How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds)

Mercy bow c^oo, Ringo!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Molbiogirl: Why do they not mention ATP? Could it be because they don't want to confuse you with the facts?Those facts might just test your faith, rock your world, and send you for the counsellors chair. And that's ok... we're all in the same boat. It's good to test your faith now and then and not be afraid to consider other alternatives. No need to hide facts or motives, we're all in need of growth here.All I am asking, is for someone to tell me what did exist then. Why, if we know what exists now, can't we assume that the same processes existed then? We know how these systems work to a high degree.Why are we trying to find invisible things that there is no evidence for?The only reason, is that without those invisible qualities, extrapolated from what can be seen, we must extrapolate from what can be seen, the invisible qualities of God from actual evidence. And that is unacceptable... not because the evidence does not support it, but because then we would have to face accountablity for our immorality.It's all right there in Romans 1, written almost 2 thousand years ago. Humanity was the same then as it is now. We're only more sophisticated in our deception and technological methods of subverting the consequences of our actions.Molbiogirl:Did nucleotides have labs and techies intelligently guiding the process on the priordial seas?Maybe (or as you said, probably) your right (I mean 'they'). They're 'experts' you know?All you have to do is say 'nope'... and then quotemine some preist of evolutionary theory and perform miraculous signs and wonders for the world and they will follow you... they will come to your defense as well. They will silence any brazen opposition such as this. Just watch and be amazed.I know far less than you about biology, but I don't let fancy words disturb my God given ability to see philosophical absurdity 'hidden beside me in the reeds and marshes' (Credit to Isaiah for that one...).As for origins, we simply don't know, except that you... do know...I think?Is that right?Forgive me for being so specific about it, I do not wish to belittle; but I am trying to be scientific. Everyone keeps telling me that that is the only thing that counts.Leave the blind faith behind, wash in the pool and regain your sight.
If not for the sake of truth or God or Christ, then for the sake of consistent logic (which is synonymous, and at one, with the others).But none of that matters if you're commited to believing what fits your presuppositions, in particular what you want life to be.It is nothing more complicated that worshipping a graven image made in your likeness.We all do it... and we must stop, because in the end, the only thing that will be left standing, is reality in it's unadulterated glory. And that is something that will kill us, unless we learn to live with it.And it is a hard process to endure. We can't do it alone, but he is mighty to save, and gives the power to endure to those who call upon Him.Sorry for preaching the truth in a board set aside for preaching a different one of the other 'theo'retical truths.Just open your mind and think about it. At the very least, let us try to hold the celebration until after the dance. I am trying to get 'The Ringo's' out (you know... that tendancy to whoop and holler, go tit for tat and play 'Yo Momma'!).So do not take my words as a rebuke, but a simple plea to you soul for transpearency.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

You're confused. ATP is an energy medium. ATP is no more a source of energy than a battery is a source of energy. That is, in local systems, you can consider a battery to be a source of energy, but ultimately the energy came from somewhere else. The only ways that an organism can gain energy from the environment are listed there. Because it doesn't make sense. Given that we know that animals alive today aren't the same as they were 300,000,000 years ago, why shouldn't we assume the same is true of metabolic processes? Anyway, this is digressing. I wish we knew. It's a mystery. But we can make intelligent hypotheses about what could have gone on, try to replicate it or compare it to known reaction parameters to corroborate the hypotheses, and use those to make some more hypotheses. That's science.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

You're suspended for a couple of days Rob. This is an interesting science thread. We do not want it cluttered up with preaching. We do not want conjectures about the motive of honest inquiry. We do not want those who know very little (see ATP as an example) messing up the information being presented by those who do know someting.Others will refrain from any more replies to Rob here. Short suspensions will be issued.

Pardon me, you are correct. However, my point was that those processes only convert raw energy into the form necessary for complex nucleotide synthesis.Molbiogril: What could I claim did exist back then, without moving into hypothetical wonderland?Are you suggesting something did exit that is not materially emperical?Whatever the answer, it appears miraculous (I'll spare you the quotes from evolutionists who agree on that point).

My apologies to you and molbiogirl for assuming you knew what I was getting at... and even more so for leaping from a most excellent conversation into the pulpit. I was very tired and should have waited until the following day to respond. I moved from premise 'z' without sustaining premise 'a'.However, I see no legitimate reason that the discussion cannot continue as the appropriate action was taken. Is there some fear that I am becoming effective?Because there is still much to discuss.back to the subject...Doddy: Of course... I assumed you would understand why I mentioned ATP. the issue is one of converting the 'raw energy' into a useable biological form. How is that done without the complex functions we see in life.Your battery analogy is flawless... but that is my whole point. How are batteries made? Not by random chemical processes. They are designed with purpose by intelligent agents.A battery doesn't just happen to provide energy to a machine. It exists for that purpose.Was or is there evidence for material life (that doesn't need these processes)? What if these originating processes are not material? Perhaps that is why they are so mystifying. Perhaps we are using the wrong tool to find them (I'm just 'theo'rizing). [qs]Doddy:Uh... is there something in the fossil record that indicates other processes than those brought up by biogirl. You'd have to ask a paleontologist. Seems to me that the processes we see now, are the same processes we see as far back as the geological record allows. How do we know (as you said) that life was different then? How do we know there was even material life?Why do you say we know, when 'we' (the convention) don't know?I think it doesn't make sense to you to assume that there is some as yet unknown 'cause' beyond a material explanation for the same reason it is irrational to other evolutionists. (Dr. L.T. More) (Wiki-evolution /Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997)This is clearly an issue of materialistic bias. And I am not suggesting that you have thought this through to the extent that Lewontin has and are therefore guilty of some deception.Science should be objective.

Have you so quickly forgotten our last conversation, Rob?"theo" is not the root for "theory", "theoretical", "theorizing". Only for "theology" and "theological". "Thea + Horan" is the root/etymology for "theory (etical, izing)".Your putting scare quotes around "theo" in Theory does not redefine the root. It only shows you don't listen and learn. Repeat after me: "The root of Theory is 'thea + horan'".

How could I have forgotten that? How you cannot understand that theo is theo. That philsophical coherence is philsophical coherence is a mystery to me.Are they perfectly analogous? No!One pertains to reality in terms of a living entity. The other in terms of purely mindless material force. Both are a philosophical construct... a postulate.A theistic evolutionary view really captures this fact: (Wikipedia / Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky)Don't you see Kuresu... if evolutionary theory is in fact reality, then it is God. And is therfore the light of the world.If you want to argue this further Kuresu, this is not the place. Other than Anglagard's comment in your thread, as to the 'non-living attributes of theory' as opposed to 'theology and it's postulate of a living and breathing reality', I see no one other than yourself who has missed the point.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Since you find the topic so uninteresting that you can't stay on it I have indefinitely removed your access to "Origin of Life".

You can have devices that run directly off the mains. So, likewise you could have primitive organisms that don't store energy. And the current batteries aren't like they used to be, and indeed soon may be replaced by fuel cells or similar. Likewise, it is unlikely that living creatures always used exactly what is present today. That is perhaps a flaw in my aralogy, but the main point of it rests untouched. ATP, and other nucleotide triphosphates too, do indeed 'just happen' to provide energy to the cell. Or rather, energy to the cell 'just happens' to use nucleotide triphosphates. It's quite possible to have another form of energy.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!