is a compartment or a room where these molecules are, and where the reactions take place. And that is why there are basic branching when we talk about a cell. The Latin word where the term cell was derived from means Room, Cella. A cell is just a compartment. What makes a cell a living thing is the molecular organization found inside it. The cell is not life, the cell contains life. Whew, I hope I have broken it down enough for you Sino!

That is why we have basic types of cells or compartments or rooms, also different cells explain evolution and complexity. From prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, Eukaryotes which can further be divided into basic types, plant, and animal cells. But one thing that remains constant in all types of cells is the biomolecules(life). Bacteria also use the same biomolecules as plants and animals, even humans. Does that not tell you anything? I tire ooo.

This organization is based on the level of dependence on the biomolecules. See below

"The basic principle behind the organization is the concept of emergence—the properties and functions found at a hierarchical level are not present and irrelevant at the lower levels."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_organisation

From above, it follows that the properties and functions found in the cellular organization are not present and are irrelevant at the level of molecular organization. But they depend on the molecular organization.

The cell can only be alive, the cell is not life. The cell is not the basic unit of life. However, to make it simple for people like Sino, it's better to say the cell is the basic unit of life

Did you say there is possibly nothing the DNA can do outside a cell? Lmao, Sino you will not kill me. So, you don't know that outside a cell, in the presence of polymerase enzymes and other enzymes(suitable conditions), the DNA CAN DIVIDE? Must you always bring your ignorance to the table by saying things you don't know?

You really have to understand the concept of what life is to grasp this explanation, but I hope I have made it simple enough for you. And since abiogenesis explains the origin of this chemical life, abiogenesis addresses the origin of life, not the origin of the cell.

sino:


So with all your bragging biochemist authority, you don’t know how to get a journal fully referenced online except I post a link for you?! Would you also want me to give you access to journals you need to pay for?! Pathetic!

Lol, another trash

sino:


I am a nobody, I agree, but just show me where I misrepresented this research in question. If you do not know the importance of the question with regards to abiogenesis, then you have no business bragging about knowing anything! If you don’t know the importance of the cell as related to the genome to function, then what do you know?!

Oga, a cell means a room. Just as I explained for you above. Nothing more! The life inside a cell is the molecular organization and their interactions. Even humans(organisms) are just like a mansion of different compartments or rooms(cells) that contains life(biomolecules). Sino, think. I am not bragging that I know anything, aren't you the most intelligent? But this abiogenesis, this biochemistry, is my field not yours. Biochemistry is not biology.

sino:


First of all don’t bother your mind about what I studied, but I am surely finding your claim to have studied biochemistry and now claiming authority as very ridiculous with your often repeated gaffes. You should note that even in this minimal synthetic genome, about 17% of it cannot be explained as regards the function, which is about 79 genes out of the 473 genes and these genes were important for the proper functioning of the cell. Mr. biochemist, the excerpt I quoted was to show you what the research is all about, and not your theory of abiogenesis! You need not explain anything to me, the text was very clear even to someone with minimal scientific knowledge!

Oga, I am not bothered. I already know it. Gaffes, indeed! As I said, there is junk DNA, there are even DNA whose functions have not been revealed yet. They are still under study. Stop crying foul because you have always misrepresented this research from the beginning. The fact that you don't even know that a cell is an empty room without its cytoplasmic constituents is even the biggest error.

Lol, the research of Craig Venter was widely known as the creation of synthetic life from chemicals, but no, a pseudoscientist who studied biology objects, lwkmd , and I am supposed to believe him.

sino:


And I will keep telling you henceforth that you know next to nothing about abiogenesis and your knowledge about biochemistry cum molecular biology is very poor! This is not about defending my interest that Allah (SWT) is the creator, but rather the nitty-gritty of a research and your claim that it supports abiogenesis. How can you talk about origin of life and say that the cell isn’t part of it?! You have just shot yourself in the foot by stating the obvious, if the information for making life is in the genome, and you want us to believe that the genome is life giving, how did the first genome give birth to life?! Now I am not even asking too much as to how the genome was formed from the primitive earth constituents, without the enzymes and preexisting life in the first instance, but how did the first genome made its own cell?! Obviously, without the cell, the genome cannot function! And part of the question you should provide answers for is how did this genome randomly “knew” what it needed by making a cell and all its components with unique and specific functions to continue replicating?!

Nb: Venters synthetic genome, will remain a lifeless repository of information without a functional cell, and even if in the future they are able to synthesize a cell from chemicals by a more advance knowledge and tools, it only give credence to the fact that life on earth was never by accident, but definitely brought about by intelligence!

Mr. Sino, what you tell me doesn't mean anything. The research is online, you need to memorize this simple statement and also make it a memory verse - Abiogenesis is the theory of how life arose from simple chemicals, Craig Venter research demonstrates how synthetic life was created from simple chemicals, Lehninger which you love quoting stated that life arose from simple chemicals. Whatever you tell yourself to put your imaginary Allah in the equation does not mean anything, really.

Lol, look at who is looking at the nitty gritty of research? If misrepresentation of research is nitty gritty, then it's over for science
Your argument has been to put an intelligence behind the research which at the end you're hoping to include your Allah as the intelligence. But unknowingly to you, you don't know that you have betrayed yourself. If humans can copy this your Allah as you have stated, what does it mean for this your God? You are obviously not thinking, I thought the Quran said God breathed life and power into the man he molded, how does creating a genome equate breathing life? I don't want to say you are a joker with confidence, but there, I just said it!

You are still confused as to how a cell is not part of abiogenesis? Okay, read this statement again, word by word - Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.

You see that simple definition above is what abiogenesis is, it's not about how cell came to be, it's about how the process called life started! Don't be confused Sino, it's very simple. You might not understand it until you open your mind.

But if you want to insist on your wrong, lopsided understanding of science, answer this simple question. Is a cell life, or a cell contains life?

Now you are just asking questions you should have asked instead of arguing what you don't know. there are answers to your questions and I would answer them after you tell us the origin of life that you accepted. Tell us about this intelligence you have been screaming created life from his breathe. Let's learn from the most intelligent Sino

tintingz:
How absurd is this argument!

The researcher is not an all-knowing intelligent being reason he's conducting "experiments" with different hypothesis to propose a theory of abiogenisis.

If it's not randomness and comes from an intelligent being, the research won't take this long with different experiments. It would be straight forward and with quick results.

You didn't consider the years they took to come up with those theories, the timeline between today and abiogenisis. Whether they created or replicated a genome and cell both still demonstrate abiogenisis with experiments, they were able to demonstrate what could happened billion years ago! That's an achievement!

And lastly, a random or spontaneous event can be studied, the only problem with spontaneous event is it has no purpose!

All his arguments are absurd and clearly riddled with ignorance. He just want to establish that there is an intelligence where there is randomness and chance. You could see where he said E coli has one error out of 1010 replication, that's not true though, but even why would intelligence give rise to error at all? Does it mean that this intelligence is not 100% and is fallible? He keeps going round a circle, he thinks it's by posting long nonsense.

The researcher demonstrated that the molecule responsible for maintaining and perpetuating life can be synthesized in the lab, and he is here screaming they copied. Does that change anything? Whether they copied or not, they created a synthetic molecule capable of maintaining and perpetuating life. I thought life could not be created before as claimed by religionists, now that it has been done, he is coming up with another excuse of copying a preexisting life.

He didn't consider the years at all, he didn't even consider the fact that it was done. If it was a mystery known only to his Allah, would it be done at all? That's another mystery unraveled and his Allah keeps diminishing.

Akin1212:


All his arguments are absurd and clearly riddled with ignorance. He just want to establish that there is an intelligence where there is randomness and chance. You could see where he said E coli has one error out of 1010 replication, that's not true though, but even why would intelligence give rise to error at all? Does it mean that this intelligence is not 100% and is fallible? He keeps going round a circle, he thinks it's by posting long nonsense.

The researcher demonstrated that the molecule responsible for maintaining and perpetuating life can be synthesized in the lab, and he is here screaming they copied. Does that change anything? Whether they copied or not, they created a synthetic molecule capable of maintaining and perpetuating life. I thought life could not be created before as claimed by religionists, now that it has been done, he is coming up with another excuse of copying a preexisting life.

He didn't consider the years at all, he didn't even consider the fact that it was done. If it was a mystery known only to his Allah, would it be done at all? That's another mystery unraveled and his Allah keeps diminishing.

He wants to compare a human intelligence to an all-knowing-intelligence and thinks it's an argument. I find it absurd I had to quote him.

For the fact that abiogenisis is spontaneous, evolution is modifying and changing, Galaxy formation is colliding and collapsing, arguing that an all-knowing intelligent being(which is God to them) is behind it depict an imperfect God! I'm yet to see an evidence that connect these phenomena with their God.

He also think a random event cannot be studied, that's another flaws from him.

For the fact an event that happened billion years ago was able to demonstrate and create by humans, opened big questions for God.

I'm still waiting for him to answer the questions I asked above.

tintingz:
He wants to compare a human intelligence to an all-knowing-intelligence and thinks it's an argument. I find it absurd I had to quote him.

For the fact that abiogenisis is spontaneous, evolution is modifying and changing, Galaxy formation is colliding and collapsing, arguing that an all-knowing intelligent being(which is God to them) is behind it depict an imperfect God! I'm yet to see an evidence that connect these phenomena with their God.

He also think a random event cannot be studied, that's another flaws from him.

For the fact an event that happened billion years ago was able to demonstrate and create by humans, opened big questions for God.

I'm still waiting for him to answer the questions I asked above.

Trust me, that dude will never answer you. He has failed to deliver a nice mechanism of how this God or all knowing-intelligence created life. He has failed to identify the chaos present in the world and the chaos that are visible in life. There's no way he can justify that the all knowing intelligence created chaos. I will keep luring him out, just watch as he fails woefully. After all, he is more intelligent than the likes of us. And he cannot even understand what life is. Lol

Akin1212:

Lol, please and please, let us stay on science alone. I am tired of correcting your pseudoscience. For the records, REPLICATION IS NOT ACCURATE. And this inaccuracy shows that this is not a work of intelligence. I don't know where you saw that replication is accurate, but I am not surprised since you are a renowned pseudoscientist. Why would an error occur at all even once in E. coli if it was programmed by this intelligence you have so much hung up to? Can we say this intelligence is fallible? Or is there any purpose this intelligence programmed these errors for?
If humans have creations that are purely chaotic, and this your God also have creations that are also chaotic, are we now placing humans and this your God on par on their creations and intelligence? I have finally lured you out Sino, lol

Perhaps, randomness and chance are just purely responsible for the order and the chaos?

You really need to start thinking because you are already sinking.

I have read through your responses, and as usual more gaffes and lack of substance. You are a lousy biochemist, and you apparently don’t even know the biochemistry you are bragging about! See the attached snapshot of where it is stated that replication is very accurate. It seems you have not learnt anything in this past few days, rather than looking for what is not lost up and down on wiki, you need to have a deep reflection on your understanding of biochemistry. I present evidences that keep exposing your ignorance in what you claim to be an authority. In all sense of modesty, if I give you a little idea of what research work I had done, I tell you, you would know that all this your bragging on a faceless forum is quite childish and irresponsible!

Let me quickly add that errors in DNA replication are repaired, and not that the errors are left as such. This defeats the assumption again that there is no inherent intelligence, and some of the reasons for these errors are also identified, hence the reason for a repair process…

“Any DNA damage must be repaired if the genetic message is to maintain its integrity. Such repair is possible because of duplex DNA’s inherent information redundancy. The biological importance of DNA repair is indicated by the identification of at least 130 genes in the human genome that participate in DNA repair and by the great variety of DNA repair pathways possessed by even relatively simple organisms such as E. coli. In fact, the major DNA repair processes in eukaryotic cells and E. coli are chemically quite similar.

One of such repair process amongst others is stated below:

". The SOS Response

Agents that damage DNA, such as UV radiation, alkylating agents, and cross-linking agents, induce a complex system of cellular changes in E. coli known as the SOS response. E. coli so treated cease dividing and increase their capacity to repair damaged DNA.” (Source: Biochemistry, Voet & Voet)

nb: Since you claim to be a biochemist, I felt it is not important to fully reference a textbook, I expect you to know where to find these quotes, but if you have difficulties like not having these textbooks, just say, I’ll gladly provide you snapshots, as well as those of the journals you don't have access to online.

If after all your bragging you do not know that DNA replication is this accurate, then what is the essence of your bragging?! Again, you have proven that you are just an empty “korodom”!

^^^ @sino

You still don't get the absurdity in your argument, even if we agree there's an intelligence behind the repair of DNA does this depict an all-knowing-intelligence?

The Big Bang, abiogenisis, evolution does not negate an intelligent design or God or whatever character you want to call it(since they are fantasies), but it sure make that God imperfect which contradict the attributes of your God, if you agree your God is imperfect then I'm ok with it then we can move on to the next argument.

sino:


I have read through your responses, and as usual more gaffes and lack of substance. You are a lousy biochemist, and you apparently don’t even know the biochemistry you are bragging about! See the attached snapshot of where it is stated that replication is very accurate. It seems you have not learnt anything in this past few days, rather than looking for what is not lost up and down on wiki, you need to have a deep reflection on your understanding of biochemistry. I present evidences that keep exposing your ignorance in what you claim to be an authority. In all sense of modesty, if I give you a little idea of what research work I had done, I tell you, you would know that all this your bragging on a faceless forum is quite childish and irresponsible!

Lol, your futile efforts to make it look like I am bragging of biochemistry must be frustrating to you. I am a proud biochemist, you have repeated that in every response. If it pains you so much, isn't it better to just jump in a river than to keep singing it? Perhaps the fact that I understand the essentials of biochemistry more than an ordinary biologist like you is what hurts your butt .

I REPEAT, REPLICATION IS ERROR PRONE. Lehninger attempted to explain DNA replication as error-prone and establish DNA repair as a mechanism that corrects the failures of replication. But how would you even know that? Since you're a biologist and a pseudoscientist who has sworn to misrepresent science in all capacity you can to promote your Allah fantasy. After raising a somewhat silly alarm that I only read a blog, raising a silly excuse that I only read headlines, now you are here showing headlines from Lehninger, lmao. A typical instance of shooting yourself in the skull.

Do you need me to explain everything in biochemistry for you? Well, have I not always done that? Now pay attention and see the explanation below.

Akin1212:


The DNA is not almost error free, it is filled with errors. The enzymes that repair the DNA are enzymes that also helps the DNA during replication. Don't mix these things up with your pseudoscience.

firstly, if you had read through my responses as you have claimed, you would have seen where I made the above statement. DNA replication occurs with errors more often than not, but the mechanism of DNA repair makes it look as if it is accurate, but replication without repair is INACCURATE. It is the reinforcement of the repair mechanism that buttresses replication. After replication, the enzymatic mechanism of repair checks for error in a process known as "proofreading." Replication itself is just the duplication of a DNA strand by DNA polymerase.

Since I have to tell you everything, there you go! I asked you not to mix it up, but you ended up doing that... Facepalm

I don't want to believe you actually think that DNA repair is part of DNA replication, or is that what you actually think?

This was even explained in your screenshot, but because you cannot comprehend biochemistry, how would you even have the patience to see it. You are always quick to explode your ignorance on our face here on Nairaland, Mr intelligent

The following is s statement from Lehninger that you screenshotted - "These mistakes sometimes occur because a base is briefly in an unusual tautomeric form (see Fig. 8–9), allowing it to hydrogen- bond with an incorrect partner. In vivo, the error rate is reduced by additional enzymatic mechanisms." You didn't read through the page, did you? Or your blindness to facts didn't let you see that. Perhaps, Allah blocked your sight and let you miss that? Sino, would a distinctive accurate replication need an additional enzymatic mechanism for repair?

Here is another one - "The fidelity of DNA replication is maintained by (1) base selection by the polymerase, (2) a 39S59 proofreading exonuclease activity that is part of most DNA polymerases, and (3) specific repair systems for mismatches left behind after replication." It is stated clearly that the mismatches left behind are repaired by specific repair systems after replication. Any system of a process that is VERY ACCURATE such as DNA replication according to you would not need specific repair systems. Hence, the repair systems and the replication done by DNA Polymerase is what Lehninger referred to as ' Replication is very accurate.' Next time, read to understand.

sino:

Let me quickly add that errors in DNA replication are repaired, and not that the errors are left as such. This defeats the assumption again that there is no inherent intelligence, and some of the reasons for these errors are also identified, hence the reason for a repair process…

“Any DNA damage must be repaired if the genetic message is to maintain its integrity. Such repair is possible because of duplex DNA’s inherent information redundancy. The biological importance of DNA repair is indicated by the identification of at least 130 genes in the human genome that participate in DNA repair and by the great variety of DNA repair pathways possessed by even relatively simple organisms such as E. coli. In fact, the major DNA repair processes in eukaryotic cells and E. coli are chemically quite similar.

One of such repair process amongst others is stated below:

". The SOS Response

Agents that damage DNA, such as UV radiation, alkylating agents, and cross-linking agents, induce a complex system of cellular changes in E. coli known as the SOS response. E. coli so treated cease dividing and increase their capacity to repair damaged DNA.” (Source: Biochemistry, Voet & Voet)

nb: Since you claim to be a biochemist, I felt it is not important to fully reference a textbook, I expect you to know where to find these quotes, but if you have difficulties like not having these textbooks, just say, I’ll gladly provide you snapshots, as well as those of the journals you don't have access to online.

If after all your bragging you do not know that DNA replication is this accurate, then what is the essence of your bragging?! Again, you have proven that you are just an empty “korodom”!

[/quote]

Lmao, don't quickly add anything Oga, your error is highlighted boldly up there for you, save your errors for yourself. You actually don't have the rights to ask if anyone hasn't learned anything, this exercise has been to school you in basic biochemistry, the one you lack. And this is not bragging, it is the truth.

Errors in replication are repaired during replication or after replication? You need to understand the things you are posting here because a lot of people are reading and you don't want to mislead people, the main reason I have been setting you straight. You have posted tons of nonsense here in the name of biochemistry that ordinary screenshots have spurned. I have uploaded a couple to help you further help you understand biochemistry...

The lehninger textbook you quoted admitted that this fidelity of replication is only nearly perfect. Don't tell me you understand nearly perfect as accurate because accurate means perfect. Lehninger explained the accuracy headline, by introducing repair mechanisms to the replicated DNA molecule. If replication is accurate then what's the need for repair? It is very obvious that you do not think at all, I wonder where you get the confidence to publicly misrepresent science from? Are you not ashamed that very obvious things like these are escaping your comprehension? Does your brain not tell you that whatever is accurate cannot be repaired while you type these jargons?

I am not surprised, you don't even know the levels of organization of life, you don't even know that life precedes cells. I believe I am coming to the end of schooling you. You are the one who should be learning here because you are full of ignorance. Even a primary school student knows that an accurate process does not need a repair mechanism. Don't be shocked that I provided screenshots from your most beloved biochemistry textbook, you don't even know that this textbook does not point to Allah creating anything? You don't even know that Lehninger is a proponent of abiogenesis and evolution? Every fact and truth in all biochemistry textbooks or journals you can reference does not point to Allah, they will always buttress my point. I believe at this stage you should start getting ready to take U-TURN and be referencing the Quran.

Your effort to avoid providing alternative theories as to how life began on earth is really amusing but expected. You got nothing to say

I guess I should keep laughing though at the claptrap you just delivered again, seriously Sino, do you think at all? You mean an accurate replication can be repaired?

Why don't you give a plausible explanation of how an intelligence is behind the errors of DNA replication and also planned the repair? Does it even make sense to you that an intelligence that is infallible created DNA replication to fail sometimes and also planned how it will be repaired? Does it?

tintingz:
Dude please go and educate yourself about evolutionary biology.

Evolutionary biology is a 'subjective' science which has no any universal appeal in the science world and many schools (and countries) have stopped teaching it. The believe in evolution is as delusional as the believe in many religious beliefs.

true2god:
Evolutionary biology is a 'subjective' science which has no any universal appeal in the science world and many schools (and countries) have stopped teaching it. The believe in evolution is as delusional as the believe in many religious beliefs.

Evolution is agreed in scientific field, it's scientific consensus.

There are various evidences of evolution and it's not subjective. There are evidences evolution is still happening today!

Maybe you should provide any counter argument to evolution, state why you think it's delusional.

And state any alternative process how we got to this stage.

true2god:
Evolutionary biology is a 'subjective' science which has no any universal appeal in the science world and many schools (and countries) have stopped teaching it. The believe in evolution is as delusional as the believe in many religious beliefs.

This sounds more like a subjective opinion. List the schools and countries who stopped teaching it, I'll like to see if it's not the ones who have sworn to hold on to imaginary spirits.

List the countries please, the countries that have opted to teach creation science over evolutionary biology.

You can't just come online and be representing your guesses as facts.

Akin1212:


Lol, your futile efforts to make it look like I am bragging of biochemistry must be frustrating to you. I am a proud biochemist, you have repeated that in every response. If it pains you so much, isn't it better to just jump in a river than to keep singing it? Perhaps the fact that I understand the essentials of biochemistry more than an ordinary biologist like you is what hurts your butt .

I REPEAT, REPLICATION IS ERROR PRONE. Lehninger attempted to explain DNA replication as error-prone and establish DNA repair as a mechanism that corrects the failures of replication. But how would you even know that? Since you're a biologist and a pseudoscientist who has sworn to misrepresent science in all capacity you can to promote your Allah fantasy. After raising a somewhat silly alarm that I only read a blog, raising a silly excuse that I only read headlines, now you are here showing headlines from Lehninger, lmao. A typical instance of shooting yourself in the skull.

Do you need me to explain everything in biochemistry for you? Well, have I not always done that? Now pay attention and see the explanation below.



firstly, if you had read through my responses as you have claimed, you would have seen where I made the above statement. DNA replication occurs with errors more often than not, but the mechanism of DNA repair makes it look as if it is accurate, but replication without repair is INACCURATE. It is the reinforcement of the repair mechanism that buttresses replication. After replication, the enzymatic mechanism of repair checks for error in a process known as "proofreading." Replication itself is just the duplication of a DNA strand by DNA polymerase.

Since I have to tell you everything, there you go! I asked you not to mix it up, but you ended doing that... Facepalm

I don't want to believe you actually think that DNA repair is part of DNA replication, or is that what you actually believe?

This was even explained in your screenshot, but because you cannot comprehend biochemistry, how would you even have the patience to see it. You are always quick to explode your ignorance on our face here on Nairaland, Mr intelligent

The following is s statement from Lehninger that you screenshotted - "These mistakes sometimes occur because a base is briefly in an unusual tautomeric form (see Fig. 8–9), allowing it to hydrogen- bond with an incorrect partner. In vivo, the error rate is reduced by additional enzymatic mechanisms." You didn't read through the page, did you? Or your blindness to facts didn't let you see that. Perhaps, Allah blocked your sight and let you miss that? Sino, would a distinctive accurate replication need an additional enzymatic mechanism for repair?

Here is another one - "The fidelity of DNA replication is maintained by (1) base selection by the polymerase, (2) a 39S59 proofreading exonuclease activity that is part of most DNA polymerases, and (3) specific repair systems for mismatches left behind after replication." It is stated clearly that the mismatches left behind are repaired by specific repair systems after replication. Any system of a process that is VERY ACCURATE such as DNA replication according to you would not need specific repair systems. Hence, the repair systems and the replication done by DNA Polymerase is what Lehninger referred to as ' Replication is very accurate.' Next time, read to understand.





Lmao, don't quickly add anything Oga, your error is highlighted boldly up there for you, save your errors for yourself. You actually don't have the rights to ask if anyone hasn't learned anything, this exercise has been to school you in basic biochemistry, the one you lack. And this is not bragging, it is the truth.

Errors in replication are repaired during replication or after replication? You need to understand the things you are posting here because a lot of people are reading and you don't want to mislead people, the main reason I have been setting you straight. You have posted tons of nonsense here in the name of biochemistry that ordinary screenshots have spurned. I have uploaded a couple to help you further help you understand biochemistry...

The lehninger textbook you quoted admitted that this fidelity of replication is only nearly perfect. Don't tell me you understand nearly perfect as accurate because accurate means perfect. Lehninger explained the accuracy headline, by introducing repair mechanisms to the replicated DNA molecule. If replication is accurate then what's the need for repair? It is very obvious that you do not think at all, I wonder where you get the confidence to publicly misrepresent science from? Are you not ashamed that very obvious things like these are escaping your comprehension? Does your brain not tell you that whatever is accurate cannot be repaired while you type these jargons?

I am not surprised, you don't even know the levels of organization of life, you don't even know that life precedes cells. I believe I am coming to the end of schooling you. You are the one who should be learning here because you are full of ignorance. Even a primary school student knows that an accurate process does not need a repair mechanism. Don't be shocked that I provided screenshots from your most beloved biochemistry textbook, you don't even know that this textbook does not point to Allah creating anything? You don't even know that Lehninger is a proponent of abiogenesis and evolution? Every fact and truth in all biochemistry textbooks or journals you can reference does not point to Allah, they will always buttress my point. I believe at this stage you should start getting ready to take U-TURN and be referencing the Quran.

Your effort to avoid providing alternative theories as to how life began on earth is really amusing but expected. You got nothing to say

I guess I should keep laughing though at the claptrap you just delivered again, seriously Sino, do you think at all? You mean an accurate replication can be repaired?

Why don't you give a plausible explanation of how an intelligence is behind the errors of DNA replication and also planned the repair? Does it even make sense to you that an intelligence that is infallible created DNA replication to fail sometimes and also planned how it will be repaired? Does it?

It seems until you write a whole lot, you wouldn't convince yourself that you have made a point?! All the story story you have written doesn't show that my statement was wrong in anyway. The example of E-coli with about 4.6 X 10⁶ bp was given in Leghninger, and that error occurs only ONCE per 1000 - 10,000 replications! if this is your own definition of prone to error, then you need to examine your brain! Again, Leghninger used VERY ACCURATE to describe the replication process, but olodo like you is arguing this, and explaining erroneously what had already been clarified in the textbook! For your information, the repair process also gives the replication of the DNA that level of accurateness in order to maintain genetic integrity! Again, I stated clearly that such errors are repaired through a process of checks and repairs that follow a guided rule. Even if the repair process is after replication, it is still part of the process of maintaining genomic integrity!. This is breaking it down for all to understand and not going about writing epistles that is just exposing your inadequacies and insecurities! You really need comprehension lessons!

You know next to nothing about abiogenesis, even your understanding of biochemistry is suspect, no wonder you are just dogmatic about your belief in science. Since you believe that life doesn't need intelligence and that abiogenesis is true, answer these questions:

Did Venter and his team depended on life to make their synthetic genome?! And can the synthetic genome function without a living cell?! Would you say Venter and his team were not intelligent?! And given their intelligence and advanced tools, still, they had difficulties in making a synthetic genome on their own, how then was it possible for life to have begun on primitive earth without all these intelligence and sophisticated machineries at the disposal of Venter and his team?!

Remember, the thread is about exposing your foolishness, and by the way, you are doing a great job!

I just saw that you presented a dictionary meaning for accurate, funny you jumped the first meaning which is precise, to state that it means perfect, lol, not that perfect is wrong, but if you had any understanding of biochemistry and then Use of English, you would have known that precise is the best synonym to give to accurate in this context. DNA follows a precise (acccurate) base pairing of A-T and G-C during replication...As established, you are a lousy biochemist!

tintingz:
^^^ @sino

You still don't get the absurdity in your argument, even if we agree there's an intelligence behind the repair of DNA does this depict an all-knowing-intelligence?

The Big Bang, abiogenisis, evolution does not negate an intelligent design or God or whatever character you want to call it(since they are fantasies), but it sure make that God imperfect which contradict the attributes of your God, if you agree your God is imperfect then I'm ok with it then we can move on to the next argument.

The first thing you need to understand is that God is the only perfect being, this perfection is also exhibited in all His names and attributes! He is the Creator, and what He (SWT) creates, He creates in a perfect way that suits His perfect wisdom for the perfect purpose He created it for. The cell which is defined as the structural and functional unit of living organism, is perfect for its purpose! Scientist have studied this basic unit of life for several decades, and there is nothing that can be compared to it with regards its structure and function! Since man is claiming to be intelligent, why are they finding it difficult to make such a living system without recourse to it?! If it were something that just randomly came together, then the intelligent scientists would have been able to easily replicate this randomness (since there was no intelligence involved) and provide empirical evidence for this, but what we have after years and millions of dollars in research, they haven't achieved this.

sino:


It seems until you write a whole lot, you wouldn't convince yourself that you have made a point?! All the story story you have written doesn't show that my statement was wrong in anyway. The example of E-coli with about 4.6 X 10⁶ bp was given in Leghninger, and that error occurs only ONCE per 1000 - 10,000 replications! if this is your own definition of prone to error, then you need to examine your brain! Again, Leghninger used VERY ACCURATE to describe the replication process, but olodo like you is arguing this, and explaining erroneously what had already been clarified in the textbook! For your information, the repair process also gives the replication of the DNA that level of accurateness in order to maintain genetic integrity! Again, I stated clearly that such errors are repaired through a process of checks and repairs that follow a guided rule. Even if the repair process is after replication, it is still part of the process of maintaining genomic integrity!. This is breaking it down for all to understand and not going about writing epistles that is just exposing your inadequacies and insecurities! You really need comprehension lessons!

Lol, I can relate to how you feel right now. In the first tripe you made, you said DNA replication is very accurate. When I objected you came back and started rewriting your mistake by saying the errors due to replication are repaired. Aren't you silly by going back on your words? If replication is accurate, would it be repaired? . Your headline point was wrong, had you read through the explanation, you wouldn't have said that nonsense. Replication is distinct from repair. Repairs save replication from errors. Hence replication is error prone, even if it is one out of 100000000. Error is error. Bobrisky is ugly, but with make up he is beautiful. Does that change the fact that bobrisky is ugly? NO! Replication is error prone, but with repair replication is made to be nearly accurate. Does that change the fact that replication is error prone? NO

These things are simple, but you're unintelligent enough to grasp them. I have really tried for you. The bolded actually reveals how dishonest you are, even if the repair is after replication, lol. Shame unto you Sino. . Empty head!

sino:


You know next to nothing about abiogenesis, even your understanding of biochemistry is suspect, no wonder you are just dogmatic about your belief in science. Since you believe that life doesn't need intelligence and that abiogenesis is true, answer these questions:

Did Venter and his team depended on life to make their synthetic genome?! And can the synthetic genome function without a living cell?! Would you say Venter and his team were not intelligent?! And given their intelligence and advanced tools, still, they had difficulties in making a synthetic genome on their own, how then was it possible for life to have begun on primitive earth without all these intelligence and sophisticated machineries at the disposal of Venter and his team?!

Remember, the thread is about exposing your foolishness, and by the way, you are doing a great job!

Lol, I have successfully taught you lots of biochemistry with this back and forth, even though you don't want to accept that, it's alright. I am not arguing anymore about Craig Venter research, even lehninger claimed the research was a breakthrough to creating life from inanimate chemicals. So why would I even take a pseudoscientist serious. I have studied biochemistry and graduated and still studying it. If a random scientific rogue like you think I don't know it on Nairaland, what does it change? I have always screenshotted clearly stated explanation to buttress my points. I see how you accepted being schooled on the organization of life, yet I know nothing. I agree, I know nothing but when it comes to you and biochemistry, I am many steps agead of the likes of you. .

Theres is nothing like intelligent design in science, it has already being established. Embrace science and drop your fantasies. And stop asking questions, I have answered like a million already. Answer the ones I asked. Give us a plausible, hypothetical mechanism of how life began aside abiogenesis. Tell us how Allah the intelligence was able to create errors.

sino:


I just saw that you presented a dictionary meaning for accurate, funny you jumped the first meaning which is precise, to state that it means perfect, lol, not that perfect is wrong, but if you had any understanding of biochemistry and then Use of English, you would have known that precise is the best synonym to give to accurate in this context. DNA follows a precise (acccurate) base pairing of A-T and G-C during replication...As established, you are a lousy biochemist!

Lol, again and again. Misrepresentation as usual. Do you want to start misrepresenting English words again?
Accurate, precise, perfect all mean the same thing. Is DNA replication precise? Or the ADDITIONAL repair mecahnism helps set it straight as I am doing to you now. You must learn biochemistry.

Meanwhile, stop avoiding the questions put to you, explain how an intelligence that is all knowing could be so fallible by creating a system of replication that fails sometimes. Give us a plausible, hypothetical meachanism of how this intelligence created life.

Nb: lehninger and all biochemistry texts agree with abiogenesis, so you should be careful what you reference. The quran is not allowed because it is full of fantasies.

sino:


The first thing you need to understand is that God is the only perfect being, this perfection is also exhibited in all His names and attributes! He is the Creator, and what He (SWT) creates, He creates in a perfect way that suits His perfect wisdom for the perfect purpose He created it for. The cell which is defined as the structural and functional unit of living organism, is perfect for its purpose! Scientist have studied this basic unit of life for several decades, and there is nothing that can be compared to it with regards its structure and function! Since man is claiming to be intelligent, why are they finding it difficult to make such a living system without recourse to it?! If it were something that just randomly came together, then the intelligent scientists would have been able to easily replicate this randomness (since there was no intelligence involved) and provide empirical evidence for this, but what we have after years and millions of dollars in research, they haven't achieved this.

You want scientists to just replicate something that happened spontaneously billion years ago just like that? And besides it has been gradually done by scientists already, I wonder why you're been dishonest here.

A cell evolve and when something evolve it means it's not perfect, so a perfect all-knowng creator is an illusion here, such creator is learning and evolving in intelligence or better still such creator did not created the cell perfectly.

There is no room for perfection in evolution!

tintingz:
You want scientists to just replicate something that happened billions years ago just like that? And besides it has been gradually done by scientists already, I wonder why you're been dishonest here.

A cell evolve and when something evolve it means it's not perfect, so a perfect all-knowng creator is an illusion here, such creator is learning and evolving in intelligence or better still such creator did not created the cell perfectly.

There is no room for perfection in evolution!

You don't need to even argue that such creator is imperfect. The creator whether perfect or otherwise should be provided with empirical evidence. When the evidence of such creator is available, then we will look at how intelligent or stupid the creator is. You cannot just claim that a creator exists. The research of creating the molecules that maintains and perpetuates life was clear. But the guy is just so obviously dishonest and is desperate to include a strange intelligence as the designer. It is a very stupid position.

Akin1212:


Lol, I can relate to how you feel right now. In the first tripe you made, you said DNA replication is very accurate. When I objected you came back and started rewriting your mistake by saying the errors due to replication are repaired. Aren't you silly by going back on your words? If replication is accurate, would it be repaired? . Your headline point was wrong, had you read through the explanation, you wouldn't have said that nonsense. Replication is distinct from repair. Repairs save replication from errors. Hence replication is error prone, even if it is one out of 100000000. Error is error. Bobrisky is ugly, but with make up he is beautiful. Does that change the fact that bobrisky is ugly? NO! Replication is error prone, but with repair replication is made to be nearly accurate. Does that change the fact that replication is error prone? NO

These things are simple, but you're unintelligent enough to grasp them. I have really tried for you. The bolded actually reveals how dishonest you are, even if the repair is after replication, lol. Shame unto you Sino. . Empty head!

I said you were discombobulated, but you are actually delusional! Go back and read my post properly, read my initial post on DNA replication and then my referenced quote. It wasn't "my" headline, but a subheading in a textbook of biochemistry! It is funny how you a nobody with absolutely no research worth mentioning to criticize a textbook written by Professors of Biochemistry, please what type of weed are you on?! Perhaps when you write your own textbook like never on Biochemistry, you might have a point here!

Akin1212:

Lol, I have successfully taught you lots of biochemistry with this back and forth, even though you don't want to accept that, it's alright. I am not arguing anymore about Craig Venter research, even lehninger claimed the research was a breakthrough to creating life from inanimate chemicals. So why would I even take a pseudoscientist serious. I have studied biochemistry and graduated and still studying it. If a random scientific rogue like you think I don't know it on Nairaland, what does it change? I have always screenshotted clearly stated explanation to buttress my points. I see how you accepted being schooled on the organization of life, yet I know nothing. I agree, I know nothing but when it comes to you and biochemistry, I am many steps agead of the likes of you. .

Theres is nothing like intelligent design in science, it has already being established. Embrace science and drop your fantasies. And stop asking questions, I have answered like a million already. Answer the ones I asked. Give us a plausible, hypothetical mechanism of how life began aside abiogenesis. Tell us how Allah the intelligence was able to create errors.

I thought as much, you are probably a fresh graduate with little or no contribution to research. No wonder the many gaffes, and your difficulty to access journals that aren't free! The taught of you teaching me anything is ridiculous, while I was pointing you to exclusive journals and textbooks, you were busy googling, going to wiki and quoting news blogs and science mags...

Akin1212:

Lol, again and again. Misrepresentation as usual. Do you want to start misrepresenting English words again?
Accurate, precise, perfect all mean the same thing. Is DNA replication precise? Or the ADDITIONAL repair mecahnism helps set it straight as I am doing to you now. You must learn biochemistry.

Meanwhile, stop avoiding the questions put to you, explain how an intelligence that is all knowing could be so fallible by creating a system of replication that fails sometimes. Give us a plausible, hypothetical meachanism of how this intelligence created life.

Nb: lehninger and all biochemistry texts agree with abiogenesis, so you should be careful what you reference. The quran is not allowed because it is full of fantasies.

Gosh! I even made it easy by giving you a hint...Is the DNA replication not precise (accurate) in the base pairing of the nucleotides so that A bonds to T and G to C?! Isn't that the reason for the complementarity of the DNA molecule and the replication is said to be semi-conservative?! I knew you would make another gaffe, I am not surprised at all! You do not have the capacity to argue this, the facts are clear, and not only Lehninger uses the word 'accurate', but also other biochemistry textbooks! But here you are, arguing blindly, like you always do!

Lastly,

"B. Chemical Evolution

In the remainder of this section, we describe the most widely favored scenario for the origin of life.Keep in mind, however, that there are valid scientific objections to this scenario as well as to the several others that have been seriously entertained, so that we are far from certain as to how life arose." (Biochemistry, Voet & Voet)

Real science deals with real data and empirical evidences, but a blind faith in science needs just an assumption from a scientist, and it becomes true! Talk of believing in fantasies.....

Akin1212:


This sounds more like a subjective opinion. List the schools and countries who stopped teaching it, I'll like to see if it's not the ones who have sworn to hold on to imaginary spirits.

List the countries please, the countries that have opted to teach creation science over evolutionary biology.

You can't just come online and be representing your guesses as facts.

Lol, people need to be educated about evolution.

Evolution has strong evidences that no one can deny it, even many religious scientists agreed with evolution.

Akin1212:


You don't need to even argue that such creator is imperfect. The creator whether perfect or otherwise should be provided with empirical evidence. When the evidence of such creator is available, then we will look at how intelligent or stupid the creator is. You cannot just claim that a creator exists. The research of creating the molecules that maintains and perpetuates life was clear. But the guy is just so obviously dishonest and is desperate to include a strange intelligence as the designer. It is a very stupid position.

Sometimes it's good to use reversed argument like reductio ad absurdum.

It weaken the argument that the opponent will realize how ridiculous his belief is.

Since they fantasize that their God created everything, using evolution and Big bang will make such God imperfect which contradicts the version of their God attributes, then we can go to the next argument if this God exist and even if it exist it's not worthy of worship or be called omniscient/God.

sino:


I said you were discombobulated, but you are actually delusional! Go back and read my post properly, read my initial post on DNA replication and then my referenced quote. It wasn't "my" headline, but a subheading in a textbook of biochemistry! It is funny how you a nobody with absolutely no research worth mentioning to criticize a textbook written by Professors of Biochemistry, please what type of weed are you on?! Perhaps when you write your own textbook like never on Biochemistry, you might have a point here!




I thought as much, you are probably a fresh graduate with little or no contribution to research. No wonder the many gaffes, and your difficulty to access journals that aren't free! The taught of you teaching me anything is ridiculous, while I was pointing you to exclusive journals and textbooks, you were busy googling, going to wiki and quoting news blogs and science mags...



Gosh! I even made it easy by giving you a hint...Is the DNA replication not precise (accurate) in the base pairing of the nucleotides so that A bonds to T and G to C?! Isn't that the reason for the complementarity of the DNA molecule and the replication is said to be semi-conservative?! I knew you would make another gaffe, I am not surprised at all! You do not have the capacity to argue this, the facts are clear, and not only Lehninger uses the word 'accurate', but also other biochemistry textbooks! But here you are, arguing blindly, like you always do!

Lastly,

"B. Chemical Evolution

In the remainder of this section, we describe the most widely favored scenario for the origin of life.Keep in mind, however, that there are valid scientific objections to this scenario as well as to the several others that have been seriously entertained, so that we are far from certain as to how life arose." (Biochemistry, Voet & Voet)

Real science deals with real data and empirical evidences, but a blind faith in science needs just an assumption from a scientist, and it becomes true! Talk of believing in fantasies.....

I have said all I needed to say about abiogenesis, accept it or not! Your choice. I'm done with going back and forth with an unrepentant ignorant fellow who does not want to learn.

Give us a factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true. We are waiting...

Akin1212:


I have said all I needed to say about abiogenesis, accept it or not! Your choice. I'm done with going back and forth with an unrepentant ignorant fellow who does not want to learn.

Give us a factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true. We are waiting...

You are the one in need of serious learning! Science isn't based on blind faith as you have continuously demonstrated here, it is based on real and observable data! When there are loads of assumptions in an hypothesis or there are several hypothetical models to explain one phenomenon, and there happens to be no consensus as these models are trying to explain abiogenesis in divergent ways, and the experiments that aims at proving these hypotheses are either unrealistic, have failed or have valid scientific objections, then it is unlikely to be provable and thus cannot be said to be scientific. But by all means, you can have faith that abiogenesis is true, since you said "the truth about science is that it is true"...Even without empirical evidences....

You can choose to accept there is a creator or there isn't, but the evidences you seek are right in front of you, and as you have faith in science, I also have this strong faith that in the nearest future, the undeniable evidence would be shown to you...

Might I remind you again that the thread is about the foolishness of atheism, and by all means, you have demonstrated this to be true, especially for you, as your 'believe' in abiogenesis to support your atheism does not have the supporting empirical evidences from a scientific point of view!

"B. Chemical Evolution

In the remainder of this section, we describe the most widely favored scenario for the origin of life.Keep in mind, however, that there are valid scientific objections to this scenario as well as to the several others that have been seriously entertained, so that we are far from certain as to how life arose." (Biochemistry, Voet & Voet)

Allah (SWT), The Creator Says:

"Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain." (Qur'an 52: 35-36)

If life is this difficult for the supposed intelligent man with all the advancement in science and technology, to be certain of how it came to be on this earth, is it then the origin of the universe that is certainly proven?!

sino:


Allah (SWT), The Creator Says:

"Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain." (Qur'an 52: 35-36)

If life is this difficult for the supposed intelligent man with all the advancement in science and technology, to be certain of how it came to be on this earth, is it then the origin of the universe that is certainly proven?!

A theory or hypothesis that is backed by experiments is not to be believed. Craig Venter and his team created a genome from a mix of chemicals that can maintain and perpetuate life. That alone demonstrated the creation of life from chemicals. That's abiogenesis. It doesn't need faith to be accepted, I have said all I needed to say about that. Now it's your turn to give us observable evidence like abiogenesis presented.

Is this the factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true? Allah and quranic verses?

sino:




Allah (SWT), The Creator Says:

"Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain." (Qur'an 52: 35-36)

If life is this difficult for the supposed intelligent man with all the advancement in science and technology, to be certain of how it came to be on this earth, is it then the origin of the universe that is certainly proven?!

What a hypocritical, bias, illogical argument from the Quran.

So the Quran believe we were not created by nothing but believe we were created from nothing? This is highly fallacious!

"Were they the creator of themselves?" The Quran is telling us something cannot exist without a creator, we then need to ask who created Allah?

If you said Allah has no creator and exist himself or has been existing then you have violate the logical argument "everything must have a creator" we can use same argument for the universe that it exist itself or has been existing.

Akin1212:


A theory or hypothesis that is backed by experiments is not to be believed. Craig Venter and his team created a genome from a mix of chemicals that can maintain and perpetuate life. That alone demonstrated the creation of life from chemicals. That's abiogenesis. It doesn't need faith to be accepted, I have said all I needed to say about that. Now it's your turn to give us observable evidence like abiogenesis presented.

Is this the factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true? Allah and quranic verses?

Venter and his team, had to use living organisms to achieve their goal. They had intelligence, they had a plan and they had the advantage of advanced technology and favourable conditions which can not be said to be same in the primitive earth. Yet, to make a genome, they depended on a living yeast cell, then a living bacterial cell to check the genome for errors, and then transplant the tested genome into another living bacterial cell! This proves that life is actually needed to make another life! What Venter and his team did is not abiogenesis!

You need not be informed how a computer was invented before you believe that it was, and it would be foolish of you even if you do not understand the processes and mechanism of how it was invented to start arguing that it came to be by random chance. So far, the experiments you hold on to are quite showing the impossibility of these nonliving chemicals to just come together by chance and become a living organism, without any intelligence directing it so as to reach the level of complexity we now have, especially in man. That there is a creator of life is quite simple to understand and believe, and it is a universal truth!