Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 1:04 AM
349 online now:
Coyote, edge, Faith (3 members, 346 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,194 Year: 23,800/21,208 Month: 1,765/2,468 Week: 274/822 Day: 0/67 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
171819Next
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 226 of 281 (676484)
10-23-2012 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-22-2012 7:28 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
The cat read not so long ago a paper by a Spanish astrobiologists team

So ... does your cat read these things and then tell you about them? Or do you think you are a cat?

???????????????

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 7:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 227 of 281 (676494)
10-23-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-22-2012 7:28 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
No, that is nothing but your conjectures and bare assertion.

It is a statement of the problem. You really can't have life appearing until you have a place where life can thrive. That necessarily limits this whole problem to the age of the Earth. I think we all agree that Panspermia is still an option, but that is merely moving the problem away from Earth to another planet/planetoid. If we can solve the problem for Earth or our Solar System then we can solve the problem for anywhere else where life originates.

The cat read not so long ago a paper by a Spanish astrobiologists team where they ran a computer simulation of such a process claiming that such was the most likely way life had first appeared on earth.

Then life originated in another solar system, but we still have the same problems and using our solar system as a model seems like a valid choice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 7:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 4:20 PM Taq has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3949
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 228 of 281 (676495)
10-23-2012 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 9:33 AM


No, you said that you have no clue about death avoiding machines which in my wildest imaginations I interpret as living organisms.

So, you have no clue about living organisms? Well that's fine: I have no clue about quantum physics. Consequently I don't pontificate about it with an air of smug self satisfaction. That's what I don't do.

That is why you should not contribute to this thread.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 9:33 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 4:00 PM Larni has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 229 of 281 (676497)
10-23-2012 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
10-22-2012 8:42 PM


Re: Anything to say about the topic?
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

This thread was opened to argue that even one of the simplest proteins could not have formed naturally because that would require all the amino acids to come together in the right order spontaneously by chance.

Let me see if I have got this straight.

Statement "the simplest proteins could not have formed naturally".

Reason: All the amino acids would have to come together in the correct order spontaneously by chance for that to happen.

Message 157

Percy writes:

It certainly didn't happen anything like the opening post suggests, with all the amino acids coming together in the correct order by chance because that would be incredibly unlikely.

Percy writes:

If you have some other reason why even a simple protein could not have formed naturally then it belongs in a different thread.

So no other reason for or against is forbidden, is that what you are saying?

Just to refresh the OP.

Message 1

OP writes:

The Ribonuclease protein is the simplest protein that we know of, and can be considered the most basic building block of a cell. It is made from 124 amino acids, the first one in the strand being Lysine. There are 17 different amino acids in this protein, so to simplify it, lets say that there is a 1/17 chance of Lysine coming first. The second one in line, is Glutamic acid. The odds of it coming second are 1/289. Then comes Threonine. Chances of it coming 3rd are 1/4913. If we continue down the list, the end result is 1 followed by 552 zeroes. To put that in perspective, It's the same as a poker player drawing 19 royal flushes in a row, with out trading in any cards. If this is a million: 1,000,000. And this is a billion: 1,000,000,000. And this is a trillion: 1,000,000,000,000, We still have 546, 543, and 540 zeroes to go, respectively. To conclude, I think the chances of a living cell forming from chemicals that just happened to bond, is ridiculously unlikely.

RIDICULOUSLY UNLIKELY

Percy writes:

It certainly didn't happen anything like the opening post suggests, with all the amino acids coming together in the correct order by chance because that would be incredibly unlikely.

INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY

It seems you agree 100% with BoredomSetsIn.

I also agree.

I gave my reason for why I agree.

The only known method of creating a protein is that the information in DNA for a specific protein be sent to a receiver called a ribosome which produces the protein.

Anything else is incredibly unlikely as you have said and ridiculously unlikely as BoredomSetsIn says.

Since there is no evidence to examine for how the simplist protein was created anything other than the known method is an assumption made by pure speculation.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 10-22-2012 8:42 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by dwise1, posted 10-23-2012 2:54 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 10-23-2012 3:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 3:58 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2958
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 230 of 281 (676517)
10-23-2012 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Larni
10-22-2012 1:14 PM


Re: New information
Larni writes:

You don't have have 100% accuracy to be information. It is still information.

See?

Damnit. I was 10 seconds away from posting a correction for this to you before I "got it."

Mistakes
"It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

You and your tricksy ways. I'll get you next time, and your little cat too!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Larni, posted 10-22-2012 1:14 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 231 of 281 (676525)
10-23-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
10-23-2012 11:25 AM


Re: Anything to say about the topic?
RIDICULOUSLY UNLIKELY

Percy writes:

It certainly didn't happen anything like the opening post suggests, with all the amino acids coming together in the correct order by chance because that would be incredibly unlikely.

INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY

It seems you agree 100% with BoredomSetsIn.

I also agree.


{sigh} You still do not understand.

I have a pencil on my desk next to me. How did it come into being and what is the probability of that? Somebody opens the discussion by claiming to have calculated the probability that some free energy spontaneously coalesced into matter consisting of just the right elements and compounds and in just the right shape to form that pencil and he found that event to be extremely improbable. Everybody agrees that that kind of event is extremely improbable. However, the OP of that discussion strongly implies that we on the side of science believe that that is how pencils come into existence and we inform him that his assumption that we do is highly incorrect. Then others who feel themselves to be on his side start chipping in insisting that we on the side of science do indeed believe that the OP's assumption of what we think is correct and we have to informed as well that that assumption is highly incorrect. But they keep deafening themselves to the truth and maintain their false assumption regardless of how many times we have to repeat that they are wrong.

ICANT, open your eyes and engage your brain. The OP of this topic started with the assumption that we think that modern proteins first came into existence through the spontaneous and random self-assembly of amino acids. No, we do not think anything like that! What part of that are you incapable of understanding? Yes, such an event as he described would indeed be very improbable, but such an event has nothing to do with anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 10-23-2012 11:25 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15912
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 232 of 281 (676532)
10-23-2012 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
10-23-2012 11:25 AM


Re: Anything to say about the topic?
ICANT writes:

It seems you agree 100% with BoredomSetsIn.

Yes, that's right. This has been stated many times in this thread, for example, Message 84 where I said:

Percy in Message 84 writes:

What we're trying to explain in this thread is that evolution doesn't believe that the first proteins just popped spontaneously and randomly into existence. We all agree that that would be incredibly unlikely.

If you think that the "simplest protein of life" could not have formed naturally because of information theory then you should open a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 10-23-2012 11:25 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 233 of 281 (676535)
10-23-2012 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
10-23-2012 11:25 AM


Re: Anything to say about the topic?
RIDICULOUSLY UNLIKELY

No one is proposing that proteins from modern organisms were present 4 billion years ago when abiogenesis might have occurred. You are beating on a strawman.

The only known method of creating a protein is that the information in DNA for a specific protein be sent to a receiver called a ribosome which produces the protein.

That is false.

"Addressing the still open question of the prebiotic origin of sequential macromolecules (peptides, nucleic acids) on the primitive Earth, we describe a molecular engine (the primary pump), which works at ambient temperature and continuously generates, elongates and complexifies sequential peptides."
Source

Abiotic processes can produce sequential peptides.

Anything else is incredibly unlikely as you have said and ridiculously unlikely as BoredomSetsIn says.

We simply don't know how many different combinations of molecules will result in life, so any calculation of any probabilities is based on pure speculation. For all we know, given the volume of water on a planet and the number of reactions that can occur the emergence of life may be guaranteed within 100 million years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 10-23-2012 11:25 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 234 of 281 (676536)
10-23-2012 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Larni
10-23-2012 10:59 AM


That's different from quanta, silly. I am a death escaping machine myself. I may have no clue about the prospects of chemical evolution you propose but I can read languages so I can read enough of what you write to conclude that first you have even less of a clue and second is that you cheat on top of that. That's my communication to you and that is quite different from the method snowflakes pass information to the same you. Got it?
You don't like the cat? Poor dear. You want the circle jerk with your mates undisturbed here? Is that what you want? Or you rather fancy a back-patting competition with them?
For the sake of overkill. All causal action is passing of information. Not all causal action is coded passing of information. What is the purpose of the code? To modify and neutralise the way the chemical interactions of the inert would run otherwise. That is very cunning of the living machines. None of the causal action of the inert is cunning in that fashion. Why? It has no purposes to stay in one intricate piece. Molecules just don't care one way or the other. None of the chemical interactions however intricate and complicated exhibit that cunning. Some of the causal action of the death escaping machines is coded in that way and some is not. Some is going the way the snowflake communicates.
That leads to the conclusion that all life is intelligent in principle and in a way none of non-life is. How do you explain that? Either the intelligence is imparted by an outside agent like the ID people want to believe or it is intrinsic to life which is always present. If you contest that you need to show the mechanism of transition of the inert into the intelligent and that is exactly what you lot fail to do to the delight of ID folks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Larni, posted 10-23-2012 10:59 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 4:56 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 246 by Larni, posted 10-24-2012 3:19 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 235 of 281 (676538)
10-23-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Taq
10-23-2012 10:56 AM


Re: Speaking of lost...
No, problem, Taq. The only objection is the use of we. If you need to move the assumed origin further away, no problem. Just don't say we because it is only who assumes anything as a fact. I don't. I see life coming from life only. Other scenarios I do not observe so just take note of them without taking anything for granted.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 10:56 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 4:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 236 of 281 (676546)
10-23-2012 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 4:20 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
I see life coming from life only.

I could care less what you see or don't see. What I care about is what you can demonstrate with evidence. Comparing beliefs is a laughable excersize. Proclaiming your beliefs may work from a pulpit, but it just doesn't work in the arena of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 4:20 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 5:05 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 237 of 281 (676547)
10-23-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 4:00 PM


I am a death escaping machine myself.

No you aren't. You will die someday just like all organisms.

What is the purpose of the code? To modify and neutralise the way the chemical interactions of the inert would run otherwise.

Do you even understand how you contradicted yourself here? If something is inert it does not go through chemical reactions.

The problem you are having in these conversations is that you describe aspects of nature using contradictory descriptors. You describe organisms that die as death escaping machines. You describe reactive matter as inert matter. This is why people frown on your posts. They are jibberish.

That leads to the conclusion that all life is intelligent in principle and in a way none of non-life is.

Nowhere have you shown that this intelligence can not occur through natural mechanisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 4:00 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 5:19 PM Taq has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 238 of 281 (676548)
10-23-2012 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Taq
10-23-2012 4:51 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
Sorry, that is your trouble not mine. It is your beliefs that are immaterial. My belief that life comes from another life is easy to support. Apart from your words the evidence life has come from non-life that are in your possession is zero exactly. Zilch, remember? So trim your chutzpah down in accordance to that magnitude.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 4:51 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 5:24 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 239 of 281 (676550)
10-23-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Taq
10-23-2012 4:56 PM


I already explained that but you failed to pay attention or your memory is selective so I repeat. Death-escaping does not mean immortal. It is continuous tense. An individual machine like you escapes death while it can only. It's the aim of its actions only not hitting the target always. Understand? No eternal guarantee of success. Not forever. A system of death escaping machines might last longer or indefinitely and so on. That is open.
Inert in this context means not alive and not completely still or not chemically reacting.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 4:56 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 5:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 240 of 281 (676552)
10-23-2012 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 5:05 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
It is your beliefs that are immaterial.

I agree which is why I don't post beliefs.

My belief that life comes from another is easy to support.

It is your belief that life can ONLY come from life is a claim that you have not supported with evidence.

Apart from your words the evidence life has come from non-life that are in your possession is zero exactly.

I agree. The evidence is very small to non-existent. What we do have is evidence that life started out as simple unicellular organisms. What we don't see is the sudden emergence of zebras and bats in the earliest parts of the fossil record. This is certainly consistent with life starting out as simple organisms which is consistent with abiogenesis.

What is occuring now within the scientific community is an effort to see if life can come about through abiogenesis. I think most people agree that we will never be able to figure out how exactly life started on Earth. All we can do is see if there are pathways by which abiogenesis can occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 5:05 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 6:17 PM Taq has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
171819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017