Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 106 of 292 (229557)
08-04-2005 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Evopeach
08-03-2005 4:44 PM


An unfalsifiable Proposal
Falsification: If any peer reviewed experimental result should demonstrate that the innate properties of chemistry are the source of the genetic code, its cellular systematic componentry, the organization of the code into messages and provide for the negentropic work by energy flows necessary to perform the negentropic separation of L&D forms, code development and message organization then this hypothesis shall be falsified.
Your hypothesis is unfalsifiable. All that could be shown is that it is possible for chemistry to be the source of a genetic code. For precisely the same reason that creos and IDers have a problem with evolution (we cannot go back in time and observe the start of life), it would be impossible to conclusively state that the current genetic code was the result of chemistry acting alone and without an IDer. Sorry.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 04-August-2005 08:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Evopeach, posted 08-03-2005 4:44 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 10:07 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 113 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 10:10 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 208 by Evopeach, posted 08-08-2005 9:58 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 107 of 292 (229572)
08-04-2005 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Evopeach
08-03-2005 6:54 PM


Re: Argument by Very Big Words
Or you could just just substitute dextro forms of amino acids into the dna strands and since it is absolutely provably true that they are chemically and entropically absolutely indistinguishable by Chemical means then the DNA RNA ribozome process will work just fine I mean since its purely chemical and enzymatic and such.
Um, what are you talking about? Why would you be putting amino acids, of any form, into a strand of DNA? Proteins do exist, even in nature, which have D- forms of amino acids incorporated into them, but substituting D- amino acids for L- in most proteins may well lead to a loss of function since they will change the structure of the protein.
Do you have any evidence that L- and D- forms of amino acids are chemically and entropically indistinguishable? The very fact that they change the structure of proteins in which they are included shows that there is a significant difference in form which you ignore for some reason. Any idea whether deoxyribonucleotides, which are what DNA is made of, actually display chirality as you seem to claim? Most sugars are actually dextro molecules so the deoxyribose element of the nucleotides would suggest that if the individual nucleotides showed any isomerism it would be prferentially for the D- form. Indeed a qucik scan of the literature shows this to be the case, and also shows that L- form nucleotides can be incorporated without disrupting the structure of the DNA (Cherrak, et al.,2003)
Cherrak, et al.,2003 writes:
For instance, double-stranded oligonucleotides bearing a single L-residue are still able to form stable Watson-Crick base pairs (1,3). This is also true for the DNA duplex d(mC1G2mC3G4C5LG6LmC7G8mC9G10)2 with two contiguous L-residues in the middle of each strand (4). At neutral pH and in mild salt conditions, similar to physiological conditions, this molecule adopts an all-right-handed helix resulting from D-residues assuming the B-DNA form and L-residues the Z*-DNA form (mirror-image of Z-DNA). The practical conclusion of this study was that L-residues can cooperate with D-residues to form a heterochiral right-handed helix.
Of course this doesn't neccessarily mean that that exact stretch of DNA would be transcribable, the L-nucleotides could mess up the process, but it certainly doesn't cause any significant disruption of the double helix.
Do you actualy know much biology, because if so it might be an idea for you to take more time with your posts so that they say what you actually want them to, if the post actually reflects your grasp of molecular biology then you need to put in considerable further study.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-04-2005 05:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Evopeach, posted 08-03-2005 6:54 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 9:56 AM Wounded King has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 108 of 292 (229629)
08-04-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 1:12 AM


Re: That's too bad.
My guess is that you are not serious people and truly unable to discuss rationally.
Allright then. We will all refrain from speaking to His Majesty. Have a nice day.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 09:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 1:12 AM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 109 of 292 (229641)
08-04-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Wounded King
08-04-2005 5:07 AM


Re: Argument by Very Big Words
If there is no difference in the ability of the genetic machinery to operate whether L or D forms then why are all amino acids used L form while sugars are almost all D-form.
The only difference between D and L form amino acids in this context are that they are mirror images in their spacial configuration.
They are otherwise chemically indistinguishable and their therodynamic entropy status the same.
Perhaps that is why ordinary chemistry always forms 50/50 racemic mixtures of the two forms and never separates the two forms which is always required for the proper operation of the several molecules of life.
The first person to separate them for synthetic and other chemical purposes was a particular brilliant European who noting the above managed to introduce a component of deadly nightshade into a mixture of both tetrahedral forms, (L&D). He found that the component molecule would associate with the dextro form, making it slightly heavier and thus the two forms could be separated by a centrifuge.
Now that's my consulting and pedagogical task for you today, a po;lite thank you would be appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 5:07 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by CK, posted 08-04-2005 10:02 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 115 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 10:44 AM Evopeach has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 110 of 292 (229646)
08-04-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 9:56 AM


Watch your tone - quick way to be booted
quote:
Now that's my consulting and pedagogical task for you today, a po;lite thank you would be appreciated.
actually you've misused "pedagogical" as it would apply in this context. It is related to the art, strategies, techniques, and approaches of teaching rather than the actual teaching (althought some web sites don't seem to grasp this). In any case, it's would more specifically be referred to as andragogical.
A polite thank you would be appreciated (because if you want to take that tone, you are sure to get plenty back).
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Aug-2005 10:05 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Aug-2005 10:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 9:56 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 10:09 AM CK has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 111 of 292 (229651)
08-04-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Modulous
08-04-2005 3:44 AM


Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
What are you talking about... origin of life experiements have attempted such for fifty years you know Fox Miller et al please get real.
No going back in time is at all required.. just demonstrate that chemistry alone unguided by intellect under any conditions you can set up will with only rectified and transduced energy form the amino acids of life and proceed right up to the DNA molecule and demonstrate its information coding sequences.
A good start would be just the formation of optically pure amino acids from diamers in L form only say.
Nice try but no bananas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 08-04-2005 3:44 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 08-04-2005 10:40 AM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 112 of 292 (229652)
08-04-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by CK
08-04-2005 10:02 AM


Re: Argument by Very Big Words
Direct and two the point of the esseence of the argument... see this is not a forum primarily about form over substance.
The idea is to address logically the actual debate point.
Opps hopeless as demonstrated

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by CK, posted 08-04-2005 10:02 AM CK has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 113 of 292 (229653)
08-04-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Modulous
08-04-2005 3:44 AM


Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
What are you talking about... origin of life experiements have attempted such for fifty years you know Fox Miller et al please get real.
No going back in time is at all required.. just demonstrate that chemistry alone unguided by intellect under any conditions you can set up will with only rectified and transduced energy form the amino acids of life and proceed right up to the DNA molecule and demonstrate its information coding sequences.
A good start would be just the formation of optically pure amino acids from diamers in L form only say.
Nice try but no bananas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Modulous, posted 08-04-2005 3:44 AM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 114 of 292 (229667)
08-04-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 10:07 AM


Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
What are you talking about... origin of life experiements have attempted such for fifty years you know Fox Miller et al please get real.
No. Dude. Like why don't you totally 'get real'....yeah whatver...sister! It would appear from what you are saying that I somehow implied experiments in biochemistry and abiogenesis have never been attempted. Let me assure you I am aware of such experiments.
No going back in time is at all required
Trust me on this one...
just demonstrate that chemistry alone unguided by intellect under any conditions you can set up will with only rectified and transduced energy form the amino acids of life and proceed right up to the DNA molecule and demonstrate its information coding sequences.
So basically, we prove naturally occuring abiogenesis is possible. Does that demonstrate that an intelligent designer didn't have a hand in things? No. It does not falsify your claim. Weakens it, but not falsifies it. To falsify it we would have to know how life on earth was created, not how life CAN be created. Very different proposals.
If I was playing poker against you and I got a royal flush three times in a row, you might accuse me of cheating. Now, if you said "to falsify the cheating theory, you just have to show how it is possible for you to get dealt those cards". A few lessons in statistics later and you might say "just because its possible to get a royal flush three times in a row, doesn't mean you weren't cheating". However, if instead you knew statistics and you said "I have a device theory that you have a device up your sleave that is retaining and dispensing good cards for you." That is falsifiable because I could take off my jacket and show you. You could perform a full body search. It might not be totally falsified (I could have hidden or disguised it) but that is getting needlessly pedantic.
Falsified means "It can't possibly have happened in way A because of piece of evidence x".
If evidence x simply says "It could have happened in way B", that doesn't mean it can't possibly happened in way A.
Your claim is thus, and so it is unfalsifiable. Merely showing another way the event could have happened doesn't conclusively demonstrate it was the only way it could have happened.
Nice try but no bananas
I'm afraid bananas are still on the menu. If we discover that abiogenesis was possible:
All of life wherever we find it to date has an informational content and where there is no informational content we do not have life.
Would still be true. However, there are no places which have zero information, so its fairly tautological.
Corollary: The information content is hybridized onto matter in our case the proteins, sugars, DNA, RNA, enzymes that systematically enable life as we observe it to continue.
Indeed - one of ToE's points is that the information in the environment is 'copied' by life in such capacities as DNA and protiens.
Corollary: The hybridization is negentropic work which is unaccounted for (sourced) by any purely chemical or naturalistic properties of the matter involved.
This would be falsified by abiogenesis. Indeed, it already seems to be falsified...there is no reason for a copying process to reduce net entropy.
However, your central and important tenet (hidden away there) is that "an outside intelligent designer..." , this is what cannot be falsified. We can not falsify this entity's existence even if we can falsify some of the steps people take to hypothesize its existence.
However, yes, it was a nice try. The best since Jerry came around last April.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 10:07 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 10:59 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 115 of 292 (229674)
08-04-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 9:56 AM


Re: Argument by Very Big Words
If there is no difference in the ability of the genetic machinery to operate whether L or D forms then why are all amino acids used L form while sugars are almost all D-form.
I never said that it made no difference, in fact I explicitly stated that I thought it might. Since your claim was that the inclusion of just one element of the opposite chirality would mean it didn't work. Would you like to now provide some sort of evidence to back up this claim.
Against it here is another paper, this one shows that primer mediated oligonucleotide synthesis will still proceed even with 2 consecutive L-nucleotides (Kozlov, et al., 1998), so there is at least one mechanism connected to DNA which is not affected by a less than 100% optically pure composition.
The only difference between D and L form amino acids in this context are that they are mirror images in their spacial configuration.
They are otherwise chemically indistinguishable and their therodynamic entropy status the same.
You just saying it doesn't act as further evidence, you already just said it. And considering the structure is one of the most fundamental features of protein function it seems odd to overlook it in terms of its role in proteins.
If optical isomers are so identical in every functionally important respect then why do they do different things, as in the case of thalidomide?
Now how about explaining why you think you should be putting amino-acids into DNA?
Or providing some evidence that either proteins or DNA must be optically pure to function?
Now that's my consulting and pedagogical task for you today, a po;lite thank you would be appreciated.
For being condescending, not answering my questions and giving me a vague anecdotal account of seperation of different isomers? You expect a lot.
I didn't notice you thanking me for pointing out that amino acids shouldn't be being incorporated into DNA, something directly relevant to your claims.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 9:56 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 11:10 AM Wounded King has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 116 of 292 (229686)
08-04-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Modulous
08-04-2005 10:40 AM


Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
Whoh.. the restatement meter is pegged.
My hypothesis and et al clearly is that life and thus evolution are impossible under any scenario except the hybridization of intelligence onto non-living matter to establish the operations of life as we see them without dispute.
Thus ANY demonstration of life so defined and agreed to arising by purely chemical means without the introduction of information, know how, experience and guidence of ANY intelligent designer (scientist if you like) would totally falsify the hypothisis.
Thus there is no time problem either it can be demonstrated in the lab or it can't. If it can then it is certainly possible that natural, unaided chemistry can create life, that the theory of abiogenesis and evolution have been demonstrated to be completely compatible and demonstrably correct.
There then is no need for the intervention of some imagined supernational outside designer, indeed no need at all.
That is falsification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 08-04-2005 10:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Yaro, posted 08-04-2005 11:06 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 129 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2005 1:57 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 08-05-2005 1:28 AM Evopeach has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 117 of 292 (229692)
08-04-2005 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 10:59 AM


Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
Thus there is no time problem either it can be demonstrated in the lab or it can't. If it can then it is certainly possible that natural, unaided chemistry can create life, that the theory of abiogenesis and evolution have been demonstrated to be completely compatible and demonstrably correct.
The theory of Abiogenisis and ToE have little to nothing to do with each other. Thus, they are not at odds.
Just to clarify, do you belive in evolution? Also, at what point do you belive the "designer" intervened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 10:59 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 11:30 AM Yaro has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 118 of 292 (229698)
08-04-2005 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Wounded King
08-04-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Argument by Very Big Words
There is nothing vague or anecdotal about one of the most brilliant experiments of the last 100 years and which enabled people to proceed with such minor tasks as producing synthetic insulin.
If you actually believe that amino acids play other than a central role in the molecules of life and further that life would proceed as we observe it without optically pure separation into the two forms then I don't know where to start.
Talking about some experiment where a scientist works with some miniscule bit of dna or rna and under certain directed planned conditions can get some semblance of normal operation over a short chain of base pairs is meaningless.
What do we see in every living prokarotic cell ,, left and right separated by function and performing non-interlaced activities always and forever. Exceptions under contrived conditions prove nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 10:44 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 11:49 AM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 119 of 292 (229712)
08-04-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Yaro
08-04-2005 11:06 AM


Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
I am now amazed that the current claim of evolutions is that abiogenesis is somehow peripheral to the theory. It is simply unbelieveable to hear several people say that.
For fifty years one of the central efforts of that community at enormous expense and time investment has tried every avenue imaginable to show that abiogenesis was not just possible but inevitable linking it directly to the formation of amino acids from diamers, to chains to neucleic acids to all the machinery of life observed.
Hundreds yea thousands of people and experiments have been tried, Nobel prizes awarded for so called life in the test tube, life on clay substrates all to show there is no problem with life from non-life just natural chemical properties of matter and a source of energy etc.
Now that every such effort has failed as utterly and completely as could be imagined and no hope is left.. it becomes very convenient in the face of people thinking, hmmm their entire basis for their theory has no underpinnings whatsoever, so what gives... now you say it was really never important to our theory,, just a little fifty year diversion involving every biology text book currently extant, tens of TV documentaries, scientific series, etc.
What hubris, what misrepresentation, what phenomenal untruth!!!
Now if you wish to assume that life just appeared at say the so called simple replicator stage and then proceeded by evolution up to the human brain.. go for it. That's a degree of unsubstantiated faith I think people can really pick up on.
We could call it the Religion of the Unknown Benefactor.
I mean de neuvo appearance of DNA or RNA or such from no cause or process of any real importance by methods undetermined... sounds like religion to me.
Great news we can ban abiogenesis at least from all public schools as a religious teaching.. right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Yaro, posted 08-04-2005 11:06 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Yaro, posted 08-04-2005 11:38 AM Evopeach has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 120 of 292 (229718)
08-04-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Evopeach
08-04-2005 11:30 AM


Re: An unfalsifiable Proposal
I am now amazed that the current claim of evolutions is that abiogenesis is somehow peripheral to the theory. It is simply unbelieveable to hear several people say that.
Well it is. It allways has been. Here are the dictionary definitions:
abiogenesis Pronunciation Key (b--jn-ss)
n.
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
evolution Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.
...
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
See, they aren't related at all.
The rest of your post is really just a rant. Can you answer my previous question as to when/how do you think life began? Also, do you belive in evolution? If so, when did it start.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-04-2005 11:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 11:30 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Evopeach, posted 08-04-2005 11:57 AM Yaro has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024