EvC Forum: Biogenesis

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Biogenesis

dokukaeru

Member (Idle past 4642 days)

Posts: 129

From: ohio

Joined: 06-27-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 269 of 312 (478269)
08-13-2008 11:40 AM

Reply to: Message 266 by AlphaOmegakid
08-13-2008 9:38 AM

Here you go AOKid

the dr. writes:

And the word "atom" means "unsplitable", and the word "oxgen" means "causer of acidity".

Interesting unsupported and untrue argument. Please cite your sources. Did you learn this in abiogenesis school, or are you parroting this from evo forums?

wiki writes:

Lavoisier renamed 'vital air' to oxygne in 1777 from the Greek roots (oxys) (acid, literally "sharp," from the taste of acids) and - (-gens) (producer, literally begetter), because he mistakenly believed that oxygen was a constituent of all acids.[5]

The references to atoms in the West emerged a century later from Leucippus whose student, Democritus, systemized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek: ), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter", i.e., something that cannot be divided.

We continue to point out to you that WORDS ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS OBSERVATIONS AND EVIDENCE

This message is a reply to:
	Message 266 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-13-2008 9:38 AM		AlphaOmegakid has not replied

dokukaeru

Member (Idle past 4642 days)

Posts: 129

From: ohio

Joined: 06-27-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 276 of 312 (478368)
08-14-2008 4:03 PM

Reply to: Message 271 by AlphaOmegakid
08-14-2008 9:37 AM

WRONG WRONG WRONG AOKid

AOKid writes:

I wouldn't be so quick to do your victory dance with just WIKI quotations and charts. They are often wrong or misleading. My claim of 400x's smaller came from my memory. This was correct in 1992 before the discovery of the mimi virus which measures .0004 m in diameter. science mag article

Now the smallest prokaryotes are mycoplasma. The smallest ones are .002-.0015 m in diameter. mycoplasma

Note there is no overlap as the wiki article claims. In fact by diameter the smallest cell is 4x's smaller. But true size is better measured in volume and not diameter, because these creatures just happen to be three dimensional even though wiki doesn't want you to realize that. In volume, the smallest cells are 60x's larger than the largest virus.

So you are saying that mycoplasma is visable to the naked eye?

You are just plain WRONG AOKid. Your sited article agrees with the Wiki chart.
Your article:

The size and varieties of mycoplasma have proven successful countermeasures to our numerous precautions. At 0.15-2 m in diameter,these beasties can pass through sterilizing filters commonly used in cell culture labs.

wiki on mimivirus writes:

Mimivirus is the largest known virus, with a capsid diameter of 400 nm. Protein filaments measuring 100 nm project from the surface of the capsid, bringing the total length of the virus up to 600 nm. Variation in scientific literature renders these figures as highly approximate, with the “size” of the virion being casually listed as anywhere between 400 nm and 800 nm, depending on whether total length or capsid diameter is actually quoted.

That is .00000015m - .000002m. Compared to the mimivirus which is at least .0000004m, possibly .0000008m.

AOKid writes:

just happen to be three dimensional even though wiki doesn't want you to realize that.

Are you suggesting wiki doesn't want us to know microscopic life is 3 dimensional?

Why would they talk about shape under virus then:

wiki just above that size chart writes:

Icosahedral architecture was employed by R. Buckminster Fuller in his geodesic dome,

Now onto viruses and genes:

AOKid writes:

Doku, you may want to start doing a little research and reading before you fire off these posts. The only one showing their ignorance is you. Viruses all have genetic material, but not all viruses have genes. Some viruses have DNA and they have genes. Some viruses only have RNA, and they don't have genes. The RNA molecule can reverse transcribe itself back into DNA in the case of retroviruses and then it is a gene. But RNA viruses do not have genes. Genes are sections of DNA. Biology 101.

What exactly are you implying here?

wiki on genes writes:

gene is a locatable region of genomic sequence, corresponding to a unit of inheritance, which is associated with regulatory regions, transcribed regions and/or other functional sequence regions.[1][2] The physical development and phenotype of organisms can be thought of as a product of genes interacting with each other and with the environment.[3] A concise definition of a gene, taking into account complex patterns of regulation and transcription, genic conservation and non-coding RNA genes, has been proposed by Gerstein et al.[4] "A gene is a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products".

wiki on genome writes:

In biology the genome of an organism is its whole hereditary information and is encoded in the DNA (or, for some viruses, RNA).

Now onto AGENTS OF DEATH
NO ONE IS DENYING THAT MOST VIRUSES CAUSE CELL/ORGANISM DESTRUCTION. We are saying that there are other functions.

wiki writes:

Their viral genome will integrate with host DNA and replicate along with it fairly harmlessly, or may even become established as a plasmid.

Sometimes prophages may provide benefits to the host bacterium while they are dormant by adding new functions to the bacterial genome in a phenomenon called lysogenic conversion. A famous example is the conversion of a harmless strain of Vibrio cholerae by a phage into a highly virulent one, which causes cholera. This is why temperate phages are not suitable for phage therapy.

There is an example for you AOKid....and I already know what you are going to say...."see look it just makes the bacteria an agent of death"

AOKid writes:

Evolution 101.

Is there such a class?

You know why I keep using one-liners?(not all true, go look at my post about quantum physics Message 199)
That is all I need to show your ignorance.
Wish I had time to point out more.

Edited by dokukaeru, : clarity

Edited by dokukaeru, : double negative & link

This message is a reply to:
	Message 271 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-14-2008 9:37 AM		AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 281 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 10:52 AM		dokukaeru has replied

dokukaeru

Member (Idle past 4642 days)

Posts: 129

From: ohio

Joined: 06-27-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 290 of 312 (478566)
08-17-2008 8:45 PM

Reply to: Message 250 by AlphaOmegakid
08-11-2008 10:12 AM

Re: Your argument can be reduced to 2 words HAND WAVING

AOKid writes:

1. It's a cartoon! Graphics and animation. I have accused people who believe in this stuff as having a great philosophical faith. This video is strong evidence of that. It is full of imagination with little or no evidentiary content.

wikitionary writes:

hand waving, hand-waving
(idiomatic) approximation, vagueness, educated guessing, or the attempt to explain or excuse vagaries.
The sales pitch sounded good, but they did a lot of hand-waving about the price.

The yellow in the quote above is HAND WAVING PERIOD. This is part of the reason why you failed in your explanation of the video. You try and dismiss the video of having little evidence to substantiate the claims, yet almost every step has experiments to back it up. Exactly which part of the video is not plausible?

PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH PART
1. Do you deny that the early Earth was different than Earth today?

2. Do you deny that the early Earth contained large amounts and variations of organic chemicals?

3. Do you deny that stable vesicles can form spontaneously?

4. Do you deny that these vesicles are permeable to small organic molecules?

5. Do you deny that these vesicles will incorporate fatty acids? Note: This is not cellular growth.

6. Do you deny that these vesicles can be mechanically divided without loss of contents? Note: This is not cell division.

7. Do you deny that it is possible for nucleotides to spontaneously polymerize? Note: This is not cellular growth.

8. Do you deny that nucleotide polymers would be trapped in a vesicle?

9. Do you deny that a nucleotide polymer inside a vesicle would separate under certain conditions such as high temperature near a thermal vent?

10. Do you deny that large vesicles would steal lipids from smaller vesicles through thermodynamics?(Origin of Competition). Note: This is not cellular growth.

11. Do you deny that a vesicle that splits into two would contain the same information?. Note: Not necessarily identical imformation in each daughter and this is not cell division.

12. Do you deny that a polymer sequence that is able to replicate faster would dominate a population of polymer containing vesicles?

13. Do you deny that a mutation that increases the rate of polymer replication would be selected for?

14. Do you deny that combining mutation and natural selection would equal increased information?

15. Can you show any other area where the video is not plausible as you claim?

This part is mostly off topic and hidden and is specifically for AOKid. Click peek

This message is a reply to:
	Message 250 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-11-2008 10:12 AM		AlphaOmegakid has not replied

dokukaeru

Member (Idle past 4642 days)

Posts: 129

From: ohio

Joined: 06-27-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 291 of 312 (478567)
08-17-2008 8:55 PM

Reply to: Message 289 by Otto Tellick
08-17-2008 7:39 PM

Re: What does AlphaOmegakid really want?

Excellent post Otto. I was just getting ready to formulate something like that.

I think one of the big problems is AOKid equivocates FAITH and IMAGINATION

merriam webster on Faith writes:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

merriamwebster on IMAGINATION writes:

1: the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality
2 a: creative ability b: ability to confront and deal with a problem : resourcefulness c: the thinking or active mind : interest
3 a: a creation of the mind; especially : an idealized or poetic creation b: fanciful or empty assumption

It is possible to talk about abiogenesis without faith by using imagination. It is impossible to talk of God without using faith.
AOKid believes that an imagination in science is the equivalent of faith in science. He believes students should not have an imagination.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 289 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-17-2008 7:39 PM		Otto Tellick has not replied

dokukaeru

Member (Idle past 4642 days)

Posts: 129

From: ohio

Joined: 06-27-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 292 of 312 (478568)
08-17-2008 9:48 PM

Reply to: Message 281 by AlphaOmegakid
08-15-2008 10:52 AM

Re: more one liner hand waiving form doku

AOKid writes:

You argue that I made a mistake on the size of viruses. I admitted a partial mistake. And evidentlty, I now have made another mistake with decimal places. Big deal! ....you struggle to show simple irrelevant mistake that I may or may not be making while adding nothing to the OP

You can't argue any of these things so you wave your hands and try to discredit someone for making a mistake.

Sorry, but I am not struggling. It is relevant, but you must not see how. Your knowledge of viruses is outdated(1992 by your own admittance). Your knowledge of biogenesis is EXTREMELY OUTDATED . Why dont you do a scholar google search for biogenesis and see what papers(besides huxley's 1870 address) come up. All those papers cite the modern definition of biogenesis:

merriamwebster writes:

2 : the synthesis of chemical compounds or structures in the living organism ” compare biosynthesis

AOKid writes:

And in regards to "genes" in viruses. I partially withdraw my claim there. The wiki article you cited refers to a paper that can be found here and was published in 2007 (very recent)

Irrelevant. You were still wrong. What is this partial crap you speak of?

AOKid writes:

You still claim that viruses are on the "edge of life" and they can evolve on their own.

Strawman in yellow AOKid. I never claimed they evolve on their own. They evolve.

AOKid writes:

I can see that you have been trained to argue this subject, but the person who really doesn't know very little about viruses is you.

Oh really? Let's set aside the fact that the first part(which is untrue) of this sentence has nothing to do with the second part. Why have I pointed out your ignorance of viruses? Some of the ignorance you still hold:

AOKid about lysogenic conversion writes:

Do you have a point here other than proving my point? You read it, you write it, and then you ignore it. That my friend is the definition ignorance.

You CONTINUE TO BELIEVE VIRUSES ARE ONLY AGENTS OF DEATH. This in spite of the above example of the V. cholerae bacteria WHICH DOES NOT DIE IN THE PROCESS OF LYSOGENIC CONVERSION

wiki on Lysogenic Conversion writes:

Lysogenic conversion
In some interactions between lysogenic phages and bacteria, lysogenic conversion may occur. It is when a temperate phage induces a change in the phenotype of the bacteria infected that is not part of a usual phage cycle. Changes can often involve the external membrane of the cell by making it impervious to other phages or even by increasing the pathogenic capability of the bacteria for a host.

CAN YOU SITE SOMEPLACE THAT REFERS TO ALL VIRUSES AS AGENTS OF DEATH? IF NOT YOU MUST CONCEDE THAT YOU HAVE MADE THIS UP

Here is another example that not all viruses are what you claim:

wiki on Gene Therapy writes:

Gene therapy is the insertion of genes into an individual's cells and tissues to treat a disease, and hereditary diseases in which a defective mutant allele is replaced with a functional one. Although the technology is still in its infancy, it has been used with some success....
and later....
Doctors and molecular biologists realized that viruses like this could be used as vehicles to carry 'good' genes into a human cell. First, a scientist would remove the genes in the virus that cause disease. Then they would replace those genes with genes encoding the desired effect (for instance, insulin production in the case of diabetics). This procedure must be done in such a way that the genes which allow the virus to insert its genome into its host's genome are left intact. This can be confusing, and requires significant research and understanding of the virus' genes in order to know the function of each.

AOKid writes:

I now have made another mistake with decimal places.

and
You argue I make a mistake on virus size, and you get lucky with a propositional definition change to genes. And I admit the mistakes, and that makes me ignorant.

IS THAT ALL IT WAS? Seems to me you were trying to be dishonest by showing that mycoplasma was much larger in size and volume than the largest virus.

WHAT ABOUT THIS LITTLE GEM YOU POSTED AOKID?

AOKid in 271 writes:

just happen to be three dimensional even though wiki doesn't want you to realize that.

sounds like a conspiracy.

AOKid writes:

but ignorant people ignore facts which you do.

What are these facts I am ignoring?

AOKid writes:

I destroyed your silly cartoon video

1. I did not post the video. Cavediver posted it.
2. No you did not. See Message 290

Would you like to discuss the relevance of viruses on abiogenesis any more? I still have some stuff you might be interested in learning.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 281 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-15-2008 10:52 AM		AlphaOmegakid has not replied

dokukaeru

Member (Idle past 4642 days)

Posts: 129

From: ohio

Joined: 06-27-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 305 of 312 (478684)
08-19-2008 2:16 PM

Reply to: Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid
08-19-2008 12:55 PM

So you concede?

I assume that since you are ignoring Message 290 and Message 292 that you concede:

1. The video is plausible. You cannot show otherwise.

2. You made up the term agent of death.

3. Your understanding of viruses is lacking.

4. Viruses fall somewhere between life and non-life.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 301 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 08-19-2008 12:55 PM		AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	Aussie, kjsimons, LamarkNewAge, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/0