It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 56
16
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

A. No it doesn't. Panspermia means that organic molecules necessary for life to form arrived on earth via impacts from comets or other non terrestrial bodies. It has nothing to do with an intelligence.

B. Crick never said abiogenesis was impossible.

C. Crick never made the statement that has still not been cited.

D. I read Crick's book and quoted pertinent portions of it in an above reply and in Crick's own words he admits that it's an hypothesis with no supporting evidence

E. His hypothesis was formulated in the 1970's, 40 years before proof of molecular self assembly was found

F. Even if Crick's hypothesis were true, it would invalidate your god as a creator because he thought that if guided panspermia occurred, it was a result of Alien intervention a la James Cameron's Prometheus.

There is no prerequisite for an intelligent creator for life to form and even if an alien intelligence were somehow involved, it's merely passing the buck because they had to originate somewhere and you can't have an infinite loop of created life because something would have had to create the first life forms in order for the process to continue.


ETA the fact is, life is here on earth. How it began is irrelevant to a discussion about evolution. It's a biological mechanism and a way for humans to gauge how organisms have changed over time. The beginning of life has no bearing on it and attempting to marry 2 disparate fields of study is intellectually dishonest.

edit on 25-11-2017 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

And one more thing: the conference was in 1972. The book was published in 1981. Forty plus years have passed since this work was written. Many, if not most, of these issues have been resolved since then, particularly the synthesis of RNA.

This again is typical. You focus on work that was done 40 years. Then you rewrite it to suit your own agenda.

Fraud. In a nutshell.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: Phantom423




You think no one is watching. Let me tell you, you never know who you're talking to.


I think I do.

Do you have anything intelligent to actually talk about, or are you going to just continue with insults?



Did you say that or did you not? Where in any of Crick's work did he ever say that it was IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to have formed on its own. He never said that. You made it up. You're a liar and a fraud.


Did you not read any of my responses?

For the last time, the statement came from a pro Crick/ Directed Panspermia website. If you dispute the statement take it up with them.

Why did Francis Crick come up with the theory of Directed Panspermia if he was satisfied with the natural origins of life on earth?









BTW, this is the first paragraph at the Directed Panspermia website:




Directed Panspermia Hypothesis

Directed Panspermia suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, or can be spread from Earth to other planets by humans.


About peptide self assembly:

This was 1982


The probabilities of creating a chain 200 amino acids long is "approximately equal to a one followed by 260 zeros!" "This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension" he goes on to say that this number is greater than all the atoms in the visible universe, ( 10 followed by 80 zeros)


This is 2017

Self-Assembly of Peptides to Nanostructures
Dindyal Mandal,a,* Amir Nasrolahi Shirazi,b,c and Keykavous Parangb,c,*




Abstract

The formation of well-ordered nanostructures through self-assembly of diverse organic and inorganic building blocks has drawn much attention owing to their potential applications in biology and chemistry. Among all organic building blocks, peptides are one of the most promising platforms due to their biocompatibility, chemical diversity, and resemblance with proteins. Inspired from the protein assembly in biological systems, various self-assembled peptide structures have been constructed using several amino acids and sequences. This review focuses on this emerging area, the recent advances in peptide self-assembly, and formation of different nanostructures, such as tubular, fibers, vesicles, spherical, and rod coil structures. While different peptide nanostructures are discovered, potential applications will be explored in drug delivery, tissue engineering, wound healing, and surfactants.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And this:

Applied Nanoscience
April 2017, Volume 7, Issue 3–4, pp 101–107 | Cite as
Self-assembled nanotubes from single fluorescent amino acid




Abstract Self-assembly of biomolecules has gained increasing attention as it generates various supramolecular structural assemblies having potential applications principally in biomedical sciences. Here, we show that amino acid like tryptophan or tyrosine readily aggregates as nanotubes via a simple self-assembly process. These were characterized by FTIR, scanning electron microscopy, and by fluorescence microscopy. Nanotubes prepared from tryptophan are having ~200 nm inner diameter and those from tyrosine are having the same around ~50 nm diameter.

link.springer.com...

And this:

Computational Protein Design pp 323-352 | Cite as
A Protocol for the Design of Protein and Peptide Nanostructure Self-Assemblies Exploiting Synthetic Amino Acids




Abstract

In recent years there has been increasing interest in nanostructure design based on the self-assembly properties of proteins and polymers. Nanodesign requires the ability to predictably manipulate the properties of the self-assembly of autonomous building blocks, which can fold or aggregate into preferred conformational states. The design includes functional synthetic materials and biological macromolecules. Autonomous biological building blocks with available 3D structures provide an extremely rich and useful resource. Structural databases contain large libraries of protein molecules and their building blocks with a range of sizes, shapes, surfaces, and chemical properties. The introduction of engineered synthetic residues or short peptides into these building blocks can greatly expand the available chemical space and enhance the desired properties. Herein, we summarize a protocol for designing nanostructures consisting of self-assembling building blocks, based on our recent works. We focus on the principles of nanostructure design with naturally occurring proteins and synthetic amino acids, as well as hybrid materials made of amyloids and synthetic polymers.

link.springer.com...

And this:

Peptide self-assembly: thermodynamics and kinetics
Juan Wang,a Kai Liu,ab Ruirui Xinga and Xuehai Yan*ac




Abstract

Self-assembling systems play a significant role in physiological functions and have therefore attracted tremendous attention due to their great potential for applications in energy, biomedicine and nanotechnology. Peptides, consisting of amino acids, are among the most popular building blocks and programmable molecular motifs. Nanostructures and materials assembled using peptides exhibit important potential for green-life new technology and biomedical applications mostly because of their bio-friendliness and reversibility. The formation of these ordered nanostructures pertains to the synergistic effect of various intermolecular non-covalent interactions, including hydrogen-bonding, π–π stacking, electrostatic, hydrophobic, and van der Waals interactions. Therefore, the self-assembly process is mainly driven by thermodynamics; however, kinetics is also a critical factor in structural modulation and function integration. In this review, we focus on the influence of thermodynamic and kinetic factors on structural assembly and regulation based on different types of peptide building blocks, including aromatic dipeptides, amphiphilic peptides, polypeptides, and amyloid-relevant peptides.


And this:

The formation of right-handed and left-handed chiral nanopores within a single domain during amino acid self-assembly on Au(111)
Sena Yang,a Aram Jeon,a Russell W. Driver,a Yeonwoo Kim,a Eun Hee Jeon,a Sehun Kim,a Hee-Seung Lee*a and Hangil Lee*b




Abstract We report the formation of both right- and left-handed chiral nanopores within a single domain during the self-assembly of an amino acid derivative on an inert Au(111) surface using STM. DFT calculations employed to rationalize this unusual result identified that intermolecular interactions between chiral, windmill-shaped tetramers are crucial for self-assembly.

pubs.rsc.org...#!divAbstract

_________________________

You're very far behind the learning curve. This technology has been around since the late 1990's. Your lack of curiosity in real science and how it works is astounding.
edit on 25-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1



There might be one for K2-6 too



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


Wow, I really touched a nerve with you.

Let me try another illustration based on Francis Cricks book. Page 51


If you asked a person out on a date, and they said that you had a 1 in 10^260 chance with them, and your friend told you that meant the odds of you getting that date was impossible, would you say your friend was a liar and a fraud?






His book discussing Directed Panspermia, demonstrates to anyone being honest, that a figure he used like 10^260 is impossible. He was obviously demonstrating that to be the case, which lead to his idea of DIRECTED PANSPERMIA.

Crick talked about the odds of a chain of 200 amino acids forming in the correct order by chance as 10^260. As a comparison, Crick stated that all the particles in the visible universe are 10^80.

His point is this astronomical number was for a modest length polypeptide chain. Imagine how big the number would be for a longer chain!

The case Crick is making is plain to any honest individual.



This guy seemed to get Cricks drift.


Ejaz Ali Department of Biology Lake Forest College Lake Forest, Illinois 60045
Link

In conclusion, to give a purpose to his extensive effort to explain replication, Crick states that by understanding the complexity of the process of replication, the proposed idea of life originating in a primitive soup appears to be an unlikely and miraculously slow one that could not have sprung forth in such an elaborate manner, so as to produce a higher race capable of thinking in less than 2 billions of years.
So is Ejaz a liar and fraud?


Is this site supporting Panspermia lying?
Link

Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

B. Crick never said...



I was never defending panspermia as a valid theory, just pointing out that it involves life being spawned elsewhere and brought to earth - the common context is that "aliens" (presumably intelligent) were involved. The infinite monkey theorem posits how billions of monkeys with billions of typewriters over billions of years would have an unimaginably low likelihood of ever writing a Shakespearean play - so too, randomness could never have created the complex base necessities for life to form from non-life. Life itself is an intelligent, rational, calculated procedure.


originally posted by: Phantom423

About peptide self assembly...


These macromolecules act predictably according to specific electromagnetic laws. The behavior of these molecules can be calculated mathematically - we all know that mathematics require intelligence.


originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: Phantom423


His point is this astronomical number was for a modest length polypeptide chain. Imagine how big the number would be for a longer chain!



Yeah like Titin the muscle protein. The largest type having over 100,000 base pairs involved in the protein structure... A feat that no random mutation could have EVER produced. Even if you get 1,000 miraculous beneficial base pair mutations, it would be selected against, according to evolutionary theory, before it became a viable protein, and would also need an additional 99,000 base pair mutations to complete itself!
edit on 25-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar






The beginning of life has no bearing on it and attempting to marry 2 disparate fields of study is intellectually dishonest.


So was Darwin or the writers of this article intellectually dishonest?

Did Life Evolve From A Warm Little Pond ?

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

Link



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: peter vlar






The beginning of life has no bearing on it and attempting to marry 2 disparate fields of study is intellectually dishonest.


So was Darwin or the writers of this article intellectually dishonest?

Did Life Evolve From A Warm Little Pond ?

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "

Link


That article doesn't mention natural selection. It does use the word "evolve", but it clearly uses the word in a more generic way than the Theory of Evolution of Species would use it.

You can't have the evolution of species through natural selection without first having life to begin with. I mean, without species, then what's to evolve?

When people use the phrase "life evolved" to mean that "life started", that's not the same as what speciation through evolution is.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




D. I read Crick's book and quoted pertinent portions of it in an above reply and in Crick's own words he admits that it's an hypothesis with no supporting evidence

E. His hypothesis was formulated in the 1970's, 40 years before proof of molecular self assembly was found




Richard Dawkins is specifically asked about Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel who came up with Directed Panspermia.

Why didn't Dawkins dismiss the question in the context of the individuals mentioned?




posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

You can't have the evolution of species through natural selection without first having life to begin with. I mean, without species, then what's to evolve?


This is a good point. Which is why anyone claiming evolution to be true, must inherently believe in some sort of abiogenesis event. Yet this entire question is shoved aside because it is a monumental leap, especially considering the base requirements of even the most rudimentary prokaryote.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

They can believe what they want. That doesn't make them right. You, on the other hand, have made statements that clearly demonstrate your agenda. You reconstructed what Dr. Crick said to support your view. That makes you a liar and a fraud.

You can ignore all the evidence which I posted (which you have). You can ignore what others have said. That only points to your ignorance.

Whether panspermia is possible or not isn't the issue. The issue is that you make statements that you clearly cannot back up. And using examples from Dr. Crick's book only makes your position more feeble as they are totally irrelevant to the topic.

As I told Coop on a number of occasions - get a good physics and biochemistry book. Read the literature (the real literature, not crap from Creationist websites). Then do a comparison. You won't do it. You can't do it.

You've made a mockery of Dr. Crick's work to prove your point.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

You can't have the evolution of species through natural selection without first having life to begin with. I mean, without species, then what's to evolve?


This is a good point. Which is why anyone claiming evolution to be true, must inherently believe in some sort of abiogenesis event.


Ok... I want to have a civil discussion about this but it becomes difficult when I see outright lies posted. No, one must not believe in abiogenesis, or panspermia or any other such thing whether it be a god, many gods, aliens or time travelers. None of that has an iota of bearing on the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and calling your insistence that one must believe in any of huge above or none of the above beyond intellectually dishonest is being generous.

I've yet to see anyone in this thread pick a single peer reviewed paper and falsify the conclusions. Instead I see a constantly moving goal post from one topic to the next at such a lace even Duane Gish couldn't keep up with the shenanigans.

For the umpteenth time, evolution as a biological process, is a measurement of change in allele frequency over time after life first arose on earth. How it began is not at all relevant to the discussion.



Yet this entire question is shoved aside because it is a monumental leap, especially considering the base requirements of even the most rudimentary prokaryote.


The only thing being shoved aside is the profound amount of evidence supporting the MES by people who are offended by evolution only because it conflicts with the preconceived notions wholly informed by their theological leanings. Your lamenting that nobody wants to entertain yet another strawman argument and it's getting thick with insanity in here.

Let me be clear, I don't give a F(# how life started. It has absolutely no bearing at all on what I used to study and work on being separated by the beginning of life by hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, I've seen nobody provide an iota of evidenced for their specific version of a creator. Any time you want to show some, I would love to falsify it, unlike the lack of falsification done in regards to the MES by those who loathe it and those who understand it.

The best part of it is the sheer degree of irony in that the people arguing against the validity of evolution couldn't ever agree on their personal interpretation of a creator god if they were left in a room together. Their bibles wouldn't be the same bibles, their faiths informed by different teachings and vastly differing interpretations of scripture and completely different translations being used for the basis of their holy books yet you all thing you're Christians.

This giant circle jerk you all engage in is irrelevant in huge grand scheme of things and it's hilarious to see how distracted you are by finally having a common enemy and that really is the crux of this. You hate evolution, don't understand the science behind it and you all hate anyone who can think critically for themselves and apply the scientific method if they use it to show evidence supporting evolution while you all use things that are informed by the sciences involved in studying evolution. Well maybe not the resident JW's since they don't use doctors that often... But the rest of you would be dead if you refused to use things that wouldn't be there were it not for the study of MES.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: peter vlar




D. I read Crick's book and quoted pertinent portions of it in an above reply and in Crick's own words he admits that it's an hypothesis with no supporting evidence

E. His hypothesis was formulated in the 1970's, 40 years before proof of molecular self assembly was found




Richard Dawkins is specifically asked about Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel who came up with Directed Panspermia.

Why didn't Dawkins dismiss the question in the context of the individuals mentioned?



I think the more important question is why didn't Dawkins support the notion of directed panspermia? Because he did nothing of the sort. He was quite clear in what he said. Again, Crick came up with his Hypothesis, the one where he states that there isn't actually any evidence to support it, in the early 1970's. Chemists have shown that organic molecules can self assemble given the correct conditions, Astrophysicists hVe detected organic molecules around other stars in the area that would be analogous to their Oort Cloud systems as old as billions of years old to systems that are still nascent and comprised of a proto-planetary disc. None of this supports a directed panspermia. The crux of what Dawkins is saying in his response is that organic chemicals are everywhere in the universe and nowhere near as rare as was once thought and that abiogenesis or normal panspermia are much more likely now than ever before based on the most recent data we have access to. Ad again, however life began is irrelevant to whether or not it evolves. Of all the scientific theories in history, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has the largesse body of supporting evidence. I don't see anyone disputing gravity for which there is nowhere near the amount of evidence as the MES. Whether abiogenesis, panspermia or directed panspermia, life has still evolved since it first appeared over 3.5 Bn years ago.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You forgot NASA doing research on asteroids showing long chain molecules made from amino acids. Another interesting thing discovered was just like on earth where life uses only left-handed versions of amino acids to build proteins there wass found that asteroids have this same bias favoring left handed. Its believed that something during the proto disk favored the growth of left handed aminos oor destroyed right handed ones.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



Cooperton


What these guys refuse to acknowledge is this forum is called Origins and Creationism, and yet they feign outrage that someone dares to actually mention origins and creation.

Oh, and Peer Review? Give me a break.
Most Scientists 'cant replicate studies by their peers'

To act like Science is filled with nothing but altruistic individuals searching for truth is naïve at best.

Not all, but most people, are motivated by getting laid, money, and status.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: cooperton



Cooperton


What these guys refuse to acknowledge is this forum is called Origins and Creationism, and yet they feign outrage that someone dares to actually mention origins and creation.

Oh, and Peer Review? Give me a break.
Most Scientists 'cant replicate studies by their peers'

To act like Science is filled with nothing but altruistic individuals searching for truth is naïve at best.

Not all, but most people, are motivated by getting laid, money, and status.



The next time you fire up your car or take an airplane ride or take a critical drug to treat a disease remember that peer review, repeating experiments to validate the work and science in general is a lot of bullsh7838939t. Doesn't mean a damn thing.

We go into the lab every day just to fool around and don't give a rat's ass whether our results are valid or repeatable. Hell, every paper I ever published is nothing but crap. I usually have a few martinis before firing up my Bruker DRX 600 MHz NMR Spectrometer. Why not? According to you, the information I derive from the instrument is junk. I'm sure Peter Vlar will agree with me. All his papers are just a bunch of fairy tales hyped up with fancy vocabulary. Noinden will agree as well. He's an industrial chemist who produces a lot of useless junk that no one can repeat. My oh my, we are back in the Stoneage.

The statement you made says everything we need to know about your knowledge (or lack of) in science and technology.


edit on 26-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1




Not all, but most people, are motivated by getting laid, money, and status.


Speak for yourself. Don't speak for us.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

As usual, you're reading comprehension isn't up to grade level, nobody is outraged over the mention of creatiinion. The outrage is when you move the goal posts and switch to an off topic tangent and insist in the midst of a thread about irreducible complexity and evolution that evolution includes the origins of life/abiogenesis/panspermia or magical creation by sky fairies. The two subjects are studied by completely different people with degrees and specialized fields that are completely separate. Totally different fields of inquiry.

The title of the forum isn't pertinent to your point when the title of the thread is about irreducible complexity and evolution.

As for peer review, I've yet to see you, or anybody else for thst matter, falsify a single paper utilizing the scientific method so anytime you think you can do so, please feel free. Nor have you provided anything more than hyperbolic conjecture to support your hypothetical construct of guided panspermia. It's an anachronistic concept that has zero evidence to support it and Crick's concerns have been shown to have no basis as a result of new evidence demonstrated in the last decade and a half. I'm not sure why you insist in harping in about a hypothesis which Crick himself had no actual evidence supporting it, from 45 years ago. It would be like me walking into an anthropology conference or giving a lecture where I insisted that Clovis First was the only possible model for human entry into the Americas despite all of the evidence proving thst humans were here prior to the advent of Clovis Culture.

Based on your closing remarks about people's motivation for engaging in scientific study, I've got to assume that your education in science stopped somewhere around 11th grade because it's pretty evident that you have never done any work with anybody in the field or a lab nor have you ever attended a conference let alone had a conversation with a working scientist because you consistently make illogical assumptions, misrepresent data and quote people without proper context in order to suit your argument which is intellectually dishonest.

If your personal motivations are money and getting laid, that alone betrays either your age or maturity level because anyone I've ever worked with is focused on one thing, discovering the truth and finding answers. Whether or not the answers are what they would have liked or expected is irrelevant. The data speaks for itself and we follow the data, not our preconceived notions. That's the domaim of YEC proponents.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

Neighbour

Speaking as a scientist (Chemist, Bioinformaticist), all my work is repeatable thanks. Its how you can have the same pharmaceutical made each and every batch, in a reliable manner.

SO I ask you. What science have you done? I am curious. Because you are not posting proof. Do you understand what that even is?

As for Origins and Creationism. What you find in this forum, is creationists come in, post a thread trying to debunk the theory of biological evolution, and insist it MUST contain how life began. Regardless of what the theory of biological evolution is addressing. This would be akin to posting an attack on faith, in the science forum, and trying to imply that one must take into account gravity before one prays to ones gods. How often does that occur again.

So a nice strawman you created there.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


Oh Absolutely! I didn't even think about putting pen to paper without a fifth of vodka down the hatch. Then I did all my research the way David Bowie write lyrics in the 70's. I would write out a proper paper and then I would cut it all up and rearrange the words randomly in a word document then send it in to be reviewed with a big fat check so that some sketchy guy reeking of cigars and expensive Bordeaux just publishes it as soon as the check clears. Because you know, I think the whole thing is hilarious and have no concern for the actual results. I just like to frame things with my name because chicks really dig Paleoanthropologists! There's a whole subsection on tinder and okcupid for hot chicks who are super into nerdy science guys who moonlight as musicians! It's all the rage these days and the pay checks are HUGE! Isn't that why everyone spends years and years and tens of thousands of dollars on an education and then defending their work over and over? Because we know that we can all retire in luxury by age 50?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join