Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 5:54 AM
357 online now:
Heathen, PaulK (2 members, 355 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,267 Year: 23,873/21,208 Month: 1,838/2,468 Week: 347/822 Day: 7/66 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
141516
17
1819Next
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 241 of 281 (676553)
10-23-2012 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 5:19 PM


Death-escaping does not mean immortal.

Then it is a very poor descriptor.

It would seem to me that the important feature of life is replication, not the length of an individual's lifetime. If all life did was live and then die there would be no life on Earth. It is the ability to reproduce which has resulted in the biodiversity we see today.

Inert in this context means not alive . . .

Then use abiotic instead. Inert means that it does not react. Obviously, this matter is reacting, therefore it is not inert.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 5:19 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 12:52 AM Taq has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 242 of 281 (676566)
10-23-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Taq
10-23-2012 5:24 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
I said I take a good note that the concept that life may come from non-living matter by an unspecified gradual chemical process is present in people's minds. And I take a good note that there is another concept that life may come about from a supremely intelligent, powerful object called God equally poorly specified.
That is all I can do with these concepts and no more. Take a good note of them, assume the proposals at face-value without reservation and see what may be the logical implications and consequences of each, what the inherent contradictions are and what their strong points seem to be and so on. Not take either of them for a fact of nature.
Life coming from another life is an entirely different kettle of fish as this is a given fact of nature so is the only scenario that may be taken for granted thus far. Sorry.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 5:24 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 6:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

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


(1)
Message 243 of 281 (676575)
10-23-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 6:17 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
I said I take a good note that the concept that life may come from non-living matter by an unspecified gradual chemical process is present in people's minds. And I take a good note that there is another concept that life may come about from a supremely intelligent, powerful object called God equally poorly specified.

The interesting part is that people are only doing research on one of those proposals. Why do you think that is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 6:17 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 1:14 AM Taq has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 244 of 281 (676591)
10-24-2012 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Taq
10-23-2012 5:27 PM


What else the living are replicating for if not to escape death, silly? Only the bluntly dumb need this to be chewed out for them. That descriptor fully implies the frantic tendency for replication. Love is compensation for death as Schopenhauer and Freud pointed out. That is common to all the living. It captures what exactly the machines aim to do and the intensity of that goal which distinguishes them from other configurations of matter.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 5:27 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Taq, posted 10-24-2012 10:51 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 245 of 281 (676592)
10-24-2012 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Taq
10-23-2012 6:41 PM


Re: Speaking of lost...
What assumptions most people make prior to doing the research is irrelevant. They tend to assume stuff and interpret the results any way they please. I repeat: if life can arise from inanimate matter, then the process is as obligatory to matter as farting to a monkey. If not then no collective assumptions are going to make mother nature comply. Nothing to do with what a crowd of monkeys does or does not reckon.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Taq, posted 10-23-2012 6:41 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Taq, posted 10-24-2012 10:49 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

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


Message 246 of 281 (676593)
10-24-2012 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-23-2012 4:00 PM


Where have I cheated?

Why do you hate science?


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 234 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-23-2012 4:00 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12528
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


(3)
Message 247 of 281 (676601)
10-24-2012 8:46 AM


Notice of Transition to Moderator Role
Beginning now I am recusing myself from participation as Percy. Tomorrow, Thursday, October 25, 2012, I will begin participating in my moderator role as Admin. I will be enforcing the Forum Guidelines rule about staying on topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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


Message 248 of 281 (676613)
10-24-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 1:14 AM


Re: Speaking of lost...
They tend to assume stuff and interpret the results any way they please.

So you discount the conclusions before they are even voiced. So much for being open minded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 1:14 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

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


Message 249 of 281 (676614)
10-24-2012 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 12:52 AM


What else the living are replicating for if not to escape death, silly?

Reproduction has nothing to do with escaping death. It never has. Reproduction is about passing on your genes. If organisms simply lived and then died there would be no life right now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 12:52 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:12 AM Taq has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 250 of 281 (676715)
10-25-2012 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Taq
10-24-2012 10:51 AM


Look at your reasoning, Tacky.
1. Making love to be fruitful has got nothing to do with death
2.Death avoiding machines just love to pass genes on.
3. If not for that a single generation of death avoiding machines would have been long dead and there would be no life now.
Do you get how lame is your reasoning, Tacky?
Besides, what is a collection of genes? Memory of how to build a functioning death-avoiding machine, isn't it? And what is death? What puts an end to that functioning, isn't it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Taq, posted 10-24-2012 10:51 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Admin, posted 10-25-2012 10:30 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 252 by Taq, posted 10-25-2012 5:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12528
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 251 of 281 (676789)
10-25-2012 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 1:12 AM


Topic Reminder
To Everyone: Unless you have something to say about how the simplest proteins of life could or could not have formed spontaneously through random chance, please do not post to this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:12 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 252 of 281 (676914)
10-25-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-25-2012 1:12 AM


Do you get how lame is your reasoning, Tacky?

Says the person who uses the phrase "death avoiding machines". Says the person who describes reactive matter as inert matter.

My reasoning is just fine.

Besides, what is a collection of genes? Memory of how to build a functioning death-avoiding machine, isn't it?

No. Memories require brains. Modern genomes are the product of billions of years of evolution. Those are not memories any more than the roundness of a stone in a stream is a memory of flowing water.

As to the topic, this is why modern proteins are not valid examples to be used for probabilities that describe abiogenesis. They are the products of evolution, not abiogenesis.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 1:12 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 859 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 253 of 281 (724965)
04-23-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by BoredomSetsIn
10-01-2012 9:00 AM


BoredomSetsIn 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.

Wow. This guy was bang on. No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL

I thought it appropriate to reproduce the original post, as I back it up 100%. The evidence for an intelligent origin of proteins is the same as the evidence for the intelligent origin of the nucleotide sequence on the original DNA/RNA.
I like when numbers come into this discussion. Tends to make the methodological naturalists start dancing, dog and pony shows, and all sorts of entertaining antics to skirt the quantitative issue and hope nobody notices...

Speaking of which, it's probably just about time for RAZD to make an appearance! (lol just joking)

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BoredomSetsIn, posted 10-01-2012 9:00 AM BoredomSetsIn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by subbie, posted 04-23-2014 10:03 AM Ed67 has responded
 Message 255 by Theodoric, posted 04-23-2014 10:08 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 256 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2014 10:26 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 257 by subbie, posted 04-23-2014 10:36 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 259 by Stile, posted 04-23-2014 10:51 AM Ed67 has responded
 Message 260 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:27 AM Ed67 has responded
 Message 281 by Larni, posted 04-25-2014 5:05 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 254 of 281 (724971)
04-23-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Ed67
04-23-2014 9:34 AM


Ever heard of the sharpshooter fallacy?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:34 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:10 AM subbie has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(1)
Message 255 of 281 (724973)
04-23-2014 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Ed67
04-23-2014 9:34 AM


Wow!!

Your ignorance is astounding. So what you are saying is that if I had 10 dice it would be take an astronomical amount of times to get me to roll them so I show all sixes?

I'll tell you what. Send me a plane ticket, supply the dice and I will show you how I can roll them so they all show six in less than an hour. No cheating either.

This argument presented by BoredomSetsIn is just plain stupid. If you had bothered to have read the whole thread you would have seen that his argument was systematical destroyed. Do you really think you have the new idea that destroys the underpinnings of evolution? You do think highly of yourself don't you.

Tell you what read this one response.
Message 5

I like when numbers come into this discussion.

Obviously because you do not understand numbers. You might want to learn about statistics and probability before you start spouting nonsense.

ABE

No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL

Gee a creationist making misrepresentations, whudda thunk. He was not gotten rid of. He was a driveby creo/fundy. He made two posts and ran away. I am sure he told his pastor how he really showed those evo/atheists a thing or two. He didn't even have the decency to argue his won thread, but I am sure he got credit for a class at his fundie school.

Edited by Theodoric, : A little rant


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 9:34 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
141516
17
1819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017