Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 11:37 AM
289 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,340 Year: 28,946/21,208 Month: 1,012/1,847 Week: 387/475 Day: 50/102 Hour: 7/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   first genetic material
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 1921 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 16 of 84 (443206)
12-24-2007 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
12-15-2007 12:37 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Dear Crashfrog,

Hello, nice to hear from you again.

You state,

I think it's been estimated that an organism could carry out all the metabolic processes of life using a subset of only (I think) 12 different amino acids.

So let’s use those twelve different amino acids. An individual protein has one to three hundred of these (12) amino acids; and a protein is just one small component of the cell.

Stephen C. Myer (Philosopher of Science Discovery Institute) States,

…Even simple cells are made up of thousands of different types of proteins; and the function of these molecules derives from there three dimensional shapes.

Unlocking the Mystery of Life DVDwww.illustramedia.com

An example I used in one of my posting on another string is this,

…My Niece, a few years ago, was helping me make a cake from a recipe book. We had all of the ingredients, in the right proportions; however, my niece failed to mix the stuff in the right order. Needles to say the cake did not turn out correctly.

My point here is this: To assume that the right ingredients accidentally fell in the right proportions at just the right time in just the right order requires more faith then theory.

I mean, take the cake example. You have, what, about eight ingredients. If you leave one ingredient out, or have too much or too little of one, or (like my niece) you mix them wrong you’re not going to get the desired result. (And that’s not even mentioning the cooking time); Remember that is an intelligent agent, working from a recipe. You’re trying to figure out how a far-more-complex system came into existence without an intelligent agent.

Remember here we are talking about something ‘not-alive’ becoming something that ‘is-alive’; and they say my faith is blind;-}


For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.

For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.
John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 12-15-2007 12:37 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by molbiogirl, posted 12-24-2007 1:08 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 17 of 84 (443214)
12-24-2007 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by JRTjr
12-24-2007 12:43 AM


Cells? Try RNA.
An individual protein has one to three hundred of these (12) amino acids; and a protein is just one small component of the cell.

Hey. Guess what, pal?

A cell wasn't the first form of "life".

RNA was.

Proteins are a moot point.

You will notice that the title of the thread is "The First Genetic Material".

RNA. Ribonucleic Acid. AKA genetic material.

Proteins are OT, my friend.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JRTjr, posted 12-24-2007 12:43 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 18 of 84 (443219)
12-24-2007 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 11:51 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Miller and Robertson. Huh.

Are you referring to this?

Michael P. Robertson and Stanley L. Miller, "An Efficient Prebiotic Synthesis of Cytosine and Uracil," Nature, 375 (1995), pp. 772-774.

Golly gee willikers, youse gots me stumped!

Oh. Wait a minute.

You mean to say there been research done in the last 12 years???

A Possible Path to the RNA World: Enantioselective and Diastereoselective Purification of Ribose
Volume 37, Number 2 / April, 2007
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres

The search for missing links between self-replicating nucleic ACIDs and the RNA world
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres
Issue Volume 25, Number 6 / December, 1996

The emergence of the non-cellular phase of life on the fine-grained clayish particles of the early Earth's regolith
Biosystems
Volume 42, Issues 2-3, 1997, Pages 111-118

There are 161 other cites, but I think that would be a bit much.

Care to debate the particulars?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 11:51 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by dpeele, posted 04-28-2009 9:29 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
dpeele
Junior Member (Idle past 3051 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 04-28-2009


Message 19 of 84 (506768)
04-28-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by molbiogirl
12-24-2007 1:19 AM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
I am new to discussion boards in general and have enjoyed reading through the comments. The origin of life has always fasinated me. If we are considering RNA as the substance that started the chain, where did the matter necessary to form RNA originate?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by molbiogirl, posted 12-24-2007 1:19 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 04-28-2009 10:18 PM dpeele has not yet responded
 Message 21 by onifre, posted 04-29-2009 1:21 PM dpeele has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2332 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 20 of 84 (506771)
04-28-2009 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by dpeele
04-28-2009 9:29 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Welcome dpeele

The post you're responding to is a year and a half old, and molbiogirl hasn't posted since July of last year. However, below is a very good video that will get you into the game even before RNA.

When your done, hop on over to the active threads.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by dpeele, posted 04-28-2009 9:29 PM dpeele has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 566 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 21 of 84 (506815)
04-29-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by dpeele
04-28-2009 9:29 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Hi dpeele,

Welcome to EvC.

If we are considering RNA as the substance that started the chain, where did the matter necessary to form RNA originate?

If you are simply refering to the chemical compounds, which I believe is what you mean by "matter", or in other words, the elements found on the Periodic Table of Elements, those originate in solar fussion. In the core of stars.

Once a star, given that it is large enough, goes supernova it explodes sending all of these elements into space enriching prestine gas clouds. Which then collapes under their own gravity and form new stars. The left over elelments and "stuff" gets trapped in the stars gravitational pull and forms new planets.

Earth, in it's formation, came convinetly equiped with many elements which now make up all living organisms.

This is of course a quick explanation. Search throughout the rest of this site form more specifics, but I hope this helps get you started.

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by dpeele, posted 04-28-2009 9:29 PM dpeele has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by dpeele, posted 04-30-2009 6:32 PM onifre has responded

    
dpeele
Junior Member (Idle past 3051 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 04-28-2009


Message 22 of 84 (506988)
04-30-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by onifre
04-29-2009 1:21 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
I appreciate your response and correcting me on my misuse of the term "matter". Does anyone have a theory on the origin of the elements? I like your Chomsky quote.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by onifre, posted 04-29-2009 1:21 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 04-30-2009 7:33 PM dpeele has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 566 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 23 of 84 (506993)
04-30-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by dpeele
04-30-2009 6:32 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Does anyone have a theory on the origin of the elements?

Yes, I believe I gave it to you.

Here:

Stellar Nucleosynthesis

quote:
Stellar nucleosynthesis is the collective term for the nuclear reactions taking place in stars to build the nuclei of the elements heavier than hydrogen.

Supernova Nucleosynthesis

quote:
Supernova nucleosynthesis is the production of new chemical elements inside supernova. It occurs primarily due to explosive nucleosynthesis during explosive oxygen burning and silicon burning . Those fusion reactions create the elements silicon, sulfur, chlorine, argon, sodium, potassium, calcium, scandium, titanium and iron peak elements: vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel. As a result of their ejection from individual supernovae, their abundances grow increasingly larger within the interstellar medium. Heavy elements (heavier than nickel) are created primarily by a neutron capture process known as the r process.

This is where the elements originate.

They then get picked up in the process of planetary formation.

The Earth formed with these elements in it. Natural chemical reactions brought these chemicals together to form, what we refer to as, life.

Do you have any other theories in mind?

This is the ONLY scientific theory there is for the origin of the elements.

I like your Chomsky quote.

Thanks. Good philosophy to live by, in my opinion. Also, I believe it's the philosophy responsible for saving society from religious rule.

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by dpeele, posted 04-30-2009 6:32 PM dpeele has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by dpeele, posted 04-30-2009 10:02 PM onifre has responded

    
dpeele
Junior Member (Idle past 3051 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 04-28-2009


Message 24 of 84 (507010)
04-30-2009 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by onifre
04-30-2009 7:33 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
I don't have any theories... I don't have the intelligence or the vision. I guess we make the assumption that the building blocks,oxygen and silicon within the supernova, was in existence but origin can not be determined.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 04-30-2009 7:33 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 12:37 AM dpeele has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 566 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 25 of 84 (507017)
05-01-2009 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by dpeele
04-30-2009 10:02 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
I don't have any theories... I don't have the intelligence or the vision. I guess we make the assumption that the building blocks,oxygen and silicon within the supernova, was in existence but origin can not be determined.

Origin of what cannot be determined?

You asked where the elements came from, I gave you the answer that science has presented due to the large amount of evidence that supports it. So the origin of the elements, which is what you asked, has been determined.

What other origin are you refering to?


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by dpeele, posted 04-30-2009 10:02 PM dpeele has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by dpeele, posted 05-01-2009 6:11 AM onifre has responded

    
dpeele
Junior Member (Idle past 3051 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 04-28-2009


Message 26 of 84 (507034)
05-01-2009 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by onifre
05-01-2009 12:37 AM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Where did the burning oxygen and burning silicon come from? What are their origins? Without those two elements/gases you do not have a star...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 12:37 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 9:55 AM dpeele has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 566 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 27 of 84 (507065)
05-01-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by dpeele
05-01-2009 6:11 AM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Where did the burning oxygen and burning silicon come from?

You are clearly not reading the links.

Oxygen and silicon originate IN the star. Stars do NOT need oxygen or silicon to form. Oxygen and silicon are the result of a stellar fusion.

A star forms when the hydrogen gas clouds collapes under their own gravity, NOT from oxygen and silicon. Oxygen and silicon, and the other heavier elements come after the star is formed.

Hydrogen originated at the Big Bang, along with helium, as a result of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Please read the link for full descrpition.

However, here's a quote:

quote:
Big Bang nucleosynthesis (or primordial nucleosynthesis) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of H-1 (i.e. the normal, light isotope of hydrogen, whose nuclei consist of a single proton each) during the early phases of the universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis took place just a few minutes after the Big Bang and is believed to be responsible for the formation of a heavier isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium (H-2 or D), the helium isotopes He-3 and He-4, and the lithium isotopes Li-6 and Li-7. In addition to these stable nuclei some unstable, or radioactive, isotopes were also produced during primordial nucleosynthesis: tritium or H-3; beryllium-7 (Be-7), and beryllium-8 (Be-8). These unstable isotopes either decayed or fused with other nuclei to make one of the stable isotopes.

So, lets see if you are following.

You asked for the origin of the elements that are found in all living organisms, such as carbon, oxygen, etc. The answer was, they originate in stars by a process called Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

You also asked for how stars form, you thought they needed oxygen and silicon to form, that is wrong. They form when hydrogen collapses: The Sun.

To follow your questions order, you would then ask, where did hydrogen come from? The answer is Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

To summarize: The elements for life originate in stars due to stellar nucleosynthesis, stars form when hydrogen collapses due to the force of gravity, and hydrogen originated at the Big Bang due to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. And there you have the origin of all of it. What other origins do you feel haven't been addressed?

Edited by onifre, : clarify


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by dpeele, posted 05-01-2009 6:11 AM dpeele has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by dpeele, posted 05-06-2009 9:02 PM onifre has responded

    
dpeele
Junior Member (Idle past 3051 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 04-28-2009


Message 28 of 84 (507626)
05-06-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by onifre
05-01-2009 9:55 AM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Do you believe this quote to be true. I start have trouble at this point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 9:55 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 05-06-2009 9:48 PM dpeele has responded
 Message 35 by onifre, posted 05-07-2009 1:21 PM dpeele has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 29 of 84 (507634)
05-06-2009 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by dpeele
05-06-2009 9:02 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Do you believe this quote to be true.

You need to define what you mean by "true."

Science does not deal in truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH.

Science deals in facts and theories. As Heinlein noted:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.

Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481

And as found on a physics website at CalTech:

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from it seems to be correct to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that its use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
Some definitions which deal with "theory:"
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

So, based on these definitions you probably meant to ask, "Do you believe this quote to be accurate (i.e., supported by scientific facts and theory)."

Carry on.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by dpeele, posted 05-06-2009 9:02 PM dpeele has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by dpeele, posted 05-06-2009 9:56 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 43 by IchiBan, posted 05-09-2009 11:49 PM Coyote has responded

  
dpeele
Junior Member (Idle past 3051 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 04-28-2009


Message 30 of 84 (507636)
05-06-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
05-06-2009 9:48 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Very well... do you believe the statement to be accurate?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 05-06-2009 9:48 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 05-06-2009 10:37 PM dpeele has not yet responded
 Message 32 by dpeele, posted 05-06-2009 10:51 PM dpeele has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017