Talk about  jaw dropping  ignorance ! DNA is made of amino acids.

Now you are making me laugh!    Are you sure you don't desire to delete that remark?

This is the basic structure of a DNA molecule:

[img]http://hopes.stanford.edu/basics/dna/f_b02nucleotd.jpg[/img]

As you can see it comprises of the basic three parts, the phosphate group; the deoxyribose sugar, and the nitrogenous base.  Show us the amino acid if you care to. You will find none.

That is why l called amino acids the building blocks of life.  Now wonder why my engineering prof always said if science is too hard for you try religion

Amino acids are indeed the building blocks of life, but every single one of them is put together side by side on a platform with the assistance of the DNA and RNA molecules. The DNA molecule first has to unwind into individual  strands, then one of those strands which becomes the mRNA, has to be furnished with corresponding groups of bases that will code with the tRNA that will deposit the various amino acids to match each mRNA code.

Without going into much detail the amino acids that eventually are joined together will form a particular protein that has a particular work to do.

You see it doesn't matter what type of cells you're dealing with. Every cell receives information from previous cells of its kind to continue life and its processes. So the so-called primitive cell that somehow was formed by the molecules which happened to just come together by natural forces, had to have operated in a similar fashion. It had to have had all the necessary parts in place for it to have become multi-cellular in the process of further protein building, and further membrane restructuring.

So the DNA evidence which has backed up the theory of evolution is false ?

What part of the theory was backed up by it? Be more specific please.

By Bobbyaf originally

Yet we know that amino acids could not have been made without DNA, as well as RNA. With the level of structure that exists within the DNA molecule, one wonders if in the very first primitive cell according to the TOE, that chance alone could have assembled such order and symmetry.

The very structure of a protein molecule itself, in its simplest of forms is so damn complex that one really wonders about primitive elements coming together by chance to form them. Protein folding alone is enough to baffle today's scientists, which in itself involves an array of other cellular mechanisms that cannot operate by chance. It is becoming more and more obvious that cells seem to be programmed.

The question is what or who programmed them.

Let me correct the above statement in bold. I meant protein instead of amino acids. Amino acids are not made by DNA or RNA molecules, but are found naturally in the foods we eat, and are used in protein synthesis.

What part of the theory was backed up by it? Be more specific please.

Have you ever heard of the mapping of the humane genome ?

Bobbyaf:

By Bobbyaf originally

Let me correct the above statement in bold.  I meant protein instead of amino acids. Amino acids are not made by DNA or RNA molecules, but are found naturally in the foods we eat, and are used in protein synthesis.

Have you ever heard of synthetic proteins?

noetic2:

They (evolutionists) like every one else agree that TOE is false and unprovable. They have repeatedly made concessions in agreeing that creationism is true.

I'm sure "they" made the concessions in a private memo sent to the one and only noetic, right?

Have you ever heard of the mapping of the humane genome ?

What does the mapping of the human genome have to do with DNA molecules being used to prove true the TOE? You have posed 2 separate questions. Why not go ahead and explain to the fora what is it you're trying to prove. Only then can I respond to you.

Have you ever heard of synthetic proteins?

I have done labs in which I had to make amino acids by degenerating proteins. Normally you come up with two kinds of amino-acids in a lab. Certain biomolecules exist as mirror images of themselves, and are grouped into being left and right molecules. In nature the left ones make proteins.

So if I were to isolate the D-isomers and find a way to make them bind I'd probably be able to make synthetic proteins.

What does the mapping of the human genome have to do with DNA molecules being used to prove true the TOE? You have posed 2 separate questions. Why not go ahead and explain to the fora what is it you're trying to prove. Only then can I respond to you.

Too stupid for science try religion

Too stupid for science try religion

Try religion? I studied religion and theology. I also studied the natural and life sciences. I am not seeing much of a challenge from you at all. How come?

Bobbyaf:

I have done labs in which I had to make amino acids by degenerating proteins. Normally you come up with  two kinds of amino-acids in a lab. Certain biomolecules exist as mirror images of themselves, and are grouped into being left and right molecules. In nature the left ones make proteins.

So if I were to isolate the D-isomers and find a way to make them bind I'd probably be able to make synthetic proteins.

So you see, proteins don't necessarily need DNA  afterall.

@ Tudor

So you see, proteins don't necessarily need DNA  afterall.

Don't confuse the proteins. And do not overlook the fact that our cells do not make synthetic proteins. There are synthetic amino-acids that can be isolated in a lab, or what we call D-isomers, but they cannot be used by the body to make real natural proteins that function in the cells.

Bear in mind that the attempt so far, as it relates to making synthetic proteins, has not gone beyond that. So in the context of cellular processes which are countless, don't expect synthetic proteins to function as natural proteins would do. 

Besides, since scientists tend to associate natural forces with how the first cell began, and since natural forces could not have produced D-isomers that can only be separated in a lab, then your reference to synthetic proteins is irrellevant, and void.

Try religion? I studied religion and theology. I also studied the natural and life sciences. I am not seeing much of a challenge from you at all. How come?

You don't understand how DNA proved you the theory of evolution and you claim that you studied natural and life sciences ? Stop lying men

You don't understand how DNA proved you the theory of evolution and you claim that you studied natural and life sciences ? Stop lying men

Do you believe everything you studied? If you did I didn't. I had to pass my exams on the TOE, but who says I believed it? And if I studied it then who are you to say I don't understand it?

Cheap shots won't rescue you. I doubt if your engineering studies enlightened you enough.

Do you believe everything you studied? If you did I didn't. I had to pass my exams on the TOE, but who says I believed it?

Using the bible as a science textbook is a very dangerous thing

Using the bible as a science textbook is a very dangerous thing

That depends on how much you are able to correlate both the bible and science. For example. At one stage science once taught that the earth was flat, and the bible said it was round by mentioning the circle of the earth in the book of Isaiah.

Where did the bible get the knowledge that the earth was round, and at a time when men didn't know it was? Long before science forwarded the idea that air had weight, the bible said it did.

There was also a time when bible critics challenged certain names mentioned in the bible, yet archeology which is a science has confirmed to the critics' embarrassment, that such names did exist in certain geographical regions.

Bobbyaf:

@ Tudor

Don't confuse the proteins. And do not overlook the fact that our cells do not make synthetic proteins. There are synthetic amino-acids that can be isolated in a lab, or what we call D-isomers, but they cannot be used by the body to make real natural proteins that function in the cells.

Bear in mind that the attempt so far, as it relates to making synthetic proteins, has not gone beyond that. So in the context of cellular processes which are countless, don't expect synthetic proteins to function as natural proteins would do. 

That they've failed so far
doesn't mean its impossible. Years ago, production of synthetic enzymes or hormones useable by the body was non-existent today even atheletes use them for doping. Besides aren't enzymes and hormones proteins?

Besides, since scientists tend to associate natural forces with how the first cell began, and since natural forces could not have produced D-isomers that can only be separated in a lab, then your reference to synthetic proteins is irrellevant, and void.

This is wrong. Natural forces could well have been producing D-isomers then which evolved as time goes on in cells due to environmental conditions. According to the postulation , Natural conditions now are quite different from what was obtainable then. For instance life was said to have been formed in the primordial soup. . .you don't find primordial soup in every womans pot these days, do you?

That they've failed so far doesn't mean its impossible. Years ago, production of synthetic enzymes or hormones useable by the body was non-existent today even atheletes use them for doping. Besides aren't enzymes and hormones proteins?

But look at the side effects? I am not arguing whether or not synthetic proteins or any form of proteins for that matter, can be made.

This is wrong. Natural forces could well have been producing D-isomers then which evolved as time goes on in cells due to environmental conditions.

Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating.

Which came first in cells, the membrane development or the biomolecules; DNA or proteins? Cannot you see the illogic of the big bang theory, and how it led to the development of the cell structure? A cell does not up and build itself in bits, and then finds itself waiting on further development as time moves on. For a cell to live and maintian itself it has to have all the parts ready for development. DNA, and RNA need to be present for living proteins to be made. You see the chance theory allows for trial and eror, which a cell does nt have as a luxery.


According to the postulation , Natural conditions now are quite different from what was obtainable then. For instance life was said to have been formed in the primordial soup. . .you don't find primordial soup in every womans pot these days, do you?

That they've failed so far doesn't mean its impossible. Years ago, production of synthetic enzymes or hormones useable by the body was non-existent today even atheletes use them for doping. Besides aren't enzymes and hormones proteins?

But look at the side effects? I am not arguing whether or not synthetic proteins or any form of proteins for that matter, can be made.

This is wrong. Natural forces could well have been producing D-isomers then which evolved as time goes on in cells due to environmental conditions.

Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating.

Which came first in cells, the membrane development or the biomolecules; DNA or proteins? Cannot you see the illogic of the big bang theory, and how it led to the development of the cell structure? A cell does not up and build itself in bits, and then finds itself waiting on further development as time moves on. For a cell to live and maintian itself it has to have all the parts ready for development. DNA, and RNA need to be present for living proteins to be made. You see the chance theory allows for trial and eror, which a cell does nt have as a luxery.

According to the postulation , Natural conditions now are quite different from what was obtainable then. For instance life was said to have been formed in the primordial soup. . .you don't find primordial soup in every womans pot these days, do you?

I will comment on this later. I am a bit sleepy.  Adios Tudor!

Bobbyaf:

But look at the side effects? I am not arguing whether or not synthetic proteins or any form of proteins for that matter, can be made.

What side effects are you talking about?

Does insulin have any side effects for diabetics? Even using natural proteins inappropriately is bound to cause toxicology.

Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating.

That is why science moves from hypothesis to verification then conclusion. We're getting there. Ascribing it to some heavenly magician isn't the way to go.

Which came first in cells, the membrane development or the biomolecules; DNA or proteins? Cannot you see the illogic of the big bang theory, and how it led to the development of the cell structure? A cell does not up and build itself in bits, and then finds itself waiting on further development as time moves on. For a cell to live and maintian itself it has to have all the parts ready for development. DNA, and RNA need to be present for living proteins to be made. You see the chance theory allows for trial and eror, which a cell does nt have as a luxery.

Wrong again. Those cells that are equipped survive and reproduce others die. Besides the cell didn't just evolve DNA for the fun of it, it was in response to changes in environmental conditions. The environment drives these changes. . .so says the theory.

@ tudor

What side effects are you talking about?

Every synthetic drug carries side effects.

Does insulin have any side effects for diabetics? Even using natural proteins inappropriately is bound to cause toxicology.

Insulin carries terrible side effects, and allow me to mention a few. It increases dangerous levels of cholesterol and triglycerides that damage the heart and blood vessels. Some others include severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); changes in vision; chills; dizziness; drowsiness; fainting; headache; increased heartbeat; increased hunger; loss of consciousness; nervousness; seizures; sweating; tremor; weakness.

I could go on. Incidentally I once managed a medical lab in a hospital, and I know of the dangers of administering insulin in patients. I used to see what happens to certain patients suffering form the side effects of such a drug.


Quote
Thats speculation! Science doesn't deal with could, and since no one could have measured what happened back then, then its pointless speculating.

That is why science moves from hypothesis to verification then conclusion. We're getting there. Ascribing it to some heavenly magician isn't the way to go.

You're getting there you say?  Trust me the matter under discussion about how life started is way too critical for those who inadvisedly use tricks and deception and brand it as science. The theory of the TOE is still a theory, and has been tweaked and tweaked for so many years now, that one wonders what to think of those who keep tweaking. As a matter of fact honest scientists are coming out of the closet and are discrediting the whole theory.

Bobbyaf:

@ tudor

Every synthetic drug carries side effects.

Insulin carries terrible side effects, and allow me to mention a few. It increases dangerous levels of cholesterol and triglycerides that damage the heart and blood vessels. Some others include severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); changes in vision; chills; dizziness; drowsiness; fainting; headache; increased heartbeat; increased hunger; loss of consciousness; nervousness; seizures; sweating; tremor; weakness.

I could go on. Incidentally I once managed a medical lab in a hospital, and I know of the dangers of administering insulin in patients. I used to see what happens to certain patients suffering form the side effects of such a drug.

This is a lie.
The so called side effects are consequences of misuse of insulin and not because the insulin is synthetic. Too little or too much gives those effects. Infact patients who produce too little or too much of the natural insulin have these same exact consequences.

You're getting there you say?  Trust me the matter under discussion about how life started is way too critical for those who inadvisedly use tricks and deception and brand it as science. The theory of the TOE is still a theory, and has been tweaked and tweaked for so many years now, that one wonders what to think of those who keep tweaking. As a matter of fact honest scientists are coming out of the closet and are discrediting the whole theory.

We've heard this same stuff before. when galileo postulated the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round he was accused of playing tricks with his telescope. Now we know better. Like I said, we're getting there.