Galaxies already had enough material to form planets and life inthe early Universe!

In article
,
"Chris.B" wrote:

snip

Doesn't DNA wear out with time? Too many replications, with too many
errors, produces senility, weakness and cancers in old age. Would the
same hold true for an entire species?

Unlikely in reality, as long as natural selection continues to
contribute negentropy, but for imagined fatigue on a larger scale see
J.G. Ballard's "The Voices of Time" (1960).

--
Odysseus

On 5/19/12 4:23 PM, GogoJF wrote:


The early universe does not exist- only us and a developed universe
wherever you peer.

Actually when we look out, we look back in time, because of the
finite speed of light.

We see; the moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. The sun is as it
was more than eight minutes ago. The Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million
years ago... The CMB shows us features of the universe 13.7 Gyrs
ago.

Quoting astronomer Sandy Faber, "These giant telescopes, they
are the only true time machines that human beings have and they
are totally faithful. There's nothing hokey about this. You look
through a giant telescope, you get a view of a very distant region
of space, and it is as though you were a historian and could put
your eye to a telescope and actually see Hannibal crossing the
Alps and all those elephants trotting along. We are *actually
seeing the universe and the things in it behaving as they did
billions of years ago*".

On 5/19/12 4:25 PM, GogoJF wrote:


The universe we observe is all the same age.

Actually when we look out, we look back in time, because of the
finite speed of light.

We see; the moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. The sun is as it
was more than eight minutes ago. The Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million
years ago... The CMB shows us features of the universe 13.7 Gyrs
ago.

Quoting astronomer Sandy Faber, "These giant telescopes, they
are the only true time machines that human beings have and they
are totally faithful. There's nothing hokey about this. You look
through a giant telescope, you get a view of a very distant region
of space, and it is as though you were a historian and could put
your eye to a telescope and actually see Hannibal crossing the
Alps and all those elephants trotting along. We are actually
seeing the universe and the things in it behaving as they did
billions of years ago".

"John Polasek" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:35:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete
wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
first being generated in Population III Stars.

Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.

http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12...l-maybe-not-p/

"Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"

Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
requirement.

A source of energy, such as lightning.
I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.

There is no requirement to convince a bigot. You are free to believe
anything you want to, but if you want to discuss it then you'll have
to use logic.



You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
guanine, cytosine and thymine.

That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before life
can
exist.
You digress.

No I don't, you raised the issue of "someone clever enough to devise..."
"and then he has to string...".
If anyone is digressing it is you.


The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
G, C & T created themselves.

Yes. Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
What's so strange about that?


Never mind that we are unable to do it in
the lab, as far as I know.

You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.

Even having them, there's more work to do
to put them to work.

Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get it
to work.


And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.

It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?

Because this a sci. newsgroup and you are just another preacher.

It takes a God, and
one much more clever than we give him credit for.

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
-- Augustus De Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Your statement is a logical fallacy.

Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.

So what?
That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that out.

On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:34:22 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:35:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete
wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
first being generated in Population III Stars.

Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.

http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12...l-maybe-not-p/

"Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"

Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
requirement.

A source of energy, such as lightning.
I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.

There is no requirement to convince a bigot. You are free to believe
anything you want to, but if you want to discuss it then you'll have
to use logic.



You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
guanine, cytosine and thymine.

That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before life
can
exist.
You digress.

No I don't, you raised the issue of "someone clever enough to devise..."
"and then he has to string...".
If anyone is digressing it is you.


The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
G, C & T created themselves.

Yes. Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
What's so strange about that?
For extra credit, tell me how a base, e.g. adnine, can invent itself,
and for even more credit, tell why it would feel impelled to do so,
lacking any sort of blueprint or other plan.
You're willing to believe in magic.
Never mind that we are unable to do it in
the lab, as far as I know.

You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.

Even having them, there's more work to do
to put them to work.

Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get it
to work.
Considering that DNA contains 6 billion base pairs in a particularly
favorable arrangement, tell me how they could achieve this all by
themselves, even given 3 billion years, again, without an instruction
manual. (How does anything invent itself?)



And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.

It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?

Because this a sci. newsgroup and you are just another preacher.

It takes a God, and
one much more clever than we give him credit for.

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
-- Augustus De Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Your statement is a logical fallacy.

Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.

So what?
That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that out.
They are using animalculae taken from cultured offal to help do what
man himself cannot do, namely try to rearrange subsets of the code to
come up with something interesting, when in fact the job has already
been done "by the bases all by themselves".
Don't fix what isn't broken.
(How many times do we have to learn that one?).
Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
backwards.

John Polasek

"John Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:34:22 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:35:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete
wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
first being generated in Population III Stars.

Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.

http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12...l-maybe-not-p/

"Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"

Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
requirement.

A source of energy, such as lightning.
I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.

There is no requirement to convince a bigot. You are free to believe
anything you want to, but if you want to discuss it then you'll have
to use logic.



You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
guanine, cytosine and thymine.

That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before life
can
exist.
You digress.

No I don't, you raised the issue of "someone clever enough to devise..."
"and then he has to string...".
If anyone is digressing it is you.


The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
G, C & T created themselves.

Yes. Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
What's so strange about that?
For extra credit, tell me how a base, e.g. adnine, can invent itself,
and for even more credit, tell why it would feel impelled to do so,
lacking any sort of blueprint or other plan.
You're willing to believe in magic.

I asked you a question that you declined to answer.
Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
It forms H2O, not HO2, not HO, not HO3, not H2O3, but it
can form H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) which changes women's
hair colour to blonde. If that is magic then I believe in it.
To get any credence at all, answer the question.
I repeat: What's so strange about that?



Never mind that we are unable to do it in
the lab, as far as I know.

You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.

Even having them, there's more work to do
to put them to work.

Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get
it
to work.
Considering that DNA contains 6 billion base pairs in a particularly
favorable arrangement, tell me how they could achieve this all by
themselves, even given 3 billion years, again, without an instruction
manual. (How does anything invent itself?)

So water needs an instruction manual written by your god.
How did your god invent herself and when did she do it?




And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.

It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?

Because this a sci. newsgroup and you are just another preacher.

It takes a God, and
one much more clever than we give him credit for.

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
-- Augustus De Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Your statement is a logical fallacy.

Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.

So what?
That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that out.
They are using animalculae taken from cultured offal to help do what
man himself cannot do, namely try to rearrange subsets of the code to
come up with something interesting, when in fact the job has already
been done "by the bases all by themselves".
Don't fix what isn't broken.
(How many times do we have to learn that one?).

People are flying in planes all over the world right now, yet nobody
invented all the parts. The electronics engineer doesn't design jet
engines, the hydraulics engineer doesn't design the airframe, the
autopilot needs a software engineer, not a landing wheels designer.
The details are left to specialists. Nobody did everything that makes
up a modern plane. If it is broken we fix it, and planes do break.

You are not even a chemist, let alone a biochemist, yet you dream
you are competent to meddle and criticise their methods.


Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
backwards.

You digress. Entropy says all the pool balls will be scattered on the
table and will not rearrange themselves into a triangle at the start of
the game by themselves, WITHOUT some energy put into the pool
table system. But a human being does provide that energy. So will
an earthquake that tilts the table, rolling the balls to one end where
they form triangles. There is no violation of entropy when external
energy comes into the system. The Earth is a closed system with
an external energy source, the Sun. No entropy violation. With no
Sun, entropy wins and everything dies.

On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:08:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:34:22 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
news On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:35:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete
wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter three
first being generated in Population III Stars.

Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.

http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12...l-maybe-not-p/

"Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"

Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one other
requirement.

A source of energy, such as lightning.
I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.

There is no requirement to convince a bigot. You are free to believe
anything you want to, but if you want to discuss it then you'll have
to use logic.



You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
guanine, cytosine and thymine.

That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before life
can
exist.
You digress.

No I don't, you raised the issue of "someone clever enough to devise..."
"and then he has to string...".
If anyone is digressing it is you.


The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
G, C & T created themselves.

Yes. Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
What's so strange about that?
For extra credit, tell me how a base, e.g. adnine, can invent itself,
and for even more credit, tell why it would feel impelled to do so,
lacking any sort of blueprint or other plan.
You're willing to believe in magic.

I asked you a question that you declined to answer.
Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
It forms H2O, not HO2, not HO, not HO3, not H2O3, but it
can form H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) which changes women's
hair colour to blonde. If that is magic then I believe in it.
To get any credence at all, answer the question.
I repeat: What's so strange about that?
I never denied lightning could join hydrogen and oxygen, it's an
extension of high school chemistry. But that's the end of its
virtuosity.

I am talking about life elements adenine, guanine, cytosine and
thymine, molecules of far greater complexity and how they; are able to
work together.

These operate in pairs:
adenine with guanine;
cytosine with thymine.

adenine has
N4H4C3+NH2
while guanine has
N4H4C3+O
adenine has to have the prescience to look for a partner guanine and
they pair up.
Ponder a bit and see if you can envision these bases inventing
themselves and in such an ingenious way by linking O and NH2. They
must be able in some way to sense that this is a bright idea.
John Polasek




Never mind that we are unable to do it in
the lab, as far as I know.

You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.

Even having them, there's more work to do
to put them to work.

Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get
it
to work.
Considering that DNA contains 6 billion base pairs in a particularly
favorable arrangement, tell me how they could achieve this all by
themselves, even given 3 billion years, again, without an instruction
manual. (How does anything invent itself?)

So water needs an instruction manual written by your god.
How did your god invent herself and when did she do it?




And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.

It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?

Because this a sci. newsgroup and you are just another preacher.

It takes a God, and
one much more clever than we give him credit for.

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
-- Augustus De Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Your statement is a logical fallacy.

Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.

So what?
That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that out.
They are using animalculae taken from cultured offal to help do what
man himself cannot do, namely try to rearrange subsets of the code to
come up with something interesting, when in fact the job has already
been done "by the bases all by themselves".
Don't fix what isn't broken.
(How many times do we have to learn that one?).

People are flying in planes all over the world right now, yet nobody
invented all the parts. The electronics engineer doesn't design jet
engines, the hydraulics engineer doesn't design the airframe, the
autopilot needs a software engineer, not a landing wheels designer.
The details are left to specialists. Nobody did everything that makes
up a modern plane. If it is broken we fix it, and planes do break.

You are not even a chemist, let alone a biochemist, yet you dream
you are competent to meddle and criticise their methods.


Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
backwards.

You digress. Entropy says all the pool balls will be scattered on the
table and will not rearrange themselves into a triangle at the start of
the game by themselves, WITHOUT some energy put into the pool
table system. But a human being does provide that energy. So will
an earthquake that tilts the table, rolling the balls to one end where
they form triangles. There is no violation of entropy when external
energy comes into the system. The Earth is a closed system with
an external energy source, the Sun. No entropy violation. With no
Sun, entropy wins and everything dies.

"John Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:08:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:34:22 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
news On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:35:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
news:u9mfr7lrkgaugat3sn5kms53kgplsnv35f@4ax. com...
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete
wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter
three
first being generated in Population III Stars.

Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.

http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12...l-maybe-not-p/

"Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"

Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one
other
requirement.

A source of energy, such as lightning.
I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.

There is no requirement to convince a bigot. You are free to believe
anything you want to, but if you want to discuss it then you'll have
to use logic.



You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
guanine, cytosine and thymine.

That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before
life
can
exist.
You digress.

No I don't, you raised the issue of "someone clever enough to devise..."
"and then he has to string...".
If anyone is digressing it is you.


The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
G, C & T created themselves.

Yes. Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
What's so strange about that?
For extra credit, tell me how a base, e.g. adnine, can invent itself,
and for even more credit, tell why it would feel impelled to do so,
lacking any sort of blueprint or other plan.
You're willing to believe in magic.

I asked you a question that you declined to answer.
Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
It forms H2O, not HO2, not HO, not HO3, not H2O3, but it
can form H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) which changes women's
hair colour to blonde. If that is magic then I believe in it.
To get any credence at all, answer the question.
I repeat: What's so strange about that?
I never denied lightning could join hydrogen and oxygen, it's an
extension of high school chemistry. But that's the end of its
virtuosity.

I am talking about life elements adenine, guanine, cytosine and
thymine, molecules of far greater complexity and how they; are able to
work together.

These operate in pairs:
adenine with guanine;
cytosine with thymine.

adenine has
N4H4C3+NH2
while guanine has
N4H4C3+O
adenine has to have the prescience to look for a partner guanine and
they pair up.
Ponder a bit and see if you can envision these bases inventing
themselves and in such an ingenious way by linking O and NH2. They
must be able in some way to sense that this is a bright idea.

The only "must" is your ignorance and faith. I see you declined
to answer any further points I've made. So be it, I need not
answer you. You have no credibility.



Never mind that we are unable to do it in
the lab, as far as I know.

You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.

Even having them, there's more work to do
to put them to work.

Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get
it
to work.
Considering that DNA contains 6 billion base pairs in a particularly
favorable arrangement, tell me how they could achieve this all by
themselves, even given 3 billion years, again, without an instruction
manual. (How does anything invent itself?)

So water needs an instruction manual written by your god.
How did your god invent herself and when did she do it?




And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.

It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?

Because this a sci. newsgroup and you are just another preacher.

It takes a God, and
one much more clever than we give him credit for.

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
-- Augustus De Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Your statement is a logical fallacy.

Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.

So what?
That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that out.
They are using animalculae taken from cultured offal to help do what
man himself cannot do, namely try to rearrange subsets of the code to
come up with something interesting, when in fact the job has already
been done "by the bases all by themselves".
Don't fix what isn't broken.
(How many times do we have to learn that one?).

People are flying in planes all over the world right now, yet nobody
invented all the parts. The electronics engineer doesn't design jet
engines, the hydraulics engineer doesn't design the airframe, the
autopilot needs a software engineer, not a landing wheels designer.
The details are left to specialists. Nobody did everything that makes
up a modern plane. If it is broken we fix it, and planes do break.

You are not even a chemist, let alone a biochemist, yet you dream
you are competent to meddle and criticise their methods.


Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
backwards.

You digress. Entropy says all the pool balls will be scattered on the
table and will not rearrange themselves into a triangle at the start of
the game by themselves, WITHOUT some energy put into the pool
table system. But a human being does provide that energy. So will
an earthquake that tilts the table, rolling the balls to one end where
they form triangles. There is no violation of entropy when external
energy comes into the system. The Earth is a closed system with
an external energy source, the Sun. No entropy violation. With no
Sun, entropy wins and everything dies.

On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:39:33 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:08:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:34:22 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
news On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:35:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
news:u9mfr7lrkgaugat3sn5kms53kgplsnv35f@4ax .com...
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete
wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter
three
first being generated in Population III Stars.

Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.

http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12...l-maybe-not-p/

"Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"

Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one
other
requirement.

A source of energy, such as lightning.
I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.

There is no requirement to convince a bigot. You are free to believe
anything you want to, but if you want to discuss it then you'll have
to use logic.



You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals, adnine,
guanine, cytosine and thymine.

That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before
life
can
exist.
You digress.

No I don't, you raised the issue of "someone clever enough to devise..."
"and then he has to string...".
If anyone is digressing it is you.


The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
G, C & T created themselves.

Yes. Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
What's so strange about that?
For extra credit, tell me how a base, e.g. adnine, can invent itself,
and for even more credit, tell why it would feel impelled to do so,
lacking any sort of blueprint or other plan.
You're willing to believe in magic.

I asked you a question that you declined to answer.
Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
It forms H2O, not HO2, not HO, not HO3, not H2O3, but it
can form H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) which changes women's
hair colour to blonde. If that is magic then I believe in it.
To get any credence at all, answer the question.
I repeat: What's so strange about that?
I never denied lightning could join hydrogen and oxygen, it's an
extension of high school chemistry. But that's the end of its
virtuosity.

I am talking about life elements adenine, guanine, cytosine and
thymine, molecules of far greater complexity and how they; are able to
work together.

These operate in pairs:
adenine with guanine;
cytosine with thymine.

adenine has
N4H4C3+NH2
while guanine has
N4H4C3+O
adenine has to have the prescience to look for a partner guanine and
they pair up.
Ponder a bit and see if you can envision these bases inventing
themselves and in such an ingenious way by linking O and NH2. They
must be able in some way to sense that this is a bright idea.

The only "must" is your ignorance and faith. I see you declined
to answer any further points I've made. So be it, I need not
answer you. You have no credibility.
I see you have even run out of diatribe.

Due to your short attention span you have forgotten that you brought
up the topic of lightning and it's up to you to show how it could
have augmented any of the base pair processes. In your primitive
example, you knock a couple of electrons out and you get water, a dead
end.

I cannot bring myself to believe that the 6 billion base pairs would
automatically (well, even with lightning) assume their proper places
to make unique 4bit code strings that are needed to, lets say,
procreate, and well, build cars and subdivisions.
Good luck with the water. We hope they find it on a planet.


Never mind that we are unable to do it in
the lab, as far as I know.

You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.

Even having them, there's more work to do
to put them to work.

Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to get
it
to work.
Considering that DNA contains 6 billion base pairs in a particularly
favorable arrangement, tell me how they could achieve this all by
themselves, even given 3 billion years, again, without an instruction
manual. (How does anything invent itself?)

So water needs an instruction manual written by your god.
How did your god invent herself and when did she do it?




And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will, in
addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.

It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?

Because this a sci. newsgroup and you are just another preacher.

It takes a God, and
one much more clever than we give him credit for.

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
-- Augustus De Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Your statement is a logical fallacy.

Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.

So what?
That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that out.
They are using animalculae taken from cultured offal to help do what
man himself cannot do, namely try to rearrange subsets of the code to
come up with something interesting, when in fact the job has already
been done "by the bases all by themselves".
Don't fix what isn't broken.
(How many times do we have to learn that one?).
With the E.coli, they are letting God do it; E.coli are not that
smart.
People are flying in planes all over the world right now, yet nobody
invented all the parts. The electronics engineer doesn't design jet
engines, the hydraulics engineer doesn't design the airframe, the
autopilot needs a software engineer, not a landing wheels designer.
The details are left to specialists. Nobody did everything that makes
up a modern plane. If it is broken we fix it, and planes do break.

You are not even a chemist, let alone a biochemist, yet you dream
you are competent to meddle and criticise their methods.


Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
backwards.

You digress. Entropy says all the pool balls will be scattered on the
table and will not rearrange themselves into a triangle at the start of
the game by themselves, WITHOUT some energy put into the pool
table system. But a human being does provide that energy. So will
an earthquake that tilts the table, rolling the balls to one end where
they form triangles. There is no violation of entropy when external
energy comes into the system. The Earth is a closed system with
an external energy source, the Sun. No entropy violation. With no
Sun, entropy wins and everything dies.

John Polasek

"John Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:39:33 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 20 May 2012 08:08:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 20 May 2012 00:34:22 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
newsf0gr796v5ot5frfboab39sqijskmsh5ps@4ax. com...
On Sat, 19 May 2012 19:35:54 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"John Polasek" wrote in message
news:u9mfr7lrkgaugat3sn5kms53kgplsnv35f@4a x.com...
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:58:53 -0400, pete
wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Why not--life can get by with H, C, N and O with the latter
three
first being generated in Population III Stars.

Those four elements are essential, but insufficient.

http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/12...l-maybe-not-p/

"Those four elements are essential, but insufficient"

Insufficient is right. It is child's play to define at least one
other
requirement.

A source of energy, such as lightning.
I read that same Popular Mechanics article and I was not convinced.

There is no requirement to convince a bigot. You are free to believe
anything you want to, but if you want to discuss it then you'll have
to use logic.



You still need someone clever enough to devise 4 chemicals,
adnine,
guanine, cytosine and thymine.

That's an illogical fallacy, it requires life (he) to exist before
life
can
exist.
You digress.

No I don't, you raised the issue of "someone clever enough to
devise..."
"and then he has to string...".
If anyone is digressing it is you.


The counter argument has to be the alternative, that A,
G, C & T created themselves.

Yes. Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
What's so strange about that?
For extra credit, tell me how a base, e.g. adnine, can invent itself,
and for even more credit, tell why it would feel impelled to do so,
lacking any sort of blueprint or other plan.
You're willing to believe in magic.

I asked you a question that you declined to answer.
Water makes itself when a spark ignites hydrogen and oxygen.
It forms H2O, not HO2, not HO, not HO3, not H2O3, but it
can form H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) which changes women's
hair colour to blonde. If that is magic then I believe in it.
To get any credence at all, answer the question.
I repeat: What's so strange about that?
I never denied lightning could join hydrogen and oxygen, it's an
extension of high school chemistry. But that's the end of its
virtuosity.

I am talking about life elements adenine, guanine, cytosine and
thymine, molecules of far greater complexity and how they; are able to
work together.

These operate in pairs:
adenine with guanine;
cytosine with thymine.

adenine has
N4H4C3+NH2
while guanine has
N4H4C3+O
adenine has to have the prescience to look for a partner guanine and
they pair up.
Ponder a bit and see if you can envision these bases inventing
themselves and in such an ingenious way by linking O and NH2. They
must be able in some way to sense that this is a bright idea.

The only "must" is your ignorance and faith. I see you declined
to answer any further points I've made. So be it, I need not
answer you. You have no credibility.
I see you have even run out of diatribe.

Due to your short attention span you have forgotten that you brought
up the topic of lightning and it's up to you to show how it could
have augmented any of the base pair processes.

Unlike poles attract, like poles repel. No gods needed.
I see you ran out of answering me first, so **** off and
take your god with you.


In your primitive
example, you knock a couple of electrons out and you get water, a dead
end.

I cannot bring myself to believe that the 6 billion base pairs would
automatically (well, even with lightning) assume their proper places
to make unique 4bit code strings that are needed to, lets say,
procreate, and well, build cars and subdivisions.
Good luck with the water. We hope they find it on a planet.


Never mind that we are unable to do it in
the lab, as far as I know.

You only know as far as you want to know. Amino acids are easily
created in the lab, you don't know very far at all.

Even having them, there's more work to do
to put them to work.

Nature has had a billion years to do it and another three billion to
get
it
to work.
Considering that DNA contains 6 billion base pairs in a particularly
favorable arrangement, tell me how they could achieve this all by
themselves, even given 3 billion years, again, without an instruction
manual. (How does anything invent itself?)

So water needs an instruction manual written by your god.
How did your god invent herself and when did she do it?




And then he has to string billions of these together in just the
proper sequence on a molecule 2 meters long and coil it up inside
each cell, so it won't get damaged from random handling and will,
in
addition, arrange for it to self reproduce.

It does get randomly "damaged", i.e. arranged.
Why be all scientific and stiff necked about this?

Because this a sci. newsgroup and you are just another preacher.

It takes a God, and
one much more clever than we give him credit for.

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go
on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
-- Augustus De Morgan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Your statement is a logical fallacy.

Our scientists have to use E.coli to snip and transport parts of the
DNA when they attempt to tinker with species, etc.

So what?
That's not even close to relevant. It is child's play to point that
out.
They are using animalculae taken from cultured offal to help do what
man himself cannot do, namely try to rearrange subsets of the code to
come up with something interesting, when in fact the job has already
been done "by the bases all by themselves".
Don't fix what isn't broken.
(How many times do we have to learn that one?).
With the E.coli, they are letting God do it; E.coli are not that
smart.
People are flying in planes all over the world right now, yet nobody
invented all the parts. The electronics engineer doesn't design jet
engines, the hydraulics engineer doesn't design the airframe, the
autopilot needs a software engineer, not a landing wheels designer.
The details are left to specialists. Nobody did everything that makes
up a modern plane. If it is broken we fix it, and planes do break.

You are not even a chemist, let alone a biochemist, yet you dream
you are competent to meddle and criticise their methods.


Besides which you are violating thermodynamics by running entropy
backwards.

You digress. Entropy says all the pool balls will be scattered on the
table and will not rearrange themselves into a triangle at the start of
the game by themselves, WITHOUT some energy put into the pool
table system. But a human being does provide that energy. So will
an earthquake that tilts the table, rolling the balls to one end where
they form triangles. There is no violation of entropy when external
energy comes into the system. The Earth is a closed system with
an external energy source, the Sun. No entropy violation. With no
Sun, entropy wins and everything dies.

John Polasek