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.
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?
*It’s been said that without enzymes the longest biological chemical reaction may take a trillion years.
A class of proteins called enzymes act to speed up, or catalyse, most of the chemical reactions that occur in cells, including those that make amino acids and assemble them into enzymes. Without enzymes, the biochemical reactions that enable the cell to function would occur as much as a billion times slower.
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.
Other processes can create amino acids, said Wächtershäuser, but "this is important because it is a very selective process that generates 'alpha' amino acids." Alpha amino acids are the only ones that occur in life on Earth.
Wait they didn’t actually form any proteins did they?.
Where is the encoding and decoding in a snow flake? Its structure is the function for its structure?
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.
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.
Originally posted by squiz
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.
So we have yet another chicken and egg scenario besides the protein, DNA problem.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by squiz
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.
1. ATP synthase is necessary for contemporary organisms as it is used to charge ADP to ATP
2. It's just one out of many energy generating pathways
3. It didn't have to be one of the first proteins
4. It has nothing to do with the flow of proteins but protons.
5. The contemporary ATP synthase is rather complex, however, it has much simpler origins.
So we have yet another chicken and egg scenario besides the protein, DNA problem.
What problem? You need protein to make DNA and DNA to make protein? That's how things are in contemporary cells. However, in RNA world neither DNA nor proteins were required. RNAs can: form peptide bonds, cleave and ligate RNA, polymerize RNA, phosphorylate DNA and RNA, aminoacylate RNA, alkylate RNA, form amide bonds, form glycosidic bonds, catalyze oxidation/reduction reactions, reform carbon-carbon bonds, form phosphoamide bonds, and catalyze disulfide exchange, among other things.
Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Has anyone noticed that his sources are Creationist websites that are quote mining science out of context to which is heavily mixed in with pseudoscience as debating arguments? Well, the only valid link he had was the sciencedaily link..But he goes on and claims it's a "done deal". The others are like Blog sites pretending to be like published journal sites... :/ Seriously? .. I didn't have to read much further than them claiming life can't be made from non-life when life is entirely made from non-life. And then you get the false probability arguments and supposed made up mathematical arguments.. #, it reminds me of this:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)
"You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes," explained Dr Kee. "The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed?
We think that the answer may lie in simple molecules such as pyrophosphite which is chemically very similar to ATP, but has the potential to transfer energy without enzymes."
The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution during which two functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality.[5][6] This association appears to have occurred early in evolutionary history, because essentially the same structure and activity of ATP synthase enzymes are present in all kingdoms of life.[
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros
Time for one more quick comment; rhino deserves one for some good info without being rude.
I agree for the most part, however ATP is highly conserved in evolution and exist in the earliest life forms. So I really only question no 5 In your post.
www.sciencedaily.com...
"You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes," explained Dr Kee. "The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed?
The question is valid; they offer a solution though it is speculative of course.
We think that the answer may lie in simple molecules such as pyrophosphite which is chemically very similar to ATP, but has the potential to transfer energy without enzymes."
So I imagine this might be the simpler form you a referring to? A single molecule?
I’m just asking because I am sincerely interested in what the precursors may have been.
As for RNA world yes it seemed that it could overcome the chicken and egg problem, it’s no secret that the RNA world faces serious problems perhaps even insurmountable problems. Any other claim is just dishonest. See my links already posted, Evolution of the ribosome says something different.
Originally posted by totallackey
Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Has anyone noticed that his sources are Creationist websites that are quote mining science out of context to which is heavily mixed in with pseudoscience as debating arguments? Well, the only valid link he had was the sciencedaily link..But he goes on and claims it's a "done deal". The others are like Blog sites pretending to be like published journal sites... :/ Seriously? .. I didn't have to read much further than them claiming life can't be made from non-life when life is entirely made from non-life. And then you get the false probability arguments and supposed made up mathematical arguments.. #, it reminds me of this:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)
And you are a pernicious liar.
He has offered many more supporting pieces of documentation other than wikipedia and blog sites. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is hardly an illegitimate source.
This association appears to have occurred early in evolutionary history, because essentially the same structure and activity of ATP synthase enzymes are present in all kingdoms of life.
"I'm convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct," Caetano-Anollés said. "That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins."
Your other point regarding the ribosome I aslo have doubts about.
www.sciencedaily.com...
"I'm convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct," Caetano-Anollés said. "That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins."
There is no agreement on any of this stuff.
Ok, got a plane to catch.
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
Here is a brief bibliography of the posts by squiz. You can look at the sources he has provided.
post by squiz
post by squiz
post by squiz
post by squiz
post by squiz
post by squiz
Plus many, many more...hardly any of his posts are as you describe them...I saw two posts listing a source promoting ID...even that does not disqualify the material, as the experiment was performed within empirical guidelines.edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: clarity
Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Has anyone noticed that his sources are Creationist websites that are quote mining science out of context to which is heavily mixed in with pseudoscience as debating arguments? Well, the only valid link he had was the sciencedaily link..
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
I have posted just a small sample of his material in this thread in order to refute this nugget you wrote:
Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Has anyone noticed that his sources are Creationist websites that are quote mining science out of context to which is heavily mixed in with pseudoscience as debating arguments? Well, the only valid link he had was the sciencedaily link..
Like I said, you are a pernicious liar and his list of sources provided prove that beyond a shadow of doubt. The rest of your post is a smokescreen and deserves no response. I will allow readers to decide for themselves who is zooming who in this discussion...