Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   10 Categories of Evidence For ID
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 6 of 147 (206989)
05-11-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 6:20 AM


To address your point number 3.
You are presupposing that RNA or DNA must be the first genetic materials. Miller himself suggested that a possible precursor might be the much more stable Peptide Nucleic acids (PNAs)(Nelson, et al.,2000).
Nelson, et al.,2000 writes:
A pre-RNA world in which the backbone of the first genetic material would have been different from the ribose phosphate seems more likely, but the nature of this backbone is unknown. One proposal offers peptide nucleic acids (PNA) as a possible precursor to RNA because PNA binds DNA and forms double and triple helical structures that are related to the Watson-Crick helix.
...
The simplicity of the components of PNA suggests that prebiotic syntheses might be feasible. We therefore examined a number of prebiotic syntheses, including electric discharges and NH4CN polymerizations for ethylenediamine (ED) and AEG, as well as the adenine and guanine-N9-acetic acids and the cytosine and uracil-N1-acetic acids. We show here that the components of PNA are synthesized under potentially prebiotic conditions. This finding makes a plausible case that PNA might have been the first genetic material.
The PNAs are known to be able to act as templates for RNA synthesis (Bohler, et al., 1995, Schmidt, et al., 1997).
Schmidt, et al., 1997 writes:
PNA and PNA-like oligomers are attractive models for informational polymers simpler than the standard nucleic acids. In this paper we have shown that information can be transferred from PNA to RNA. In our previous paper we demonstrated information transfer from DNA to PNA. Together these results support the idea that transitions between different `genetic materials', for example between PNA GC heteropolymers and complementary RNA co-polymers, could occur with conservation of the encoded information.
So none of your point 3 substantiates the "fact" that DNA is designed, it simply infers it from one rather tangential piece of research. What evidence is there which actually supports this "fact"?
TTFN,
WK
P.S. I'd really appreciate your input on my thread about standards for referencing.
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-11-2005 08:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:20 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 147 (206992)
05-11-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
05-11-2005 8:15 AM


3) Your evidence shows that extraordinary circumstances must have been in place for life to have been created. This is already an accepted fact.
I don't think this is neccessarily true. Certainly their might be a very specific set of circumstances needed for life to form as it has on our world, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that the circumstances were extraordinary. The circumstances are certainly likely to be radically different from those we experience today, unless perhaps you are one of those black smoker enthusiasts Jerry mentioned.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:15 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Brad McFall, posted 05-11-2005 8:32 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:55 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 147 (207010)
05-11-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mammuthus
05-11-2005 8:36 AM


Mammuthus writes:
The genome has a grand total of about 1.5% genes.
What sort of 'gene' is this based on? Is it simply protein coding sequences? Given the recent bout of discovery of various functional non-coding RNAs a simple count of likely ORFs, or a similar approach, seems likely to underestimate the numbers likely to affect phenotype. Conversely looking for promoter sequences seems likely to overestimate them.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-11-2005 08:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 8:36 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 9:05 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 15 of 147 (207021)
05-11-2005 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
05-11-2005 8:55 AM


But by that reasoning the environment of the Earth must have been extraordinary for about half the time it has existed. 2 billion years or so of no significant atmospheric oxygen is extraordinary in terms of our modern environment after all. What is usual for us now is not really a suitable standard for measuring the ordinariness of a certain environment.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-11-2005 12:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 8:55 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 05-12-2005 3:18 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 16 of 147 (207022)
05-11-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mammuthus
05-11-2005 9:05 AM


Thanks, I hadn't come across that paper before.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 9:05 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 19 of 147 (207052)
05-11-2005 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mammuthus
05-11-2005 9:55 AM


Mammuthus writes:
Your premise began with DNA occurs in all organisms..
Actually what he said was...
Jerry writes:
DNA found only in organisms.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 9:55 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2005 10:12 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 42 of 147 (207308)
05-12-2005 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by zyncod
05-12-2005 1:01 AM


Zyncod writes:
ID theory supposes that everything about the organism is designed, so there is a reason for every base pair in the genome.
I think Jerry has already made it clear that he personally doesn't consider everything in the genome to be designed. Indeed one of his main arguments is that the genome has 'degraded' from an initial well designed state.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by zyncod, posted 05-12-2005 1:01 AM zyncod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by zyncod, posted 05-12-2005 5:45 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 47 of 147 (207327)
05-12-2005 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 5:05 PM


"When DNA is synthesized in the lab, the two strands are separated and new bases are added to the 3' end-thus DNA is assembled from the 5' to 3' end. DNA cannot be synthesized from scratch. A short piece of DNA, called a primer, is required for the reaction to begin. Primers are designed such that they are able to bind to the target DNA, the binding of which is the initiator for DNA synthesis."
http://bioteach.ubc.ca/Bioinformatics/GenomeProjects/
Well gee. Intelligent designers in the lab have tried to synthesize these complex molecules from scratch and have not succeeded. Surely we can weigh this fact, compare it with the fact that no one has ever seen it form in nature outside an organism and draw a hypothesis from this.
No one has ever seen it form inside an organism without all the neccessary accessory systems, including primers. There are a number of primases whose job it is to sythesize short strands of RNA to act as primers during DNA synthesis(del Solar, et al., 1998).
del Solar, et al., 1998 writes:
Two early events in this mode of replication are the opening of the strands at specific sequences (the origin of replication) and the synthesis of RNA primers. Opening of the strands is catalyzed by specific initiators (Rep and DnaA proteins) and/or by transcription by RNAP. Initiation proteins promote, at the origin of replication, the sequential assembly of components of the replisome complex. The main replicative helicase of the cell catalyzes further unwinding of the strands. RNA primers are synthesized either by RNAP or by bacterial or plasmid primases.
There are modes of replication, such as rolling circle replication, which do not require rna synthesising primases, but these still require a priming sequence, in this case derived by nicking one of the parental strands of DNA .
del Solar, et al., 1998 writes:
The 3”-OH end required for initiation of replication is provided by the site-specific nicking activity of the plasmid-encoded Rep protein on one of the parental plasmid strands. The DNA substrate for the Rep-mediated nicking has to be in a single-stranded configuration. This can be achieved by Rep-facilitated extrusion of a cruciform structure encompassing the nic region of the origin, where the nick site is unpaired.
There is absolutely no requirement for DNA to ever have simply jumped into existence. Can you show me somewhere in the literature where it is suggested that DNA must have suddenly appeared de novo without any genetic precursor?
It is also surely significant that the current natural conditions are substantially different from many of those in which DNA is suggested to have arisen.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-12-2005 07:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 5:05 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 48 of 147 (207328)
05-12-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 5:05 PM


Jerry writes:
The fossil record is an accurate record of around 80% of the earth's biotic history.
Could you explain what you mean by this? Some reference for the source of the number if possible would also be greatly appreciated.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 5:05 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 80 of 147 (207641)
05-13-2005 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Modulous
05-12-2005 3:18 PM


No need to get shirty, I just don't think that the sort of anthropocentric view which says that the conditions that we experience are normal is a good position to be arguing from. Why use a term like extraordinary at all, all you are doing is pandering to the anti-evolutionary propaganda on the, supposedly, astronomical unlikelihood of abiogenesis ever occurring.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 05-12-2005 3:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2005 8:09 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 83 of 147 (207655)
05-13-2005 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mammuthus
05-13-2005 4:11 AM


Again, their is a thread in the suggestions and questions forum addressing your unwillingness to access papers
If you mean the Proper standards of evidence and referencing thread then I should point out that it isn't meant to be about Jerry.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mammuthus, posted 05-13-2005 4:11 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Mammuthus, posted 05-13-2005 12:25 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 89 of 147 (207696)
05-13-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Modulous
05-13-2005 8:09 AM


OK, I'll drop it. Sorry if I was being pedantic. I'm probably just getting frustrated by Jerry ignoring all of my posts.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2005 8:09 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2005 8:42 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 134 of 147 (285421)
02-10-2006 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by inkorrekt
02-05-2006 7:25 PM


erry, thank you for the information. I want to add this to your explanation. Miller and Urey tried to synthesize life int he lab. All that they found was amixture of basic amino acid Glycine.Problems with this mixture: 1) They were able to synthesize only Glycine. In nature we have 20 different amino acids which form peptides to make proteins. Protein is incomplete without other amino acids. 2) this mixture also contained a racemic mixture having biologically active L-form and biologically incative(poison) D-form. In a mixture of 50/50 D and L forms, no further activity will occur. No reaction proceeded any further. This is the only experiment that was done.
So they managed to produce L- and D- Glycine? That's pretty impressive seeing as how Glycine isn't chiral.
If you really do think what you wrote is correct prehaps you can explain this discrepancy or provide a source for this claim.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:25 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Chiroptera, posted 02-10-2006 8:17 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 146 of 147 (295429)
03-15-2006 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by ReverendDG
03-14-2006 6:03 PM


Re: why would apes or humans disappear?
As for what we might become, who knows, we don't really evolve that much anymore since we can effect our envirerment more than it affects us.
Any evidence to back up that assertion? I know this is a popular theory but there is little, if anything, to suggest that it is actually the case. Cerainly there has still been considerable evolution in humanity's recent past as a recent paper in PLOS has shown (Voight, et al. 2006).
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ReverendDG, posted 03-14-2006 6:03 PM ReverendDG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by inkorrekt, posted 03-15-2006 3:34 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024