Evolution has been Disproven

Yes, please check for me. And also check what he said about the early atmosphere composition. Something about either oxidation or lack of ozone. And that amino acids might be upset about either scenario. I'll await your reply.

Well, I was going to say twenty years, but I thought I`d better err a tad.

Yeah, who would want to believe something like that?And: Yes, you've learned well, Luke. Many of the truths to which we cling, depend greatly on our own point of view (we've gone over this before in a different post; did you think of something else you might want to add, or do just want to go over it again?)
If you reject a particular possibility, then anything that supports that possibility is ridiculous. If you have decided that God doesn't exist (for whatever reason), then even his appearance in your living room would not be sufficient evidence that he is God (God walked with Cain, but yet he STILL chose to murder his brother). Crash, we went over this in detail in another thread; I thought we reached a point where we both said what we had to say (including your personal attacks against me) and that was that. Did you want to switch over to that thread to continue our discussion or am I mis-reading you? (again, I thought we were finished with that).

LOL

Not that I recall. Unless someone took something I said and made an acronym out of it. There's a ref to it in post 104 of a different thread; is that what you're talking about? I've never used term.

Want to have a shot at Gen 1:21? 'And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life-----' How did He assemble the amino acids, etc.? What`s that, YOU DON`T KNOW?

IIRC is if I recall correctly.It was the definition of genetic information that I'm talking about.We've had several attempts at getting anyone to define their terms as far as information, complexity etc goes. However, no one does. That includes Dempski and the like.We need a clear, precise definition; what is often called an operational definition. You could google that and see what you glean from it.

Back to my repeatedly ignored question (or line of questioning):HOW did the RNA (rybozyme) develop this amazing capability? Simple question. Why ignore it? Um, are you disagreeing with me or with Quetzal? It was Quetzal who pointed out the term "machine", not me. I just referred to it: I doubt Quetzal would want me as his spokesman, so maybe you should explain the machine thing to him. Or when does "machine" not mean "machine"? Please remember that Quetzal was quoting from Zhang B, Cech TR, 1997 "Peptide bond formation by in vitro selected ribozymes", Nature 390:96-100, so Quetzal might not want to vouch for that information.

That's correct. I don't know. And don't claim to. I "believe" God did it. Science just "believes" we can find a way to explain it WITHOUT GOD. Maybe we'll ask again in about 100 years or so.I also believe intel makes CPUs. I don't know how, but I believe they do it. My buddy next door thinks he can prove that the chips made themselves over millions of years and intel just happened to find a bunch of them floating down the creek after a small earthquake shook things up a bit, and now they're taking all the credit. He's still conducting extensive research, though. He's expecting me to ask him about it again in 100 years or so.

Sorry, I thought I answered your question. I'll try again:The RNA does not "develop" catalytic activity, it simply has catalytic activity.I'm trying to think of a decent analogy - your question is kind of like: "HOW did the NaCl (table salt) develop this amazing capability to dissolve in water?"Salt didn't need to "develop and amazing capability" to dissolve in water, it just does, that is, its chemical properties cause it to do so.Likewise, the chemical properties of a short, self-replicating RNA strand cause it to make copies of itself. It doesn't develop the capability, it has the property.Does that make more sense? I'm not on anyone's side, I am simply trying to clear up misconceptions about RNA catalysts and RNA-based abiogenesis theory. (And you should ask Quetzal about his choice of terminology, not me.)

schrafinator responds to sfs:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I also recall those rules including something about not judging others,

---

​

A small correction:

​

Actually, the Bible doesn't say that we shouldn't judge others at all.

​

It says that we shouldn't judge others unless we are prepared to be judged ourselves.

---

Close, but it's even more insidious. People seem to remember Matthew 7:1 but can't seem to remember that it's immediately followed by 7:2:Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.It says we shouldn't judge others lest you receive the same judgement. Too many people seem to think that the admonition is connected to the "he who is without sin" concept and thus, so long as they think they haven't committed the sin, it is perfectly fine to condemn everybody else. But that isn't what it says. It is saying that if you judge someone else, you will receive the exact same judgement regardless.Stone someone and you will be stoned, yourself.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Two warnings in less than 24 hours means that members aren't taking the Forum Guidelines warnings seriously. When thread participants in general fail to follow moderator requests the thread is often temporarily closed. When individual members fail to follow moderator requests, they often temporarily lose their posting privileges.Without naming anyone specifically, here are some brief descriptions of violations of the Forum Guidelines that must be brought to rein:

• There is no rule that actually states that arguments should be made in one's own words rather than in cut-n-pastes, but as I've said many times, if there was a rule for every contingency the Forum Guidelines would be so long no one would ever read them. I advise members to follow the spirit of the guidelines, and moderators can often be helpful in interpreting the rules, because oftentimes context makes interpretation difficult. There are times when a cut-n-paste is the best approach and times when it isn't.
  ​
  I think cut-n-pastes of abstracts of technical papers fit this category of sometimes being the best answer and sometimes not, so I'm going to request that in this thread they be accompanied by some explanatory text in the member's own words.
  ​
• Rule 3 of the Forum Guidelines is our "do unto others" rule. We encourage a spirited debate, but getting personal quickly gets in the way of informed discussion as the thread spirals into posturing and name-calling. Those who have produced posts that include words like "ignorant", "pathetic", "lies" and so forth have to step back and consider whether their terminology is contained within a constructive framework.
  ​
• Rules 2 and 4 of the Forum Guidelines encourage members to keep moving the discussion forward, and to support their points with evidence and reasoned argumentation. I'm seeing too many unsupported dismissals of evidence and arguments.
  ​
• One member noted that the evolutionist responses seemed to disagree with one another on some points. While there can be no reasonable expectation that different people should explain things the same way, it might be helpful if a) it were described what those disagreements were; and b) evolutionists responded with explanations or clarifications.

This is the last warning. If I have to post in this thread again it will be to announce an action.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I can believe that it isn't always clear from context whether someone is speaking of biological or chemical evolution, but I don't think this reflects any confusion among evolutionists. There is of course inherent ambiguity at the boundary between non-life and life, but we're not focusing on that issue in this thread, so I don't think confusion between biological and chemical evolution is a particularly significant concern. When discussing abiogenesis, the unmodified use of the term "evolution" means chemical evolution. When discussing the process of changing lifeforms "evolution" means biological evolution. There's a consistent misconstrual on the part of Creationists that evolutionists' emphasis on drawing a clear distinction between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution means that we're reluctant to discuss the issue. Evolutionists will not back away from this distinction because it is real. We can study evolution first hand in the here and now, we can review the history of life as recorded in the fossil record, and so we understand a great deal about evolution.But abiogenesis took place once billions of years ago. We can't study it directly. To evolutionists, abiogenesis is distinct from biological evolution for some very apparent reasons, most prominently that we know so very little about it. Much is informed speculation, and we can't know what principles of evolution apply to abiogenesis. Does population genetics, an area of study within biological evolution, apply to chemical evolution? Is there such a thing as speciation in chemical evolution? Possibly, and possibly not. We simply don't know, and this just by itself makes abiogenesis a separate field of study. Of course, most evolutionists accept both abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. And of course, both evolution and abiogenesis are fields of study within biology.I think better progress might be made if you allow discussion to proceed by getting past the sticking point that evolutionists are trying to pull a fast one on you by keeping abiogenesis and the theory of evolution separate. Once we get into it you might better understand that this isn't the case. I can see where you might perceive some arrogance, but I have to agree with the other evolutionists here that you appear to be making the mistake of assuming that not knowing everything is equivalent to not knowing anything. Evolutionists are trying to describe for you that there are some things that we *do* actually know. You are absolutely correct to point out that experiments in the lab that attempt to replicate events on the early earth are not proof that that's the way things happened, but evolutionists are not offering this evidence in this way. These experiments represent possible avenues that early life might have taken, and as such are only being offered as evidence against your claim that abiogenesis is impossible. I was responding to your impression that there is circularity in the scenario proposed for the origin of RNA. Since you think I was joking you must not have understood what I was saying. As others have already mentioned, some amino acids arise naturally. A primitive RNA composed of these amino acids could evolve (note the implicit modifier "chemically") to produce amino acids that don't normally form naturally by simpler means.--Percy

I disagree with this. The main reason that they are separate is the biological evolution deals with living things that we know possess the capabilities necessary for evolution to take place: imprefect replication in a selective environment.Since evolutionary like processess have been proven to be very powerful there are suggestions that chemicals (or at least things we would otherwise have a hard time as recognizing as alive might allow for conditions where evolutionary mechanisms might be allowed. However, since it is chemistry (not biology) that we are discussing paths which get to "real" life without "evolution" happening are also considered.If the research is involved with non-living things that don't undergo darwinian evolution it would not be biology. If it is not biology it is not in the area of biological evolution. They are simply separate.

Ya know, it's been my experience that when someone's cornered, they resort to insult. Your stridency betrays your lack of a coherent argument rebutting what I posted. Especially since the posts quite thoroughly rebut your initial question concerning homochirality. Moving the goalposts doesn't help - I can keep pushing you back into a corner until you exit from the sidereal universe somewhere below the Higgs boson.However, in the interests of keeping this "discussion" moving, I'll ignore your insulting tone. After all, there might be someone reading this that could learn something. I have a feeling either you don't understand the articles I posted, or you're deliberately being obtuse. Let me know which is which - I'd be happy to go into detail on the articles if there's something you don't understand.For example, when you say: You are apparently not realizing that the Ghadiri article answers this question.Here, I'll quote the relevant portions for you again:

quote:

---

From Ghadiri et al 2001:

​

Here we report that a 32-residue peptide replicator, designed according to our earlier principles, is capable of efficiently amplifying homochiral products from a racemic mixture of peptide fragments through a chiroselective autocatalytic cycle. The chiroselective amplification process discriminates between structures possessing even single stereochemical mutations within otherwise homochiral sequences. Moreover, the system exhibits a dynamic stereochemical 'editing' function; in contrast to the previously observed error correction, it makes use of heterochiral sequences that arise through uncatalysed background reactions to catalyse the production of the homochiral product.

---

Note the emphasized bits:
a) the RNA is naturally self-catalyzing
b) it makes use of simple molecules to build itself
c) it has a dynamic (built-in) error correction system that is simply an expression of its chemical compositionYour next bit (right after implying I was a liar, which was uncalled for) states a brand spanking new question (moving the goalposts again): Since you hadn't asked this question before, I find it difficult to understand why you are complaining I hadn't answered it. OTOH, if you had read the remaining articles I gave you, you would have noted that they provide some clues as to the answer. For example:

quote:

---

From Cech 1997:

​

Successive cycles of in vitro selection and amplification have been used to find RNAs that perform many biochemical reactions, including transfer of an RNA-linked amino acid to their own 5'-amino-modified terminus

---

This is called autocatalysis. IOW, the RNA (only 196 nucleotides long, btw), is building itself, simply through its own chemical composition and reactions with surrounding molecules. Interesting, no?Of course the second article was even more interesting: a simple binary molecule capable of catalyzing the formation of RNA. The relevant portion:

quote:

---

Reader 2002

​

Here we show that binary informational macromolecules, containing only two different nucleotide subunits, can act as catalysts. In vitro evolution was used to obtain ligase ribozymes composed of only 2,6-diaminopurine and uracil nucleotides, which catalyse the template-directed joining of two RNA molecules, one bearing a 5'-triphosphate and the other a 3'-hydroxyl. The active conformation of the fastest isolated ribozyme had a catalytic rate that was about 36,000-fold faster than the uncatalysed rate of reaction. This ribozyme is specific for the formation of biologically relevant 3',5'-phosphodiester linkages.

---

Umm, you must have missed the sentence immediately following the part you quoted from the article. Here, let me refresh your memory:

quote:

---

From Johnston, et al 2001:

​

The RNA world hypothesis regarding the early evolution of life relies on the premise that some RNA sequences can catalyze RNA replication. (This is the bit you quoted). In support of this conjecture, we describe here an RNA molecule that catalyzes the type of polymerization needed for RNA replication.

---

IOW, in the very next sentence, they state unequivocally that they discovered evidence to support the "premise" you singled out for criticism. You really need to read the articles I post if you're going to criticize them. I didn't read it? Lol. Bare assertion. What is "information" in this context? For that matter, what is "coding" except for a convenient analogy? If you've read the articles posted thus far, you'll note that all of them point to the fact that the sequences are determined by the simple chemical rules that govern how organic compounds form. The fact that some of these compounds are autocatalytic is a feature of their chemical properties. It's got nothing to do with "coding" except by way of analogy. IOW, the "code" wasn't "determined" in any way. It's just the way the molecules formed through basic chemical reaction. Nice try.Beyond that, if you want to talk about "information" and all that, please find an appropriate thread. I just told you - its a basic property of the way certain molecules interact. Maybe you should take a course in organic chemistry. Amazing stuff, carbon. However, for those interested, there is a great deal of experimental work being conducted. One I happen to like quite a bit is: Landweber LF, Pokrovskaya ID, 1999, Emergence of a dual-catalytic RNA with metal-specific cleavage and ligase activities: The spandrels of RNA evolution., PNAS 96:173-178

quote:

---

In vitro selection, or directed molecular evolution, allows the isolation and amplification of rare sequences that satisfy a functional-selection criterion. This technique can be used to isolate novel ribozymes (RNA enzymes) from large pools of random sequences. We used in vitro evolution to select a ribozyme that catalyzes a novel template-directed RNA ligation that requires surprisingly few nucleotides for catalytic activity. With the exception of two nucleotides, most of the ribozyme contributes to a template, suggesting that it is a general prebiotic ligase. More surprisingly, the catalytic core built from randomized sequences actually contains a 7-nt manganese-dependent self-cleavage motif originally discovered in the Tetrahymena group I intron. Further experiments revealed that we have selected a dual-catalytic RNA from random sequences: the RNA promotes both cleavage at one site and ligation at another site, suggesting two conformations surrounding at least one divalent metal ion-binding site. Together, these results imply that similar catalytic RNA motifs can arise under fairly simple conditions and that multiple catalytic structures, including bifunctional ligases, can evolve from very small preexisting parts. By breaking apart and joining different RNA strands, such ribozymes could have led to the production of longer and more complex RNA polymers in prebiotic evolution. (emphasis added for J)

---

I like this article because it specifies that RNA catalysts can form from simpler precursors - answering J's question concerning how RNA arose in the first place.But wait, there's more. J wants to know how this molecule developed its capabilities. Some very interesting work is being done on precisely this issue. Here's an article that specifies how one of the key reactions arose: Lee N, Bessho Y, Wei K, Szostak JW, Suga H, 2000, "Ribozyme-catalyzed tRNA aminoacylation", Nat Struct Biol 7:28-33

quote:

---

The RNA world hypothesis implies that coded protein synthesis evolved from a set of ribozyme catalyzed acyl-transfer reactions, including those of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase ribozymes. We report here that a bifunctional ribozyme generated by directed in vitro evolution can specifically recognize an activated glutaminyl ester and aminoacylate a targeted tRNA, via a covalent aminoacyl-ribozyme intermediate. The ribozyme consists of two distinct catalytic domains; one domain recognizes the glutamine substrate and self-aminoacylates its own 5'-hydroxyl group, and the other recognizes the tRNA and transfers the aminoacyl group to the 3'-end. The interaction of these domains results in a unique pseudoknotted structure, and the ribozyme requires a change in conformation to perform the sequential aminoacylation reactions. Our result supports the idea that aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase ribozymes could have played a key role in the evolution of the genetic code and RNA-directed translation. (emphasis added for J's benefit)

---

Your point being you don't have the first clue what you're talking about? You brought it up. You tell me what the "problem" is. Learn the subject matter? Lol. Talk about weak arguments. You post the issue or question, I'll let you know when it covers something I "have no idea" about. As for wasting time, I would agree that someone's wasting their time. It's not immediately obvious that person is you, however.edited to fix hanging sentenceThis message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-10-2005 10:51 AM