How does complex nano engineering evolve?

Homepage Forums Science How does complex nano engineering evolve?

This topic contains 23 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 1 week, 2 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #40018

    michael17
    Participant

    https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8G9AjMK/

    Scientist are already in a quandary as to the origen of the first DNA molecule since it is impossible to occur naturally. Now you have complex nano machines with strategically placed scaffolding operating in all cells.

    • This topic was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  michael17.
    #40022

    _Robert_
    Participant

    https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8G9AjMK/ Scientist are already in a quandary as to the origen of the first DNA molecule since it is impossible to occur naturally. Now you have complex nano machines with strategically placed scaffolding operating in all cells.

    Of course, you have embraced the Qanon cult with your Tiktoc ‘research’. I would expect nothing less, LOL.

    #40024

    Scientist are already in a quandary as to the origin of the first DNA molecule since it is impossible to occur naturally….

    This is completely untrue.

    #40025

    michael17
    Participant

    Scientist are already in a quandary as to the origin of the first DNA molecule since it is impossible to occur naturally…. This is completely untrue.

    The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution. The direct prebiotic origin of is theoretically plausible (from acetaldehyde and glyceraldehyde-5-phosphate) but highly unlikely, considering that evolution, as stated by F. Jacob, works like a tinkerer, not an engineer.-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/#!po=0.537634

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  michael17.
    #40028

    The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution….

    Yes, that is why scientists are not “already in a quandary”. The science around it, while not settled, is rather compelling.

    I also agree that evolution is more of a tinkerer that an engineer. This is exactly the wording that Jerry Coyne uses in his book “Why Evolution is True”.  Evolution is like an architect who is only allowed to modified the plans of an existing building. He never gets a green field site to lay a cornerstone on.

    You have moved your argument from “impossible to occur naturally” to “highly unlikely”.

    #40029

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Highly unlikely transforms into highly probable when conditions are duplicated countless times. Or angels did it.

    #40031

    michael17
    Participant

    Highly unlikely transforms into highly probable when conditions are duplicated countless times. Or angels did .

    Countless times? Complex nano technology?, Good luck with that.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by  michael17.
    #40033

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Scientist are already in a quandary as to the origin of the first DNA molecule since it is impossible to occur naturally…. This is completely untrue.

    The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution. The direct prebiotic origin of is theoretically plausible (from acetaldehyde and glyceraldehyde-5-phosphate) but highly unlikely, considering that evolution, as stated by F. Jacob, works like a tinkerer, not an engineer.-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/#!po=0.537634

    I would agree with that scientist’s analogy to explain natural selection over millions of years, a length of time beyond most people’s comprehension. Natural selection is one component of evolution and just as a tinkerer tries things without thought or research; natural selection “tinkers” because there is a slight chance a mindless mutation may be beneficial.

    Now if you are implying that because we do not understand the origins of DNA 100% yet that god created it by tinkering because a scientist used an analogy, well you have some issues. So much for omniscience. This god of the gaps is a pretty tired line of illogical “thinking”, ya know? From what I read in the bible, the so-called son of god didn’t even know about microbes, telling his followers not to wash their hands before eating. Leprosy is caused by demons, LOL. Thousands of evangelicals are taking that Covid induced dirt nap early, thanks to this mythology.

    #40036

    jakelafort
    Participant

    I only count to three.

    #40038

    Unseen
    Participant

    https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8G9AjMK/ Scientist are already in a quandary as to the origen of the first DNA molecule since it is impossible to occur naturally. Now you have complex nano machines with strategically placed scaffolding operating in all cells.

    I suppose your explanation is the more plausible one that a cosmic sorcerer did it with his magical powers.

    The proof that it’s possible to occur in nature is that it did occur in nature.

    #40039

    michael17
    Participant

    Scientist are already in a quandary as to the origin of the first DNA molecule since it is impossible to occur naturally…. This is completely untrue.

    The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution. The direct prebiotic origin of is theoretically plausible (from acetaldehyde and glyceraldehyde-5-phosphate) but highly unlikely, considering that evolution, as stated by F. Jacob, works like a tinkerer, not an engineer.-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/#!po=0.537634

    <p style=”text-align: center;”>I would agree with that scientist’s analogy to explain natural selection over millions of years, a length of time beyond most people’s comprehension. Natural selection is one component of evolution and just as a tinkerer tries things without thought or research; natural selection “tinkers” because there is a slight chance a mindless mutation may be beneficial. Now if you are implying that because we do not understand the origins of DNA 100% yet that god created it by tinkering because a scientist used an analogy, well you have some issues. So much for omniscience. This god of the gaps is a pretty tired line of illogical “thinking”, ya know? From what I read in the bible, the so-called son of god didn’t even know about microbes, telling his followers not to wash their hands before eating. Leprosy is caused by demons, LOL. Thousands of evangelicals are taking that Covid induced dirt nap early, thanks to this mythology.</p>

     Natural selection over millions of years? You need nano machinery working day one in a cell. And it must be engineered and govern by feedback control.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    #40041

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Natural selection over millions of years? You need nano machinery working day one in a cell. And it must be engineered and govern by feedback control.

    Right…! nano machinery, of course! The illuminati have a secret lab behind that pizza place.

    #40044

    michael17
    Participant

    The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution…. Yes, that is why scientists are not “already in a quandary”. The science around it, while not settled, is rather compelling. I also agree that evolution is more of a tinkerer that an engineer. This is exactly the wording that Jerry Coyne uses in his book “Why Evolution is True”. Evolution is like an architect who is only allowed to modified the plans of an existing building. He never gets a green field site to lay a cornerstone on. You have moved your argument from “impossible to occur naturally” to “highly unlikely”.

     

    Yes, you are correct!

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    #40046

    michael17
    Participant

    https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8G9AjMK/ <u>Scientist are already in a quandary as to the origen of the first DNA molecule since it is impossible to occur naturally. Now you have complex nano machines with strategically placed scaffolding operating in all cells.</u>

    <u>I suppose your explanation is the more plausible one that a cosmic sorcerer did it with his magical powers. The proof that it’s possible to occur in nature is that it did occur in nature.

     

    As an engineer, when I see efficiency in design with economy in both the mechanics and the  control system, this is an engineering marvel which does not occur through happenstance. You take as so be</u>cause you are bound in flatland with the universe void of a spiritual dimension. Which is naturally to be expected and given man’s limited life span and inability to see spirits at work.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  michael17.
    #40047

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    As an engineer, when I see efficiency in design with economy in both the mechanics and the computer control system, this is a engineering marvel which does not occur true happenstance.

    Surely natural selection selects for behaviour and traits that are most adapted for the organism’s or molecule’s thriving, surviving and reproduction within its environment.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.