How is the information required for DNA ceated?
- Thread starter stu43t
- Start date
DNA is information in a chemical form.
*edit* I'll extrapolate.
DNA is comprised of four different molecules, called nucleotides. These are transcribed into RNA, which is read in groups of three, and turned into proteins. These molecules are made up naturally, as they aren't especially complex, and have an affinity for one another through hydrogen bonding.
*edit* I'll extrapolate.
DNA is comprised of four different molecules, called nucleotides. These are transcribed into RNA, which is read in groups of three, and turned into proteins. These molecules are made up naturally, as they aren't especially complex, and have an affinity for one another through hydrogen bonding.
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
First of all, you have basically said "if no one can give me a detailed explanation I will be forced to point to God." I dont like this kind of thought process, the truth should not be decided upon default.
To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like "God was always there" and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say "DNA was always there" or "life was always there" and be done with it.
Does your God conclusion tell you how the information required for DNA is created or just tell you that he created it and leave it at that? I go with the latter.
There are several prominant theories regarding DNA.
Cairns-smith theory is that the original replicators were crystals of inorganic materials, such as those found in clays and muds. If I were to get too in depth on this particular theory it would take a great deal and in all honesty would most likely fall on deaf ears.
Whatever the origins of the replicators that lead to eventual DNA, we can be sure it went through a process of cumulative selection. DNA molecules replicate in the complicated machinery of the cell, and written words replicate in Xerox machines, but neither seem capable of spontaneous replication in the absence of their supporting machinery. So to explain DNA in any detail, it is essential to explain the formation of the complex machinery. Its far too long a list of cumulative selection to explain in any detail here, but at least you should get the main idea behind DNA's origins. Which is.... a very long process of cumulative selection eventually lead to the development of the DNA molecule.
Not on default, look at it as an an alternative
No way man, lets get some facts about theories huh, makes sense, no
OK, go for the latter if you want. It's possible
Whoa, even more theories. Let me place them down along with Darwins theory, big bang theory, God theory. Phew, lot to choose from here.
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
Fair enough.
What?
A proper explanation is needed regardless of how you view the origins.
Science cannot wave a magical wand......and wala, there appears an answer. To gather verifible data and come to proper conclusions will naturally be a long process. Scientists do not come out and say "look, heres the answer" and leave it at that, they do not proclaim a certainty without sufficient data behind it.
OK, we now understand that there are approximately 35,000 genes in each human DNA molecule, comprised of approximately 3 billion chemical bases arranged in precise sequence. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries.
We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.
The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted.
So what supplied the information required for DNA?
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
I want to hear what you think.
I feel I'm not qualified to answer your post in the manner necessary to do it justice. This does not mean that science does not have an answer, it means that I do not have an answer due to my personal lack of knowledge on the subject.
Truth Hurts
Registered Senior Member
would you agree that one day (pick one) that god said let there be thiamine, and the next day say let thier be quamamine and on the third day let their be augamine...and I forget the last one but those are the 4 chemicals that make up DNA. you could state god made the 4 chemical but did not make us. we evolved from the basic chemicals he made.
(did he also say let their be Gold, so if these chemiccals bond into thinking beings they will have something to fight over...)
(did he also say let their be Gold, so if these chemiccals bond into thinking beings they will have something to fight over...)
No offense, but it doesn't sound like you know much about either molecular biology or information theory. I would suggest reading some good book on both subjects (note that creationist propaganda books do not count) before you go around making bold declarations about information and genetics.
That doesn't make and sense. The 35,000 or so genes in a human are found on 23 pairs of chromosomes, some of which have more genes than others. There is no single DNA molecule that contains the entire human genome. Also, over 95% of the three billion base pairs that you mentioned are 'junk' that don't actually code for anything and could be arranged in pretty much any order.
Guess what; information can arise from natural forces. It happens all the time. Why do you think that information can't come about because of random natural processes?
All your talk about the information in DNA having to 'come from somewhere,' as if information were some sort of conserved quality like energy or mass, is frankly ridiculous.
Why must you presume that it is God? In the event that there is a lack of an explanation, then all you are left with is a lack of information, is that the definition of God? Even if there were nothing at all which even suggested that DNA existed, there is still no evidence what so ever of God, and as such you could no more believe in him than in DNA.
God can not be used as an explanation for a subject where not enough information is known to draw a proper conclusion. For instance, If I were to ask you what is in my sock drawer, you simply could not answer, because you don't know. Any answer you could give, socks, underwear, a 9" dildo, would be arbitrary and unsupported. In this instance, however, you would not be forced to assume that God is in my sock drawer, because God is not an answer for phenomena about which you have gathered no data.
Voodoo Child
Registered Senior Member
Non-sequiter. You're saying information doesn't have to exist in any particular form. You're right. This does not mean that a particular form(naturalistic, organic) can not create information. If the material base of the information has certain properties that encourage the formation of information, say a 'Q' chemically bonding to a 'u' then there is a relation between the medium and the information.
stu43t:
<i>We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces.</i>
Well, it's a good thing nobody claims that then, isn't it?
Natural selection is not a random process.
<i>We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces.</i>
Well, it's a good thing nobody claims that then, isn't it?
Natural selection is not a random process.
How is the information required for DNA ceated?
The question is very poorly formulated and could be interpreted in any way (like the bible), but if you meant:
How is new genetic information created in an existing DNA strand?
Then my answer is:
Mutation.
The question is very poorly formulated and could be interpreted in any way (like the bible), but if you meant:
How is new genetic information created in an existing DNA strand?
Then my answer is:
Mutation.
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
Good job guys:m:
Hello DefSkeptic,
Good job guys
Yes, it was a job well done. I thank all of you for your views which prove your total disregard of the possibility of a god. Thanks Nassor, youre right, I'm no expert in the subject of DNA, I dont need to read up more, if an outstanding scientific discovery is made I'm sure we'll all hear about it.
The point is although I'm not religious, I do not discount the possibility of a god, nor do I discount any other theory to our beginnings. It would seem that I am more open minded than you.
Good job guys
Yes, it was a job well done. I thank all of you for your views which prove your total disregard of the possibility of a god. Thanks Nassor, youre right, I'm no expert in the subject of DNA, I dont need to read up more, if an outstanding scientific discovery is made I'm sure we'll all hear about it.
The point is although I'm not religious, I do not discount the possibility of a god, nor do I discount any other theory to our beginnings. It would seem that I am more open minded than you.
Open-minded means receptive to arguments or ideas. As far as I can tell, everyone in this thread has received your ideas and addressed them. Calling someone closed-minded because they do not believe in God is the same as calling someone closed-minded because they do not believe that unicorns, leprechauns, and fairies exist.
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
I think you are confusing the issue.
Some theories are better than others obviously. If we can weed the bad ones out and elaborate on the good ones, how is this closeminded?
Good point Jade.
So how do we rate theories, give them marks out of ten. How do you determine a good theory from a bad one. We have all heard about santa and the tooth fairy comparison, but have we heard darwin and the big bang theories scoffed the same way. Is it that you are more learned in science than in faith, or do you personally feel "safer" with scientific ideas.
How can we universally rate theories?