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.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 40
14
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
Since the starting conditions are unknown and can never be conclusively proven, then everything else that follows is falsified. PERIOD. It does not matter if you want the answer or not. That is the only thing that is true. Do not ascribe magic to me. Magic has nothing to do with this. Knowledge has nothing to do with this. BELIEF has everything to do with this. And all this becomes, since BELIEF is at the heart of this endeavor, is a measuring contest between one belief set and another belief set.


"I don't know" doesn't falsify anything. If experiments demonstrate that the right acids and proteins can form into parts of RNA under certain conditions, then it proves that it can happen under those conditions. You act like the concept of scientists studying these things is somehow a bad thing, and that it's better to completely surrender the mind and pretend you know the answer. I don't agree with that line of thinking at all. We should learn as much as possible about our origins and evolution, and everything else about this physical reality because it may one day save our species from extinction. Praying and appealing to magic will not.

I'll fix your statement for you:

Originally posted by totallackey
Since an intelligent designer is unknown and can never be conclusively proven, then everything else that follows is falsified. PERIOD. It does not matter if you want the answer or not. That is the only thing that is true. Do not ascribe magic to me. Magic has nothing to do with this. Knowledge has nothing to do with this.

How would argue against your own argument to justify your beliefs?

You see there's a big difference between "Science is working on it" and "it's impossible". Let it do it's thing and we'll find out one day which is true.
edit on 28-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Since the starting conditions are unknown and can never be conclusively proven, then everything else that follows is falsified. PERIOD. It does not matter if you want the answer or not. That is the only thing that is true. Do not ascribe magic to me. Magic has nothing to do with this. Knowledge has nothing to do with this. BELIEF has everything to do with this. And all this becomes, since BELIEF is at the heart of this endeavor, is a dick measuring contest between one belief set and another belief set.


"I don't know" doesn't falsify anything. If experiments demonstrate that the right acids and proteins can form into parts of RNA under certain conditions, then it proves that it can happen under those conditions. You act like the concept of scientists studying these things is somehow a bad thing, and that it's better to completely surrender the mind and pretend you know the answer. I don't agree with that line of thinking at all. We should learn as much as possible about our origins and evolution, and everything else about this physical reality because it may one day save our species from extinction. Praying and appealing to magic will not.



What part of "falsified," do you not understand? The very starting point of the experiment (i.e., conditions of environment in the beginning) cannot be REPLICATED...therefore, everything else that follows is NONSENSE and SPECULATION!!! It proves nothing...You act like speculating on something is a good thing...especially when you have ZERO PROOF about starting conditions and nothing but pure conjecture. Furthermore, the tendency in such experiments would lead to confirmational, biased attempts to make the starting conditions as favorable as possible for life to appear. You keep throwing magic and prayer into this conversation...wtf is the matter with you? Are you being a purposeful jackass? Can I not have fun at the expense of your ignorance?

ETA: I see again, you have the nerve to insert some crap about an intelligent designer into my post...attempting to SHOEHORN your ill-conceived mindset about my point of view, when in fact I have come down on neither side of a belief set. Typical blowhard, pseudo-intellectual CRAPOLA attempt to put a cherry on top of a bull# sundae...

You cannot grasp the fact or concept there may be questions which will go unanswered...and this disturbs you...
edit on 28-7-2012 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
the evidence is there are functional codes that exist that were not created by humans,,,, including,, humans and their intelligence,,,

That's not tangible evidence. You can't attribute something to an intelligent designer without evidence of this designer's existence. You can't scientifically test god. Complexity is all over the universe, but we understand how a large portion of it works, thanks to science. But what happens with people like you, is you'll stop at nothing to find anything science hasn't proven yet and insert god into the equation. It started with thunder in ancient days. Science didn't exist so it was believed god did it when angry. The goalposts have been moving for hundreds and thousands of years with creationists.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
"The appearance of complexity does not automatically mean design"
how can a complex system work if during its construction it was not being designed to work?

How did the rings form on Saturn? I've already covered this. Life has evolved for billions of years. This includes DNA. There's no reason to assume the cause is not natural or that the original cell was as complex as today's.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
What part of "falsified," do you not understand? The very starting point of the experiment (i.e., conditions of environment in the beginning) cannot be REPLICATED...therefore, everything else that follows is NONSENSE and SPECULATION!!! It proves nothing...You act like speculating on something is a good thing...especially when you have ZERO PROOF about starting conditions and nothing but pure conjecture. Furthermore, the tendency in such experiments would lead to confirmational, biased attempts to make the starting conditions as favorable as possible for life to appear. You keep throwing magic and prayer into this conversation...wtf is the matter with you? Are you being a purposeful jackass? Can I not have fun at the expense of your ignorance?

What part of "hypothesis" do you not understand? If they show life can form on its own from the basic components, then it proves exactly that. It is a work in progress. That doesn't mean it's automatically bunk because they don't know the exact conditions, yet. They do have a pretty good idea however. They are trying to find the answer. Why not let them? They might one day discover god.


ETA: I see again, you have the nerve to insert some crap about an intelligent designer into my post...attempting to SHOEHORN your ill-conceived mindset about my point of view, when in fact I have come down on neither side of a belief set. Typical blowhard, pseudo-intellectual CRAPOLA attempt to put a cherry on top of a bull# sundae...

You cannot grasp the fact or concept there may be questions which will go unanswered...and this disturbs you...


Do I really seem like the one who's disturbed here? I'm a happy agnostic. I don't mind not knowing the answer.. but you sure do. Look at your post. It's full of insults, capital letters and a poor attitude. It looks like an emotional rant. If you can't handle it, don't dish it out in the first place. You should read a basic biology book before attempting to describe something like abiogenesis hypothesis.

Saying that something is confirmed false, when we really just don't know yet, is beyond silly.
edit on 28-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


You know what is insulting? Having someone attempt to shoehorn their belief set on to my mind, simply because they cannot admit failure. But you are right, I will no longer shout.

Admission there is only conjecture at the root of an experiment (i.e., a statement taking the form of, "Conditions could have been...") does falsify all future results and proves nothing, whether you care to admit this or not. You say, "they have a pretty good idea." Prove that statement. What constitutes a "good idea?" I have a pretty good idea you are about 3 foot 2 inches tall. Am I right? I am done trying to explain this to you.


edit on 28-7-2012 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs
 


You know what is insulting? Having someone attempt to shoehorn their belief set on to my mind, simply because they cannot admit failure. But you are right, I will no longer shout.

Admission there is only conjecture at the root of an experiment (i.e., a statement taking the form of, "Conditions could have been...") does falsify all future results and proves nothing, whether you care to admit this or not. You say, "they have a pretty good idea." Prove that statement. What constitutes a "good idea?" I have a pretty good idea you are about 3 foot 2 inches tall. Am I right? I am done trying to explain this to you.


edit on 28-7-2012 by totallackey because: further content


This thread still going.......

Incidentally, you clearly do not understand some of the words you use, so here is a little help with a simple enough basic explanation.

___________
Experiment

Definition
Research method for testing different assumptions (hypotheses) by trial and error under conditions constructed and controlled by the researcher. During the experiment, one or more conditions (called independent variables) are allowed to change in an organized manner and the effects of these changes on associated conditions (called dependent variables) is measured, recorded, validated, and analyzed for arriving at a conclusion.
________________________

Now weigh that against your commentary. Pretty much invalidates your argument, sorry.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



Look at the discussion like a murder investigation.
It's clear we can't go back in time and witness the crime. What we can do is look at the evidence, DNA, time frame, chemistry..etc, to settle the case and come up with an explanation.

According to your logic if we can't go back in time and witness the crime it can't be proven, it did not even happen, we should not even look for the killer...Let a god sort them out.

The only failer in this debate is the straw man your trying to construct.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

Although I respect a persons beliefs...we are on a Discussion Board and you have brought up this topic so I must digress from some of you stated beliefs of Fact. First of all...it should just be referred to as GENESIS as I believe there is no need to put another label on it such as Abiogenesis.

The Fact that all Life is a collection of Matter that has arranged itself into greater and greater Complexity...just as all Matter has been doing since the beginning of Space/Time...is a Tell Tale Sign that LIFE is just another byproduct of our Universe as again...all life is just a Collection of QUANTUM PARTICLES that are the building blocks of all Protons and Neutrons and whether something is Living or Not...both are made up of these Quantum Particles.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between the Particles that make up a Human Body and the Particles that make up the Plastic Keyboard that I am now typing on. Both YOU and my KEYBOARD are made up of Neutrons and Protons and Electrons that orbit as both Particle and Wave around each Atoms Nucleus in both YOU and my KEYBOARD. ALL of the Protons and Neutrons that make up those Atomic Nucleus are made up of SMALLER QUANTUM PARTICLES such as Quarks and Gluons, Leptons and so on. The Building Blocks of YOU and my KEYBOARD are the SAME TYPE OF BUILDING BLOCKS.

So there is no difference in what makes up YOU and ME and every other amount of Matter in the Universe and this even pertains to DARK MATTER as it is spread throughout our Universe like a Lattice that is intrinsic to our and everything else' EXISTENCE! So what YOU and I are comprised of is NOTHING SPECIAL as EVERYTHING IN OUR UNIVERSE and perhaps Infinite Numbers of Divergent Alternate Universal Realities which our Universe is like a Branch on a Great Tree that has many branches and New Branches FORKING OUT from all Branches...as well as this TREE is but ONE TREE in a MULTIVERSE with MANY TREES...each Trees Root System is interconnected but each Tree has it's own set of Physical Laws as well as Dimensional States. OUR TREE is a TREE that has Infinite Branches but all branches are forking off one another and even though each branch represents a Different Version of Our REALITY...they all have the same PHYSICAL PROPERTIES...as OTHER TREES represent DIFFERENT UNIVERSAL REALITIES of which we and our Universe as well as all possible versions of our Universal Reality are NOT REPRESENTED.

In a TREE that is not our TREE...a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STATE OF UNIVERSAL PHYSICS may exist...or in another TREE...there may be only a limited number of Dimensional States or another TREE...NO LIFE...another...NO DEATH...another...NEITHER OF THE BEFORE MENTIONED...and some TREES may have existing things that the HUMAN MIND can neither COMPREHEND or even CONCEIVE or PERCEIVE!

I believe...and I am BETTING I AM RIGHT....that there are INFINITE UPON INFINITE...NOT ONLY JUST...VERSIONS OF REALITY...but the EXISTENCE of REALITIES SO STRANGE AND DIFFERENT that the Human Mind is just WAY TO UNDER DEVELOPED to even BEGIN to understand.

Although...as I said earlier...respect anyone's beliefs...this does not mean I agree with them...nor do I think that the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE have an understanding or even appreciation of just how UNIMAGINABLY MASSIVE AND COMPLEX OUR MULTIVERSAL SYSTEM IS as well as having the ability to or rather not having the proper HUMILITY to admit...we are not the END ALL TO END ALL and perhaps...if there is a GOD...and I am on the FENCE...ONLY because I have seen and heard and perceived a few things both PERSONALLY and because of my THIRD JOB...that I cannot deny...but if there is a GOD...I am CERTAIN in my BELIEF that it is NOTHING LIKE WE THINK IT IS.

I BELIEVE...GOD is something that our LIMITED MINDS AND PERCEPTIONS AND ABILITIES cannot in any way even BEGIN to FATHOM or UNDERSTAND. Except this one thing...I DO UNDERSTAND why and the reasons why...people THINK THEY KNOW WHAT GOD IS and even worse...try to force their concepts on others.
If there is such a thing as SIN...that would be ONE OF THEM!

Things...my friend...are FAR MORE COMPLEX than either of us can imagine...BUT THERE IS ONE THING THAT IS FOR CERTAIN! NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE. Math dictates that statement...so does Science...so does Chaos Theory...so does Metaphysics...so does THEOLOGY...so does our VERY EXISTENCE. Knowing this to be true...I would think that such a small concept as Abiogenesis...has A LOT OF ROOM to fit in the POSSIBLE CATEGORY! LOL! As well as there being a TREE where it is in the IMPOSSIBLE CATEGORY....but since LIFE EXISTS as well as forms of ALMOST LIFE such is a VIRUS...it is NOT ALIVE and the two Guy's who won the NOBEL PRIZE for their work in VIROLOGY in the Nobel Category of Medicine STATED THIS! A VIRUS has DNA like we do...but is NOT ALIVE. This is as good of an example I can show you. Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   


living systems are machines with parts that do different jobs and work in tandem for the whole system,, lets say like a car,,, these living systems are also a part (depend on) larger systems such as the physical planet they occupy and the consistent and cyclic nature of nature.....


Nature itself, no wait, existence itself is a self-organizing and self-generating machine simply because energy can interfere with itself.. If it couldn't, you wouldn't be here. Like I told you once already, most everything you see around you is electromagnetic phenomenon. Nature doesn't need some intelligent life form to make living organisms... Yes it could be done this way, but it's not necessary... We know enough to know that it can be self-generated. And we are very close to figuring out exactly how it's done in nature.. So what are you going to do when we figure out? Are you going to go running for the next gap?



so life on this planet is as if,,,,, the universe began to form,,,, and then millions of years later,,, spare energy and elements from the creation and burning of our sun,,,


Sorry, that made absolutely no coherent sense..



self created these machines/vehicles of life from the quantum upwards and outwards,,,,


Energy itself does all the work. That includes producing you... You can feel free to try and demonstrate where energy doesn't. Yes it's entirely self-generated.



and the reason the matter/energy was able to accomplish this feat of engineering is because of all the other variables surrounding it ( laws of physics)


Energy again is a force upon itself... So yes, it can indeed accomplish it. You are a product of it, and anything you make, or do is just again an emergent property of what energy can do. You need to understand here that in the 21st century, energy and information are regarded as two sides of the very same coin. It's what produces cognitive systems so you can have the possibility of states of awareness, and consciousness.. So we aren't in the 1940's anymore..




,, and the composition and other describing details of the materials used to create life forms,,


All these materials you can find on the periodic table. The heavier elements forged in high mass stars that had gone supernova.. And it just so happens that the carbon atom is very good at building molecular chains with other atoms. It doesn't need a conscious entity to do these things.



were pressured naturally to construct these symbiotic natural machines like the atmosphere and all its conditions and variables create snowflakes?


Have you ever looked at a snowflake? It's a very complex structure. You should watch the series "the secret life of Ice"..And it's pretty amazing what nature can do.. But what you should be more amazed about is how energy can produces a cognitive system capable of achieving a self-generating conscious state. That's what is utterly impressive. The fact that any conscious entity exists is absolutely incredible.. We are natures finest achievement and we don't even act like it.. That is the sad part, we take it for granted. To put this into perspective.. Consciousness, above anything else, is the most unlikely thing to ever exist or evolve..And yet it happened and we are here. That is a winning lotto ticket that has a value that is utterly priceless.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 

Humans are not the only Self-Aware...Conscious...Sentient Animals on planet Earth. There are many other animals I would place...Dolphins, Whales, Orcas, Cats, Dogs, Several VERY SMART PARROTS, Chips, Gorillas and a variety of other Primates...in this category.

In looking at the Universe through the Hubble Telescope or contemplating the Multiverse...I would have to say that we are not all that special...except to one another. Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

Energy itself does all the work. That includes producing you...


Since we are talking about life, you should now that you ATP synthase is used to transfer energy around the cell.

ATP synthase had to be one of the first enzymes because it is absolutely necessary for many of the organisms that are thought to have existed on the primitive earth. It is an incredible enzyme, ATP synthase lets proteins flow back to the other side of the cell membrane, and this powers a small rotary motor imbedded inside the membrane and causes it to spin.

The enzyme is composed of 8 distinct peptide chains. If any one of the chains is missing, the enzyme does not function. You know what that means. Well, probably not.

A host of papers have recently revealed it's incredible nano machinery.
www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org...

So we have yet another chicken and egg scenario besides the protein, DNA problem.
You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes.

Just a point of interest. Any luck with that single example?

Oh and self order and organization through chaos theory (snowflakes) does not contain meaningful information it has no function and does not pass coded instructions to anything else. Physical laws can be defined mathematicaly but they are not codes by any stretch of the imagination. But then you can argue the fine tuning of the universal constants to allow self order and self organizaton in the first place.
edit on 29-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   


No I believe it is a big factor, what I said is that current evolutionary thought says nothing about it. I don’t deny the feedback issue it’s vital for evolution. As I said the information runs both ways, this is feedback.
You are simply misstating my words.


It's not just about evolution.. It's vital to abiogeneiss, your very existence, or even the formation of a snowflake... And information running both ways? Dude, clarify what you are talking about..



This has to be your most glaring piece of ignorance yet. Not much to say except wow! You need to learn some basic biology. Amino acids are capable of coding? Come on! You are just making up stuff now. A link would be nice.


Call me ignorant while you being to damn lazy to look it up ?? I need to learn basic biology? Wow! ..Now I'm making stuff up and you are demanding "proof" with a link? Amazing, a theist asking for empirical evidence to a claim! Need a link? OK, here you go!:



Prions are primarily of protein (PrP) they have folded incorrectly, they are pieces of genetic information. Yes they can replicate without DNA but they need normal proteins that are encoded within the genome of their host to make more copies of themselves. They can’t replicate on their own.


We weren't taking about replicating regarding prions. Please learn to read and comprehend the material given to you.. I suspect you are now either trying to move the goal post realizing your argument was proven wrong, or you are quote mining me out of context. Which is it? .. And then you claim I'm making stuff up? WOW.., I guess I just have to post some scientific journals and academic sources you won't read either..:

www.jsonline.com...
www.sciencemag.org...
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

And Jupiter, Fla's prion study was pub­lished in the Dec. 31 is­sue of the re­search jour­nal Sci­ence Ex­press, an ad­vance, on­line edi­tion of the jour­nal Sci­ence. You know, the one you claim I just magically made up.:



December 31, 2009
Scripps Research Scientists in Florida Show "Lifeless" Prion Capable of Evolutionary Change and Adaptation
Research May Point to More Effective Therapeutic Targets for Deadly Prion Diseases


Oh, while I was on Scribbs Institutes site, I found this:



January 31, 2012
Scripps Research Team Proves Plausibility of New Primordial Pathway to Life’s Chemical Building Blocks
A group from The Scripps Research Institute has proven an alternative pathway to life-essential sugars called the glyoxylate scenario, which may push the field of pre-life chemistry past the formose reaction hurdle.




Agreed, we are talking about how this system came about in the first place. But then you would say…


Do you even comprehend why I told you were wrong.?? I don't think you do, and that plane clearly flew over your head unnoticed.. If it hit you in the face, I still don't think you would acknowledge it. That is what intentional ignorance is..



You won’t have any biological system in place without some form of genetic information. It’s no use jumping to biological examples after the fact. It’s that simple.


Please tell us what genetic information is and is comprised of.. And I can jump to any biological example I choose to and it won't do anything but prove me right... You don't even get it, and it's clear by now you never will since it's well over your IQ grade giving by your replies here.



You still believe that information is all physical? Is an idea an object? Do smoke signals show meaning outside of their symbolised purpose? Are smoke plumes and gaps the information? Of course not.


Feel free to demonstrate information without material physicality.. And everything you described there is physical. Please try again. Immateriality is a logical fallacy. Things made of nothing don't exist. You do comprehend what the definition of nothing is right?



By all means show the one single example that I’ve been constantly asking for.
Show a code that has emerged from natural forces including electromagnetism.


Pretty much everything around you. And I already did, you're just in utter denial.. You're like talking to a flat Earther.



Obviously it must exist and I’m simply ignorant to it.


And dishonest!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



We weren't taking about replicating regarding prions. Please learn to read and comprehend the material given to you.. I suspect you are now either trying to move the goal post realizing your argument was proven wrong, or you are quote mining me out of context. Which is it? .. And then you claim I'm making stuff up? WOW.., I guess I just have to post some scientific journals and academic sources you won't read either..:

Which argument was refuted? What is the point anyway? Was it the thing about DNA having nothing to do with proteins? They were your words weren’t they? I have no problem with any of those papers at all; I had actually read one of those links before.
Here’s another one.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Recent evidence challenges the paradigmatic view of nucleic acids as the sole mediators of hereditary information. Here I present a molecular mechanism that can explain how acquired information in humans in a DNA independent mode becomes innate and heritable.

It’s not good for current evolutionary theory; I’ve always been against genetic determinism. It’s not all in the genes at all. Personally I think its great work.

Prions are Lifeless, but require life to exist. It is a piece of genetic information.

Is the RNA molecule alive? No, it can also self replicate, splice and reconfigure.

Your whole point here is that it has to be classified as alive before any stuff can happen. I’m not saying this at all. You’ve attempted to create a diversion. I don’t see the point I’m sorry.

So where do you think the first prion came from?

Your other comments are not really worthy of attention, you fail to see that it is the birth of genetics we are discussing, not anything after the fact which is due to genetics. You also fail to conceptualise that coded information is symbolised in matter and not the matter itself. It’s easy for most people to grasp I think, It’s self evident actually.

Perhaps this is why you can’t produce a single example of a naturally occurring code, you just don’t get it. I see the insults are setting in. To me that means no answers.

Fair enough.


edit on 29-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   



Since we are talking about life, you should now that you ATP synthase is used to transfer energy around the cell.

ATP synthase had to be one of the first enzymes because it is absolutely necessary for many of the organisms that are thought to have existed on the primitive earth. It is an incredible enzyme, ATP synthase lets proteins flow back to the other side of the cell membrane, and this powers a small rotary motor imbedded inside the membrane and causes it to spin.

The enzyme is composed of 8 distinct peptide chains. If any one of the chains is missing, the enzyme does not function. You know what that means. Well, probably not.


I almost wonder if you missed the section on Volcanic gasses making peptides... I posted a lot of information on where Peptides can come from. You are again jockeying for an argument from ignorance. And it sounds like you are trying to bring up the laughable irreducible complexity argument that has been thoroughly debunked.



A host of papers have recently revealed it's incredible nano machinery.
www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org...
www.pnas.org...


Was I supposed to be impressed with this? Umm, none of this is an argument against what I was discussing with you.. Nice try though :/



So we have yet another chicken and egg scenario besides the protein, DNA problem.
You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes.


Umm, we know the answer to the chicken and the Egg... Other than the chicken and the egg, you're making a claim you can't back up once again.. This "chicken vs egg" dilemma has been addressed when it was realized that RNA can both carry genetic information as well as enzymatic activity (even at the level of the ribosome used for protein synthesis). And regarding enzymes, and not to mention amino acids ect.. Volcanic activity is another key source:



The first steps towards life may have been taken billions of years ago in the waters around seafloor vents, German researchers say.

Their study, published today in the U.S. journal Science, suggests that amino acids - the building blocks of all proteins - and other important organic molecules can form instantaneously under certain conditions with no ingredients other than seawater, volcanic gases, and metals which are present in the ocean floor.

Günter Wächtershäuser, and Claudia Huber of the Technical University of Munich in Germany have shown that, under the right conditions, metal atoms alone can catalyse the formation of amino acids, and even link them up in short strings called peptides - the first step toward creating proteins. Intriguingly, the results also suggest that once these peptides have been created, they actually bind to the metal atoms and increase their catalytic ability.

One of the central paradoxes in the debate over the origin of life is how amino acids were originally created and assembled into enzymes when there were no enzymes around to catalyse the reaction. Many present-day enzymes are based around metal atoms, and the finding that metal atoms alone can create amino acids is a significant step forward in the debate over how life began.


And to give you an idea on how close science is to this, here ya go:



According to Wächtershäuser, now that he and Huber have demonstrated that it is possible to produce the building blocks of life instantaneously under volcanic conditions, they must demonstrate that these molecules can replicate themselves. "We have demonstrated production," said Wächtershäuser. "Now we must demonstrate reproduction."


Now I find it funny you cling to "it's impossible", "needs creator being", while science is ripping that apart in every way..



Oh and self order and organization through chaos theory (snowflakes) does not contain meaningful information it has no function and does not pass coded instructions to anything else.


Wrong!.. sorry, creationist idea of function is like comparing science theory to what creationists call theory. Sorry, snowflakes have informational structure that serves the function as the structure. And yes it can pass information via entropy and thermodynamics..Again all electromagnetic.



but they are not codes by any stretch of the imagination.


Again wrong.. Any sequence of atoms can be considered in line to code theory even if it doesn't server a higher function than the sequence itself. It still produces a pattern sequence and a functioning state of sequence regardless.
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   


Which argument was refuted? What is the point anyway? Was it the thing about DNA having nothing to do with proteins? They were your words weren’t they? I have no problem with any of those papers at all; I had actually read one of those links before.


Umm the example used regarding prions had nothing to do with needing DNA in regards to "coding". I showed you how Prions don't need DNA to adapt or evolve. They don't have DNA! They only use a cells for reproduction, and it's why they are considered non-living.. I addressed the issue as non-living molecules evolving and adapting through protein folding to which is entirely applicable to code theory you claimed...._____..Common...Fill in the blank!..



It’s not good for current evolutionary theory; I’ve always been against genetic determinism. It’s not all in the genes at all. Personally I think its great work.


Evolution isn't rested on "determinism".. There is a mix of chaotic interactions that aren't predictable, and those that are.. Current evolutionary theory doesn't state it's all deterministic as many of the processes are chaotic.. For example, who would have predicted this evolutionary mutation event?:

www.ouramazingplanet.com...




Prions are Lifeless, but require life to exist. It is a piece of genetic information.


Not relevant to the point made.. You're building a straw-man and moving the goal post. You just can't seem to grasp why you were proven wrong.



Is the RNA molecule alive? No, it can also self replicate, splice and reconfigure.


Did you just slap yourself? O.o.. Hint, has nothing to do with being "alive" ..



Your whole point here is that it has to be classified as alive before any stuff can happen.


I never made that argument. Please try again.


I’m not saying this at all. You’ve attempted to create a diversion. I don’t see the point I’m sorry.


Nope, just pointing out how your entire argument was flawed...



Your other comments are not really worthy of attention, you fail to see that it is the birth of genetics we are discussing, not anything after the fact which is due to genetics. You also fail to conceptualise that coded information is symbolised in matter and not the matter itself. It’s easy for most people to grasp I think, It’s self evident actually.


Wow, and you are still clueless to the point I made.. Geesh, you really are good at being lost here. :/



Perhaps this is why you can’t produce a single example of a naturally occurring code, you just don’t get it. I see the insults are setting in. To me that means no answers.


I already DID! For petes sake, someone ban this kid... :/



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



Umm, we know the answer to the chicken and the Egg... Other than the chicken and the egg, you're making a claim you can't back up once again.. This "chicken vs egg" dilemma has been addressed when it was realized that RNA can both carry genetic information as well as enzymatic activity (even at the level of the ribosome used for protein synthesis). And regarding enzymes, and not to mention amino acids ect.. Volcanic activity is another key source:


The RNA hypothesis has many critics even amongst the materialists, there is no one singular unified idea.

www.arn.org...
www.panspermia.org...
www.sciencedaily.com...

Done deal? Not by a long shot. I won’t bother pulling out relevant quotes
.
The study from Munich is just another speculation in a long list. So they can create amino acids, this is not anything groundbreaking. Amino acids can be found on meteorites as well. Why don't you post the link so I can read all of it? Oh I see it's 14 years old, How'd they get on then?


Wait they didn’t actually form any proteins did they? They speculate a possible process, like many others. yep that’s science just ripping apart the big mystery. It’s quite lame actually. Szostaks work is much more tangible but also faces the difficult problems of the RNA hypothesis.

It’s been said that without enzymes the longest biological chemical reaction may take a trillion years.


snowflakes have informational structure that serves the function as the structure. And yes it can pass information via entropy and thermodynamics..Again all electromagnetic.


Where is the encoding and decoding in a snow flake? Its structure is the function for its structure? Pfff..
You’re not passing information to entropy, entropy destroys information.
You’re not passing information to thermodynamics, this is not code.
Self organization through chaos theory is not code.


In computer science and information science, an ontology is used to formally represent knowledge as a set of concepts within a domain, and the relationships between those concepts, which can then be used to reason about the entities within that domain. Entities can be categorized or classified as tangible/physical, intangible/non-physical, or both. Tangible/physical may be defined as things composed of matter (e.g., planets, furniture, or persons), and intangible/non-physical may be defined as things that cannot be touched, such as abstract concepts (e.g., mathematical concepts, alphabets, and literary works). Examples of entities that are both tangible and intangible at the same time are a printed book, a thumb drive, and a person. They are physical, but also contain intangible knowledge and information that is independent of and transcends the physical media upon which the information is placed. The distinction between physical and non-physical may occur at the highest level of the upper ontology, as in SUMO[3] and Cyc,[4] or not occur at all, as in OCHRE.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ooops!
edit on 29-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 





I showed you how Prions don't need DNA to adapt or evolve. They don't have DNA! They only use a cells for reproduction, and it's why they are considered non-living.. I addressed the issue as non-living molecules evolving and adapting through protein folding to which is entirely applicable to code theory you claimed...._____..Common...Fill in the blank!..


Um so? Where did the first prion come from? Did it self assemble? It's already got genetic information in it!



WRONG! Protein folding does not need DNA what so ever.. Amino acids alone are capable of coding, sequencing, and folding.. All of it is electromagnetic phenomenon


This was your line that started this issue. Proteins are sequenced by DNA, so that's pretty important for the correct fold. Random amino acids can not code anything. You should have stated that proteins can change regardless of DNA. I already provided a link that had shown this to be true in a remarkable feat of refolding. And no it's not all electromagnetic. You should stop making unsubstantiated claims. This is a rediculous point that has nothing to do with how it began.

And what the hell does a new species of flower have to do with the origin of life?

So your example is to look around or it's existance itself.

OK then. Whatever.

edit on 29-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   



Um so? Where did the first prion come from? Did it self assemble? It's already got genetic information in it!


What do you mean "Uh so?"..You were proven wrong, and then you tried to move the goal post. After that, you then pretended not to know what I was talking about. And yes it did self-assemble..Hence, energy did all the work, and it was, for the most part, electromagnetic phenomenon to which produced them. It's irrelevant of the process. Hence, you aren't grasping the scope of this argument. (And no I am not saying a prion made the first prion)...



This was your line that started this issue. Proteins are encoded by DNA, A single amino acid can not code anything. You should have stated that proteins can change regardless of DNA. I already provided a link that had shown this to be true in a remarkable feat of refolding. And no it's not all electromagnetic. You should stop making unsubstantiated claims.


It's not relevant if DNA made a prion.. Had nothing to do with the argument. And no, DNA doesn't have anything to do with prion protein folding in prions once the prion exists. Prions don't Have DNA. You need to read the damn literature and stop talking.. And I didn't say it was "all" electromagnetic..I could say it involves the strong and weak forces too...but the processes are mostly governed by electromagnetism.. You need to learn physics and how that relates to chemistry. That includes knowing the differences of atoms and how that deals with chemistry. .. And my claims are well substantiated by scientific academia.. You remind me of why they make videos titled "why do creationists get laughed at" :

www.youtube.com...



And what the hell does a new species of flower have to do with the origin of life?


I didn't, it had to do with your argument about determinism.. You sure love being a dishonest twit..



So your example is to look around or it's existance itself.


Existence itself is technically the correct answer to everything.. Conscious states can't exist without cause, so what do you think supports it, and produces it? What do you think the origin of everything is? It's an obvious answer. And existence is a self-generating system.. But hey, feel free to try and prove me wrong.


edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



What do you mean "Uh so?"..You were proven wrong


Wrong about what exactly. Read you own quote, anyone with the slightest clue about biology can see the error. You were wrong with your initial statement and now are in damage control.


And yes it did self-assemble..Hence, energy did all the work,


Another unsubstantiated claim, got a citation? Did it do it without ATP? Or was it ATP itself?


And no, DNA doesn't have anything to do with prion protein folding in prions once the prion exists.


This I agree with. I’m well aware that prions don’t have DNA. Sheesh.


And I didn't say it was "all" electromagnetic


Yes you did, Here it is again.


WRONG! Protein folding does not need DNA what so ever.. Amino acids alone are capable of coding, sequencing, and folding.. All of it is electromagnetic phenomenon


On and on about electromagnetic phenomena, and not a single scientific citation to quantify any of it. I do however agree it is an interesting and overlooked aspect of biology. It's all you own personal opinions, show the research as it relates to abiogenesis.


I didn't, it had to do with your argument about determinism.. You sure love being a dishonest twit..


You are incoherent, you even presented a clear case challenging determinism and I agreed with it.
Insults once again. What a surprise.


Existence itself is technically the correct answer to everything.. Conscious states can't exist without cause, so what do you think supports it, and produces it?


I don’t know. There is no scientific explanation for Consciousness; neuroscience is struggling with the mechanical approach. You can’t claim any facts about what is considered the hard problem in neuroscience.

Existence itself is the correct answer to everything… That is just ridiculous and answers nothing.

Consciousness is existence itself, how’s that? Then we would be in agreement. It’s an unsubstantiated claim just as valid as any of yours. In fact some quantum physicists make this suggestion themselves.

What I find funny is that one guy didn’t want to acknowledge code, another says everything is code.


You’ve failed to provide a single example of a naturally occurring code. You refuse to acknowledge the very definition.

Once again I have to leave; I’ll be back in a few days. I’m betting no single example of naturally occurring code will spontaneously emerge from existence while I’m gone. It will be just more scientism and dribble without substance



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Once again I have to leave; I’ll be back in a few days. I’m betting no single example of naturally occurring code will spontaneously emerge from existence while I’m gone. It will be just more scientism and dribble without substance


Two examples of naturally occurring codes:

1. The genetic code in its many variations
2. The histone code in its many variations

If you want to argue that the genetic code didn't evolve over time, but was designed, then what is your argument for for example there being 6 codons that encode e.g. Serine and Threonine, but only one codon for encoding e.g. Methionine and Tryptophan (in most genetic codes). What is the purpose of this from the intelligent designer point of view? Why does UGA encode stop in some codes, but Tryptophan in others? Why does AUA encode isoleucine in some codes, but Methionine in others? Why the observation that non-naturally occurring amino acids (those that are taught to have been integrated into the code only after their synthesis pathways evolved), are encoded (I think without exception) by split codon boxes (strongly hinting that only then also the 3rd letter of codons became meaningful in some codon boxes, while still remaining mostly irrelevant in 4-fold boxes where anticodon wobble position U can recognize A, U, G and C). Why is C even used in the code? It's not a very good nucleotide as it's easily deaminated to U (some 5,000 times in almost every cell of your body every day). Surely an intelligent designer would have recognized this problem and skipped it altogether thus avoiding the waste our cells go thru every day fixing these deaminations (it's btw the most likely reason why T is used instead of U in DNA).

tl:dr
If the genetic code was designed, then 1) Why were intelligent design choices omitted; 2) Why does it appear as if the code evolved naturally?
edit on 29-7-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join