Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

DNA doesn't have a set half life.

You guys will deny science just to avoid being wrong. You don't care about truth, you just want to be right.

DNA does have a calculable half-life:

research paper: "The half-life of DNA in bones"
DNA has a 521-year half life (Nature 2013)


Yes this rate varies with freezing temperatures, but the regions in Sima de Los Huesos in Spain would not have exhibited persistent freezing temperatures... especially buried underground where it is significantly warmer than it is on the surface. The 521-year half life for DNA was measured in New Zealand, which has nearly identical average temperatures to Spain. So therefore, with a half life of 521 years, how is there still:


"... an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos"
(Source - Nature 2014)



I'll tell you why, because these supposed "transition fossils" are not as old as the scientists want to believe they are.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yes this rate varies with freezing temperatures, but the regions in Sima de Los Huesos in Spain would not have exhibited persistent freezing temperatures... especially buried underground where it is significantly warmer than it is on the surface. The 521-year half life for DNA was measured in New Zealand, which has nearly identical average temperatures to Spain. So therefore, with a half life of 521 years, how is there still:

"... an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos"
(Source - Nature 2014)


I'll tell you why, because these supposed "transition fossils" are not as old as the scientists want to believe they are.

Coop, stop the blatant lies. We already covered this. The half life of DNA is not a FIXED rate. They tested it in literally one condition to see how fast it decays when in a normal environment in the bone. The half life VARIES and I already proved that. Using that to argue that geological dating is wrong is absolutely laughable. It's not just sub zero conditions. It depends on many factors.

It's also comical how you latch on to this science as absolute unwavering truth but deny geological dating at the same time when isotope decay IS constant and not condition dependent. Keep preaching though. I'm sure somebody will fall for your BS.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton

Coop, stop the blatant lies. We already covered this. The half life of DNA is not a FIXED rate. They tested it in literally one condition to see how fast it decays when in a normal environment in the bone. The half life VARIES and I already proved that.

You don't even read my posts. I said:

"Yes this rate varies with freezing temperatures"...

But went on to explain that the regions where they calculated DNA half life in bone, New Zealand, has a very similar climate to Sima De Los Huesos in Spain. And also buried beneath the ground, the remains would not have exhibited much freezing temperature because it is warmer underground.

It's not just sub zero conditions. It depends on many factors.

So then the entire method is useless? What are you proposing? You are blindly denying the obvious only because it disagrees with your deranged mutant progenitor dogma.

When you see a result you don't like it must be wrong? You've lost your objectivity.

It's also comical how you latch on to this science as absolute unwavering truth but deny geological dating at the same time when isotope decay IS constant and not condition dependent. Keep preaching though. I'm sure somebody will fall for your BS.

Isotope dating is flawed because you cannot know the initial isotopic ratios or concentrations of the original sample. Without this, you can only estimate. Therefore, you see in many of these papers regarding isotopic dating, they will literally ignore large data sets because it doesn't agree with the timeframe they wanted to find.

If you could actually discuss these things, rather than clamoring that I'm wrong before even contemplating what I am saying, we could actually make some progress. But your blind zeal prevents this, because you refuse to consider emerging empirical evidence that is contradictory to your beliefs.

a reply to: cooperton

"Isotope dating is flawed because you cannot know the initial isotopic ratios or concentrations of the original sample."

One can also say that the decay rate of DNA could have changed over the years just the same. In fact there is hard evidence to support the FACT that the decay rate varies. Then you claim isotope decay rate can vary but offer no evidence. It's pure double standards.

This is why nobody takes you seriously. You arbitrarily decide which science you will accept as true and champion it, while ignoring tons of other science, they are based on the same method. You decided out of emotion, not factual data. That is called cherry picking. You base your acceptance of scientific theory on whether it agrees with your personal faith and that's the end of it.

You don't reject the scientific theories of relativity, germs, atoms, etc, but evolution / big bang is magically a problem. You except the IDEA (not hypothesis or theory) of god/designer despite being backed by nothing, while blindly denying any other hypothesis and rejecting anything that isn't 100% proved.... except of course when it's something like QM that we know next to nothing about. You will latch right onto it as absolute be all end all, and accept the pseudoscience of intelligent design without scrutiny while dishonestly rejecting all the abiogenesis hypotheses and experiments.

You still have not proved abiogenesis impossible which is your primary claim in the thread.

originally posted by: Barcs

This is why nobody takes you seriously. You arbitrarily decide which science you will accept as true

That's a broad accusation. I would love to see such an accusation stand up in real time. I know it won't, and you're just some child spouting out what they heard in textbooks in the 10th grade, so I won't push the issue too hard. But do yo want to know why no one takes YOU seriously? It is because you are a textbook parrot. You have nothing new to offer, you only repeat what the mainstream system wants you to continually to ascribe as truth. If you were to realize that your short shelf life was a minor stepping stone to realizing that there is more to life than material-reductionism, you would realize a purpose with your life also. But you refuse any sort of meaningful rhetoric, and replace it with meaningless fairy tales that you're a mutant ape and should die ASAP to supply more dirt so life can produce more dirt for more life.

I don't perceive you as totally lost and worthless, because all children of the upcoming awakening have been made susceptible to erroneous dogma, and silly thoughts of the mind. You talk about what sort of scientific theory best fits your own personal beliefs, and I surely believe that you have found some sort of unsubstantiated form of science to fit your perverse irrelevant foundation of beliefs that has no basis in reality, or any sort of betterment of philosophical insight. I hate to say you are dumb, because you are probably just young, and susceptible to the propaganda of the state system that wants you to believe in a matter-based world system, rather than a spirit-based world system.

I really wish you the best, and that you would stop contention for the sake of contention, and actually appeal to logic for logic's sake.

originally posted by: cooperton
That's a broad accusation. I would love to see such an accusation stand up in real time.

I literally just proved that. You DO arbitrarily choose what science you accept and you proved it by denying isotope decay rates while championing the DNA "half life" as if it refutes geological dating or is a constant. It's double standards like this that prove your lack of credibility. Why is one of those valid, while the other is not?

You still haven't refuted any abiogenesis experiment, proved it is impossible, or demonstrated any piece of evidence for evolution is wrong. Just saying. You can rant about my motivations, and make up things like purpose of life, but you haven't done anything to justify your position, so your rant is baseless.

originally posted by: Barcs

I literally just proved that. You DO arbitrarily choose what science you accept and you proved it by denying isotope decay rates while championing the DNA "half life" as if it refutes geological dating or is a constant. It's double standards like this that prove your lack of credibility. Why is one of those valid, while the other is not?

I never said DNA half-life was a perfect dating method. As I said before, and you guys all agree, it varies with conditions. But the conditions where they determined this 521 year half-life for DNA has very similar climate to Sima De Los Huesos. Obviously it is not 100% certain, but it indicates the samples at Sima De Los Huesos are much younger than assumed.

a reply to: cooperton

Define "much earlier". You are not actually proving anything with your posts, well beyond your inability to grasp the science.

Lay out exactly what you are saying, and cite some peer reviewed articles to back it up. Because otherwise youa re not doing anything beyond trying to muddy the waters.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Lay out exactly what you are saying, and cite some peer reviewed articles to back it up. Because otherwise youa re not doing anything beyond trying to muddy the waters.

Researchers in Spain found:

"... an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos"
(Source - Nature 2014)

They claimed it was a 300,000 years old transition fossil, but DNA has a 521-year half life:

DNA has a 521-year half life (Nature 2013)

After 300,000 years, there would have been enough half life iterations to have turned all DNA into chainless monomers. They determined the 521-year half life from samples in New Zealand which is about 43 degrees south latitude, whereas the "hominin" samples in Spain were located at about 42 degrees north latitude. Indicating they would have similar enough climates that the 521-year half life would be fairly accurate for that climate as well.

a reply to: cooperton

You don't understand what a half life means then.

First a single paper does not refute any scientific information. It is a single data point.
Second, Half-life (symbol t1⁄2) is the time required for a quantity to reduce to half its initial value. It does not mean that it is impossible to find Mitochondrial DNA almost intact. But look "almost intact" is not intact. Do you understand what that means.

Conditions of where the sample came from will affect was found. You should understand this. We are talking a biological molecule, various conditions affect that. Don't be obtuse.

For example Mitochondrial DNA can at -5 °C have a mitochondrial DNA degradation to an average length of 1 base pair after 6,830,000 years. (1)

Basically this is a kinetic model. You can increase or decrease that with various thermal or chemical conditiosn.

So don't pretend your 521 year half life is absolute.

(1) Allentoft ME; Collins M; Harker D; Haile J; Oskam CL; Hale ML; Campos PF; Samaniego JA; Gilbert MTP; Willerslev E; Zhang G; Scofield RP; Holdaway RN; Bunce M (2012). "The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 279 (1748): 4724–33. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1745. PMC 3497090. PMID 23055061.

originally posted by: Noinden

For example Mitochondrial DNA can at -5 °C have a mitochondrial DNA degradation to an average length of 1 base pair after 6,830,000 years. (1)

Basically this is a kinetic model. You can increase or decrease that with various thermal or chemical conditiosn.

So don't pretend your 521 year half life is absolute.

I am aware that temperature effects the half-life for DNA. That is why I mentioned that Sima De Los Huesos (Spain) has a very similar climate to the area where they did the study in New Zealand. They both are near the 42nd latitude (north for Sima De Los Huesos, and South for New Zealand). Therefore, the samples in Spain would likely not have varied drastically from the 521 year half-life exhibited in New Zealand.

originally posted by: cooperton but it indicates the samples at Sima De Los Huesos are much younger than assumed.

NO IT DOESN'T!

I am aware that temperature effects the half-life for DNA. That is why I mentioned that Sima De Los Huesos (Spain) has a very similar climate to the area where they did the study in New Zealand. They both are near the 42nd latitude (north for Sima De Los Huesos, and South for New Zealand). Therefore, the samples in Spain would likely not have varied drastically from the 521 year half-life exhibited in New Zealand.

IRRELEVANT. You are assuming the conditions are the same, for no valid reason. Measuring decay rate in a bone in normal conditions is different from a bone being preserved underground or trapped in ice and isolated from the decaying conditions and chemicals.

Also just because something shares the same south and north latitude does not mean it's the same environmental conditions. During the last glacial period, the glaciers extended much further south in North America, than they did in Asia, and even less in the southern hemisphere. Funny how simple you are. It was much colder during the glacial periods than it is today even in areas not covered by glaciers. That definitely plays a role.

Your article literally states that the rate varies and the maximum in ideal conditions is around 1.5 million years before it becomes unreadable. In fluctuating conditions, you'd expect less. The current record is 500,000 years for readable DNA, and thus poses no issue at all for the specimens found in Spain. I mean, you understand that these areas go through Winter, and that the vast majority of the last 500,000 years was in glacial period conditions, right? You are pretending like the conditions TODAY represent the conditions over the past 500,000 years.

a reply to: cooperton

Neighnour I am from New Zealand, we do NOT have a climate like Spain. DOn't be rediculous. I shared the article I did, because Moa DNA was extracted, an extinct local giant flightless bird. Don't be obtuse.

Mitocondrial DNA is different to nuclear and thus will have a different half life.

a reply to: Barcs

Why would he read the articles? They might contradict his story.

As I said to him. Just because New Zealand and Spain are on a similar latitude (in different hemispheres) the climate is vastly different. For one we are an Island nation, Spain is part of a honking large Continent. The weather is unpredictable here. WE have literally snow within minutes of hot climate in the summer (our southern alps never have snow disappear during summer, I grew up in the Provence whee the tourism for that is based)

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs

Why would he read the articles? They might contradict his story.

It is funny you say this, because it is obvious that you didn't comprehend the study. you said:

Mitocondrial DNA is different to nuclear and thus will have a different half life.

But both the experiment in Sima De Los Huesos and the half-life test in New Zealand were done on mitochondrial DNA.

"By analysing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 158 radiocarbon-dated bones of the extinct New Zealand moa, we confirm empirically a long-hypothesized exponential decay relationship" (DNA Half-life study)

"... an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos"
(Source - Nature 2014)

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs

Why would he read the articles? They might contradict his story.

As I said to him. Just because New Zealand and Spain are on a similar latitude (in different hemispheres) the climate is vastly different. For one we are an Island nation, Spain is part of a honking large Continent. The weather is unpredictable here. WE have literally snow within minutes of hot climate in the summer (our southern alps never have snow disappear during summer, I grew up in the Provence whee the tourism for that is based)

It's hilarious. I guarantee he completely ignores my post right above this that breaks it down and completely destroys him.

It's the norm. Whenever conflicting data is posted, he just repeats the original claim and pretends it was never said and focuses only on buzz words. He basically has to pretend the entire ice age didn't happen (I wouldn't put it past him).

originally posted by: Barcs
During the last glacial period, the glaciers extended much further south in North America, than they did in Asia, and even less in the southern hemisphere. Funny how simple you are.

Do you know where Spain and New Zealand are? Neither of them are in North America or Asia.

the vast majority of the last 500,000 years was in glacial period conditions, right?

proof? Empirical evidence only, no blogs or hear-say.

t's hilarious. I guarantee he completely ignores my post right above this that breaks it down and completely destroys him.

Napoleon Complex.

Also just because something shares the same south and north latitude does not mean it's the same environmental conditions.

They have very similar annual temperatures (with the exception of an inverted summer and winter):



Because you can't prove your assertions with contemporary empirical evidence, you have to resort to fairy tales of what things may have been like very long ago. Why not address the empirical evidence at hand? It is very foretelling, but you ignore the raw data, and replace it with imaginings and speculations.

Spain and New Zealand have very similar annual temperatures, so we can conclude that the 521 years is going to be very accurate for Spain as well, due to the similar annual temperatures.

a reply to: cooperton

YOU have been quoting a number on DNA half life. But you do not seem to understand that mtDNA is different to nuclear DNA. It is in a different environment (a mitochondrion is different to the nucleus of a cell). for one.

I quoted you information on mt DNA, so you did not read what I typed.

You've ignored the rest of what I said too. So again you don't understand the science.

a reply to: cooperton

Cherry picking a location much? Tell me neighbour where was the Moa sample found?

Hint, New Zealand is not uniform in climate, the south island (where I come from origionally) very much so. Picking a random location shows nothing. I live in Wellington, look at that, or Auckland, or Dunedin. Not like Spain.

a reply to: Barcs

Oh he will and he's igoring most of mine. He has picked one location in New Zealand to show its the same It will not be where the Moa samples were found.