Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Abiogenesis Challenge

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over on a recent thread, we witnessed some flailing about with respect to abiogenesis (see comments 374-376). Thoroughly confused about critical distinctions, such as the difference between deterministic forces and contingent possibilities, some seem to think that the fact that “nature forms stars and planets” means that nature can do just about anything. No need to ask any hard questions, kids! Just close your eyes and imagine the possibilities.

This is what so much of the materialistic abiogenesis creation story amounts to.

I have posted essentially this challenge before, but for Zachriel and anyone else who thinks materialistic abiogenesis is anything more than a laughable made-up story, here it is again:

—–

For purposes of this challenge, I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want. I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. You want them all left-handed? No problem. I’ll also grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want (what percentage do you want of glycine, alanine, arginine, etc.?). I’ll further give you just the right concentration to encourage optimum reaction. I’m also willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: volcanic vents, hydrothermal pools, mud globules, tide pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, comets, dust clouds in space . . . whichever environment you want). I’ll even throw in whatever type of energy source you want in true Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location spatially. And at the same time temporally. Shoot, as a massive bonus I’ll even step in to prevent contaminating cross reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown.

Every single one of the foregoing items represents a huge challenge to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all for the present exercise.

Now, with all these concessions, go ahead, what is your theory about how life formed?

—–

Note:

I also reiterate my open invitation for Zachriel, AVS, billmaz and anyone else to do a guest post laying out their strongest evidence for abiogenesis. There have been no takers yet, but the invitation remains open.

Comments
Alicia Cartelli: If you read a little further in the new paper you’ve cited, you’d see that the authors say “For example, the ligand-recognition (aptamer) domain of a riboswitch can be linked to an RNA enzyme (ribozyme)” So you're arguing over names. That's what I thought. Alicia Cartelli:
Enzymes are protein catalysts
There are RNA enzymes, dear. Everyone but you seems to be aware of that fact. RNase P ... the first nonprotein enzymatic activity to be discovered. I know it hurts, you'll get over it.Mung
November 24, 2015
November
11
Nov
24
24
2015
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
Again, an example of over-simplification. How many times do I have to say it? If you read a little further in the new paper you've cited, you'd see that the authors say "For example, the ligand-recognition (aptamer) domain of a riboswitch can be linked to an RNA enzyme (ribozyme)" Read a little further than the abstract one time for me. Please.Alicia Cartelli
November 24, 2015
November
11
Nov
24
24
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Alicia, you can't be that stupid. Even in the text you quoted they clearly say RNA enzymes. So are you now back to quibbling over names? Really?
A general analytical method for the detection of target ligands has been developed, based on a special class of self-replicating aptazymes. These "autocatalytic aptazymes" are generated by linking an aptamer domain to the catalytic domain of a self-replicating RNA enzyme. - Ligand-dependent exponential amplification of self-replicating RNA enzymes.
You're funny Alicia, but not believable.Mung
November 24, 2015
November
11
Nov
24
24
2015
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Mungy, the part you quoted is an example of the authors over-simplifying things as I already said. If you read only about 10 lines further you’d see, “As a group, RNA enzymes, or ribozymes” Stop embarrassing yourself.Alicia Cartelli
November 24, 2015
November
11
Nov
24
24
2015
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Jmac, none of what you said is a problem for abiogenesis because every single one of your statements is false. Every single statement you make is disproven by something I have already said @251.Alicia Cartelli
November 24, 2015
November
11
Nov
24
24
2015
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli @ 277:
Enzymes are protein catalysts Ribozymes are RNA catalysts End of story.
LoL. I repeat. Credibility. Shot.
The catalytic mechanisms employed by RNA are chemically more diverse than initially suspected. Divalent metal ions, nucleobases, ribosyl hydroxyl groups, and even functional groups on metabolic cofactors all contribute in the various strategies employed by RNA enzymes. This catalytic breadth raises intriguing evolutionary questions about how RNA lost its biological role in some cases, but not in others, and what catalytic roles RNA might still be playing in biology. - RNA Catalysis: Ribozymes, Ribosomes and Riboswitches
But thanks for the laughs AC!Mung
November 23, 2015
November
11
Nov
23
23
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
#258 Alicia Cartelli, Since you seem to be the expert on abiogenesis, instead of dismissing the problems I raised , please educate the layman. We are all pretty sure you have scientific evidence for what you laughed about and it is not one of your many delusions that you've fed us with on this thread. I'm willing to put a lot of money on the line, if you do.J-Mac
November 23, 2015
November
11
Nov
23
23
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson @190 I like the approach you suggest.Dionisio
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
mike1962: As if that comes anywhere close to demonstrating how DNA/ribosome machinery came into existence. You had asked about "the 'many of the reactions' you speak of do not rise to anything near anything like DNA". Box: since intelligence cannot exist under naturalism. Most naturalists consider intelligence a function of the brain — or of computers, for that matter.Zachriel
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
A Self-Replicating Molecule as A Primitive Form of Life Does Not Make Sense And a Reaction to Alicia Cartelli's entry #251 Kirosfocus at #29 quoting from Rational Wiki:
Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules.
Eric Anderson at #55 and #74 talks about self replicating molecules as fictitious entities. Below I am proposing that a Self Replicating Molecule does not make sense as a primitive form of life. This thesis is somewhat connected to Alicia Cartelli's entry at #251. You need not be a biochemist or biologist to understand that her recitation of the various research results are not at all successful to demonstrate the impossible: that there is a naturalistic origin of life. I have in mind several ways of arguing that her story at #251 is just another darwinist fantesies. As you may have guessed I am a non-specialist, although now-a-days it may be claimed that a systems software engineer may be in as good a position (if not even better) than a biologist or biochemist to weight the chances that naturalistic processes - being they of mechanical, meteorological, volcanic or physic-chemical nature - can produce an entity that is capable to self-replicate. But before proceeding to the main thesis of this blog entry, I can briefly state one of the many reasons why Alicia's prose is just another darwinist fairy tale. I just want to mention that I studied a little bit the issue of origin of life and I developed some strong personal opinions about the topic: A Minimum Cell Model and the Origin of Life Problem The Design of the Simplest Self-Replicator It seems to me that any material entity that has the demonstrable capability to self-replicate is a super-super machine in a category far, far above any human-engineered artifact. In other words any living organism that exhibits this capability is a super-super machine. There are many additional reasons to consider living organisms as super machines besides their ability to self-replicate. At this time you may consider may view eccentric (if not crazy). But think about this: the fact that armies of biologists, biochemists, geneticists, embryologists, bioinformatics specialists are studying living organisms for decades (if not centuries) without any clear sign that their field of study with be exhausted in the next few years - isn't this tremendous investigative and research effort the best justification of the view that living organisms are super-super machines that are super-super engineered? Now, any attempt - as Alicia arduously made - to persuade any rational being that a self-replicator super, super machine was "produced" by the blind forces of the inanimate nature: a volcanic erruption here, a hydrothermal vent there, some mineral polymerizing some amino acids elsewhere - is just an exercise in mesmerizing some adults with child fairy tales. Briefly, the Origin of Lide Problem is a challenge for our capacity to Reason and not so much a biology or biochemistry problem. Sure, having some basic molecular biology knowledge helps, but having also a sound high school or college education may suffice. Hopefully I'll have time in a future blog entry to argue on alternative, more orthodox paths why Alicia's proclamation of the "soon to come" solution for Abiogenesis is just lacking actual substance. Now I am going back to the stated objective of this blog entry. It can be easily proven that there is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule at least as a most primitive form of life. And here is a sketch of the reasoning for this. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there exist a Self Replicating Molecule (SRM). The SRM cannot be a single component Primitive Form Of Life (PFOL) even if SRM has some ability to self replicate. And here are the reasons. If the mass of SRM is M1, at the end of self-replication another SRM: SRM2 will be produced that has a mass M2 approximately (if not exactly) equal to M1. But SRM2 did NOT exist as such (i.e. as a SRM) at the beginning of replication process but rather as one or more molecules of a different type and mass. This means that the primitive form of life MUST have besides SRM (at least one) another component which we will name: Metabolizer (M) and has the role of transforming some raw materials in the SRM environment into the primary (type of) molecules that are used by SRM as input for producing a replica of itself. To reformulate the above statement: SRM needs material input (with mass and chemical identity) from which to build a replica of itself. In order for the SRM to become a primitive form of life (PFOL), it needs an envelope, an enclosure to: * Isolate the fledgling organism from its (potentially dangerous, unfriendly) environment * Give it physical identity. So, lets name the Enclosure E. But in order for the PFOL to self-replicate some raw material (certain molecule types, material types) must cross the enclosure E and get into its interior in order to constitute starting material for self-replication. This means that the enclosure E must have some openings or some elements in the enclosure that can open in order to admit these input materials. Lets assume that there is just one such opening and we will call it, for convenience, Gateway G. And the Gateway G, the Enclosure E and the Self-Replicating Molecule (SRM) are the three components (identified so far) as making up the PFOL. But the objective fact that PFOL is multi-component means that somehow, in order that PFOL achieve self-replication, then: 1. Either SRM is capable to create replicas only of itself BUT NOT of the whole PFOL. In this case we can conclude that SRM is kind of a chemical curiosity, a special something, but it is NOT a PFOL. This conclusion can be reformulated this way: if a genuine SRM exists, it is not a (primitive) form of life. If a genuine SRM exists, there are other components in the hypothetical PFOL that must exists besides the SRM (enclosure E and Gateway G t a minimum) but SRM cannot provide self-replication of this PFOL. 2. Or if SRM is in fact capable to create a Replica of the assembly: (SRM, E, G), then SRM IS NOT really a self-replicating molecule, but something much more than that AND it is NOT a single-molecule Entity. Now lets consider that there existed a PFOL with the minimum composition: PFOL = {E, G, SRM} Now if the original (first generation) PFOL used some external form of energy (solar, heat, light, hydrothermal vents, etc.) when was not till encapsulated by E, we cannot assume the same is true about the 2nd generation PFOL and subsequent PFOL generations. These generations are already fully encapsulated by Enclosure E and have (at least one) Gateway G. However for these generations there is the question of what is the source of energy for the enclosure and especially Internal processes of PFOL that are synthesizing (building) a new generation PFOL from admitted raw materials through the Gateway G? Definitely the PFOL must have some means of producing (and using) local Energy or Power. Then it is reasonable to assume that we must have (at least) one other component namede - the Power Generator (PG). And again it is reasonable to hypothesizng inspired by the way biological cells work et some input materials are used (through some kind of transformation) for producing power. Another consideration on the line of identifying the minimum types of Components in the Hypothetical PFOL is the idea that whatever Type of Materials are accepted through PFOL Gateway G they are ready-to-be-used as input parts/molecules for the Self-Replication (i.e. for fabrication of all (now) known components of the PFOL: {SRM, E, G, PG}. This idea not being reasonable (realistic following the cell model) we are going to consider that the PFOL comprises another Component Type responsible to transform input raw materials into usable molecule types for PFOL self-replication. We are going to name this component type a Metabolizer M. As a consequence of our conclusions above about the Nature of SRM (the two alternatives) and going on the hypothesis at 2. Then SRM is not properly named: SRM. We are going to call it a Fabricator F with the idea that it is the main PFOL component that manufactures all the components of the Cloned PFOL during PFOL Replication. So, the chain of inferences above led us to the speculative conclusion that if ever there was a Primitive Form of Life (PFOL) then it must have been made with at least the component types below PFOL= {E, G, F, PG, M} It is natural and expected that as we conduct our analysis (or thought experiment) about what a hypothetical PFOL might have been made of to discover that it was a non-trivial assemblage of specialized parts. We can just speculate that continuing our analysis in the same manner we can identify some other reasonably hypothesized component types. But the important element here is that the REQUIRED self-replication capability of the PLOF leads to the necessity ihat F r appears as needing to be) a Universal Fabricator at least in the sense of having capability to fabricate all identified components in the PLOF including the Fabricator F itself. At this point in our story (or rather analysis) it is the "Elephant in the Room" that didn't get any attention. The Most Important Component of the hypothetical PFOL is the Information Component I. But the Information component I of the PFOL deserves a future dedicated blog entry. Or you can get some idea about its profile on this page: A Minimum Cell Model and the Origin of Life ProblemInVivoVeritas
November 22, 2015
November
11
Nov
22
22
2015
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
F/N: Notice, still no serious, empirically founded answer to the challenge to ground the root of the Darwinist tree of life that can meet the observed adequate cause, vera causa test in explaining the FSCO/I in the living cell. The strawmen await due refutation. KFkairosfocus
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
AC, 295:
You link to UD for “a rigorous philosophical take-down” of something? Get real.
This is both a case of a revealing genetic fallacy of contempt laced dismissiveness and is exemplifying of the way many advocates of evolutionary materialist scientism commonly refuse to take seriously a major and fatal foundational flaw in their worldview. One that was for instance pointed out by Haldane at the turn of the 1930's and has been highlighted again and again since. Here is philosopher Nancy Pearcey in her book, Finding Truth, for a current case:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
[--> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]
BTW, this shows one way in which a humble mere blog comment can hold in it a serious response to an issue that ought not to be met with studious side-stepping, especially through genetic fallacies of belittling dismissiveness. KF PS: When you refer to us as "UDiots" that is further revealing of attitude, and that sets a context in which your dismissiveness of Mung's point in 274 as incorrect or colloquial usage becomes especially revealing, given WHAT he cited:
for the onlookers: peptidyltransferasethe ribosomal enzyme that catalyzes the elongation step in polypeptide synthesis – Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
kairosfocus
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
"Nature can produce stones. Stones are the building blocks of Stonehenge. Bt Alicia’s logic nature can produce Stonehenges." She is not very bright is she Mr Cain, Apparently she believes that Miller and Urey and others working in the lab were on the early earth, Apparently they are part of her ideas of life originating spontaneously in a natural environment. hahahahaha "Only imbeciles think that life can be reduced to chemical reactions, Alicia. Wipe your chin." Yet she tells others that they are wrong, if we are determined chemistry which even humans would be on her faith, then it makes no sense to say we or anyone else are wrong. I wonder if she can name the chemical elements that she thinks are free. These Materialists don't argue consistently with their faith.Jack Jones
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
You link to UD for "a rigorous philosophical take-down" of something? Get real. Thanks for the laugh though. I'll be here if anyone wants to talk about my answer to EA's question!Alicia Cartelli
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
You're welcome Box, it is not looking good for Alicia with the way that she is getting shredded by the other posters either. She must be a masochist.Jack Jones
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Jack, thank you :) It's always nice to receive a compliment even though exposing naturalism is child's play. Like shooting fish in a barrel.Box
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Alicia something smelly- what is your malfunction? Your opinions and imagination are not science. And yes it is only your opinion that nature can produce ribozymes. And yes it is only your imagination that sez ribozymes inside lipid membrane vesicles are a start of life. You are beyond delusional and I will expose you as a poseur every time you post your nonsense. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
@290 Box Your posts are excellent, You expose the folly of naturalism with panache. :)Jack Jones
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Alicia: When someone has something intelligent to say, I’ll return.
Not a reason to come back for if you are a true believer in naturalism, since intelligence cannot exist under naturalism. You desperately want blind particles in motion to be your creator, however those non-rational clueless blind particles also do the "thinking" for "you" — and it shows. See here and here for a rigorous philosophical take-down of rationality under naturalism.Box
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli: That’s how I know you are clueless. Hint, do you know what DNA stands for? Okie dokie.mike1962
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Yes, we know you think science is meaningless Virgy, but you probably shouldn't admit it like that. No, it's not an opinion, and you obviously haven't done research if you think funding a massive project like this is feasible. You are beyond clueless, and frankly, I've lost interest in your babble. When someone has something intelligent to say, I'll return. Maybe get EA and tell him I've answered his question.Alicia Cartelli
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
No virgy, in fact we develop a lot of these ribozymes by mimicking evolution.
That's too vague and because of that it is meaningless.
We allow random mutation of initial sequences, copy them, and search for catalysis of certain reactions. There is little difference between this and what nature would do during molecular evolution.
That's your opinion.
And why would we bother when geniuses like you will just turn and scream about how this protocell is “intelligently designed.”
That would be true so it would hardly take a genius to understand the obvious. However it would show A) what it takes to get a protocell and B) what a protocell could do.
And why would we bother when geniuses like you will just turn and scream about how this protocell is “intelligently designed.”
What a cowardly cop out.
I wouldn’t expect someone with no research experience to know this though.
I have research experience.
And spiegelman’s monster is not an issue @251.
Of course it is as it shows nature's tendency for the more simple, which is contrary to what you are trying to imagine.Virgil Cain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Looks like the evolutionists have given up right from the start at showing a living organism originating spontaneously from non living matter in a natural environment . They are welcome to believe in it but it is nothing more than an evidence free fantasy.Jack Jones
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Mikey @220 says: 'The problem for your kind is that the “many of the reactions” you speak of do not rise to anything near anything like DNA.' Mikey @283 says: 'Did I say anything about nucleic acid production?' That's how I know you are clueless. Hint, do you know what DNA stands for? You should probably stay out of this one Mikey. No virgy, in fact we develop a lot of these ribozymes by mimicking evolution. We allow random mutation of initial sequences, copy them, and search for catalysis of certain reactions. There is little difference between this and what nature would do during molecular evolution. And why would we bother when geniuses like you will just turn and scream about how this protocell is "intelligently designed." The experiment would be massively time-consuming and virtually impossible to carry out anyway. I wouldn't expect someone with no research experience to know this though. And spiegelman's monster is not an issue @251.Alicia Cartelli
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Zächriellen: Plausible abiotic synthesis of ribonucleotides has been a long-standing problem due to the instability of the component parts. Powner et al. show an elegant and plausible prebiotic pathway that sidesteps this problem. See Powner et al., Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions, Nature 2009. Feel free to move the goalposts. As if that comes anywhere close to demonstrating how DNA/ribosome machinery came into existence.mike1962
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli: Mikey, I hope I didn’t hurt your feelings. Not possible. Anyways, we’ve already demonstrated the production of nucleic acids under early earth conditions. Did I say anything about nucleic acid production? You are completely clueless as to where the gaps are. How do you know?mike1962
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Alicia with more opinion and still no science:
Good thing the hypothesis doesn’t require that the first living organism have all five nucleotides in use today, or for that matter, any of the nucleotides in use today; see the proposed precursor nucleotides mentioned above.
The untestable proposal?
Many ribozymes have been generated in the lab, with a wide variety of functions.
Generated by us- ie by intelligent design. Why hasn't anyone done what you said- put a ribozyme in a lipid membrane vesicle and see what happens? Does it do what you claimed?
You can call it whatever you want, but you have nothing to counter what I have said.
You have nothing to support what you said so there isn't anything to counter. Spiegelman's monster counters your claim.Virgil Cain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
“Not all nucleic acids are borne from the same environment. Cytosine is prone to deamination.” Good thing the hypothesis doesn’t require that the first living organism have all five nucleotides in use today, or for that matter, any of the nucleotides in use today; see the proposed precursor nucleotides mentioned above. “That is a big enough obstacle. Why hasn’t that been done in a lab?” Did you read what I wrote, or do you not understand what we are talking about? Many ribozymes have been generated in the lab, with a wide variety of functions. Polymerizing nucleotides will form a nucleic acid strand, this strand will fold on itself to form tertiary structure. This tertiary structure has the potential to catalyze just about any reaction. The problem would have been in finding sequences that produce tertiary structure which catalyze reactions important for the generation of biomolecules which would help to form the first living organism. While difficult to do, it is made easier by the fact that only a fraction of the nucleotides are important to form a specific catalytic site and also the fact that the ribozyme did not have to be highly efficient. At the earliest stages of life, the small increase in catalytic activity afforded by inefficient ribozymes, or enclosing membranes would be enough to drive evolution. “Your opinion is neither evidence nor an argument. But thank you for proving all that you have are untestable opinions.” You can call it whatever you want, but you have nothing to counter what I have said.Alicia Cartelli
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
In the case of the great age of the Earth
The age of the earth depends on how it formed.
Homology is determined by finding evidence of ancestry
Loser, homology is alleged evidence for common ancestry.
If silent mutations in a group of genes form a nested hierarchy, then it indicates homology.
What's this nested hierarchy based on? What defines the levels and sets? Be specific or admit that you are a fool.
It requires showing it could occur in plausible primordial conditions.
Good luck with that.Virgil Cain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Alicia sez:
As demonstrated above ,the early earth was capable of synthesizing nucleic acids and folding is a spontaneous process.
Not all nucleic acids are borne from the same environment. Cytosine is prone to deamination.
The only requirement is the correct sequence to form an active site.
That is a big enough obstacle. Why hasn't that been done in a lab?
Production of enough random nucleic acid sequences, in my opinion, will eventually produce a strand with catalytic activity.
Your opinion is neither evidence nor an argument. But thank you for proving all that you have are untestable opinions. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
November 21, 2015
November
11
Nov
21
21
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
1 2 3 11

Leave a Reply