Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 12:26 PM
27 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, Chiroptera, JonF, PaulK, ringo, xongsmith (7 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,032 Year: 12,068/19,786 Month: 1,849/2,641 Week: 358/708 Day: 52/81 Hour: 1/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
19Next
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
ICANT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 151 of 281 (676193)
10-20-2012 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Panda
10-20-2012 9:13 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Hi Panda,

Panda writes:

Since there is no fossil record of god nor jesus, that is probably not an argument you want to make.

I don't have any problem with going there.

On the other hand you would not want to go there.

I believe by "FAITH" that God and Jesus exist.

You have to believe by faith that life began to exist as you have no evidence.

Panda writes:

Much like oranges not being the only fruit; fossils are not the only evidence.

Now you are going to tell me that since life exists today it had to begin to exist as we present it to have began it's existence.

But if there is other evidence of how that first life form began to exist other than fossils would you please present it?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 9:13 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 4:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 152 of 281 (676195)
10-20-2012 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
10-20-2012 11:12 AM


Re: Revised Suggestion
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

Revising my previous suggestion, I now suggest that we only reply to Al or ICANT (or anyone, for that matter) when they happen to touch rationally upon the topic. Something about the simplest protein, I think.

Do you have any evidence of how the simplest protein or life form began to exist?

Since proteins are manufactured by orders that are placed by the DNA in a cell, wouldn't the information in the DNA be required before the protein could begin to exist?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 10-20-2012 11:12 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by NoNukes, posted 10-20-2012 4:44 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 10-20-2012 5:19 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 211 by Taq, posted 10-22-2012 1:17 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1146 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 153 of 281 (676207)
10-20-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by ICANT
10-20-2012 1:16 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Because time is a concept of man that he invented to measure duration.

But there still remains the clear experience of "duration" that we measure. Your only point is that we invented a unit of measuring duration. Well, yeah, of course we did. Just as we invented a unit to measure height, weight, spacial dimentions, etc...

The point of this thread is has nothing to do with "proof" of the first protein or life. Most here are simply pointing out that the first proteins would be much less complex than the one brought up in the OP. So to use that one as an example of proteins not being able to come about from natural chemistry is pointless.

Can you stay on topic and deal with that?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 1:16 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 12:46 AM onifre has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 154 of 281 (676220)
10-20-2012 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by ICANT
10-20-2012 11:05 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Time is a dimension.

Are you saying length is a human construct?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 11:05 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-20-2012 11:27 PM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2012 2:07 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 281 (676225)
10-20-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ICANT
10-20-2012 11:22 AM


Re: Revised Suggestion
Do you have any evidence of how the simplest protein or life form began to exist?

Percy is correct. Your question is not relevant.

The topic of this thread is whether it is impossible that the simplest protein could be formed by an unguided processes. Any possible, not prohibitively improbable process for forming such a protein would allow answering the question.

In other words, we don't have to identify the exact process or even the exact simplest proton that actually formed the basis of life on the planet. The question can even be answered if life did not begin through abiogenesis.

Since proteins are manufactured by orders that are placed by the DNA in a cell, wouldn't the information in the DNA be required before the protein could begin to exist?

Some molecule serving some of the roles of primitive DNA, could manufacture a chemical useful for a self replicating molecule. That chemical would be a protein, even if we could not truly call that primitive primitive molecule DNA.

In essence you are asking a form of the chicken and the egg question. Those questions should not be taken seriously.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 11:22 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2012 1:21 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1908 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 156 of 281 (676226)
10-20-2012 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ICANT
10-20-2012 11:14 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
ICANT writes:

I believe by "FAITH" that God and Jesus exist.

You have to believe by faith that life began to exist as you have no evidence.


LOL - I am surrounded by evidence that life began to exist!

ICANT writes:

Now you are going to tell me that since life exists today it had to begin to exist as we present it to have began it's existence.


So, you don't believe life began to exist, despite it existing today.
That puts you in a rather curious position.
One that is rather obviously counter to the obvious evidence living around us.

ICANT writes:

But if there is other evidence of how that first life form began to exist other than fossils would you please present it?


So - now you want to change the subject.
I guess that's because you want me to not notice your stupid claim that life did not exist in the past, even if there is life in the present.

But let's actually look at what you were replying to - since you seem to have forgotten:

ICANT writes:

Also, the presence of oxygen and the lack of fossils also demonstrates that life can exist without a direct fossil record.

If there are no fossils how do you prove there was life?

To state the obvious: because of the presence of oxygen.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 11:14 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-20-2012 11:55 PM Panda has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18597
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 157 of 281 (676230)
10-20-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ICANT
10-20-2012 11:22 AM


Re: Revised Suggestion
ICANT writes:

Do you have any evidence of how the simplest protein or life form began to exist?

NoNukes already explained why this isn't the correct question, but let me answer anyway. There's very little 4 billion year-old evidence to be found, but we're very certain that however it happened it followed the same physical laws of the universe that we're familiar with today. It certainly didn't happen anything like the opening post suggests, with all the amino acids coming together in the correct order by chance because that would be incredibly unlikely.

Since proteins are manufactured by orders that are placed by the DNA in a cell, wouldn't the information in the DNA be required before the protein could begin to exist?

The opening post asks about the ribonuclease protein, which is relevant to one of the abiogenesis hypotheses where the first life used RNA instead of DNA. As has been pointed out in this thread many times, the ribonuclease protein of the earliest life may have borne little resemblance to modern versions.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2012 11:22 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ICANT, posted 10-21-2012 1:56 PM Percy has responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2163 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 158 of 281 (676234)
10-20-2012 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Larni
10-18-2012 6:08 AM


Re: Your case is lost...
Viral memory is better than yours, Larn, just like I said. The cat explicitly mentioned that strong panspermia was his preferred explanation. Earlier in this thread and in another one specifically on abiogenesis where you participated too and were involved in a usual slanging match with the feline.

The moggy just checked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Larni, posted 10-18-2012 6:08 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 9:46 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1908 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 159 of 281 (676235)
10-20-2012 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-20-2012 7:28 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Mad writes:

The cat explicitly mentioned that strong panspermia was his preferred explanation.


...and you ignored all the replies.

But I guess that was the only way you could claim 'victory'.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-20-2012 7:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-20-2012 10:52 PM Panda has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2163 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 160 of 281 (676236)
10-20-2012 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Panda
10-20-2012 9:46 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
No, Panda's Thumby. In this thread there was no reply to that particular post but in the other one, the replies were acknowledged by the feline, were expressing the usual hostility to the Cheshire's ways and habits of thinking so as usual the whole thing descended into a cussing session with Larn and Dr. Inadequate. Then the thread was closed and locked so the argument had no chance to be even started.

Victories and defeats are irrelevant here, Pandy. The Mother Nature works the one and only way regardless of our opinions.

As I said, unlike is the case with the Big Bunk, I cannot rule the possibility of abiogenesis completely on logical grounds. It seems highly unlikely to have occurred on earth and might be redundant altogether as the Mother might not need to re-invent the always present wheel of life and death but it is still conceivable. After all, both the alive and non-alive are composed of the very same atoms, even if the atoms seem to be configured on different principles.

The only real problem to resolve is irreducible complexity and the only kind of irreducible complexity that resists all possible explanation is that of chicken and egg. Egg is the memory of chicken, chicken is the memory of the egg, and together are making an irreducible system of merry memory go-around.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 9:46 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 11:36 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2163 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 161 of 281 (676238)
10-20-2012 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Larni
10-20-2012 3:00 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Time is comparing two or more lengths to a standard cycle. So the relation is diameter to circumference. That takes human memory. So what is the time universally? The same irrational pi standing for the present. All the lengths are distances travelled by relative objects so time is perfectly reducible to motion. Is motion itself human construct of the mind? That's a good and open question. Better than the question what is the age of time which is then the question what is the age of motion. Motion can have direction, it cannot age.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Larni, posted 10-20-2012 3:00 PM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 11:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1908 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 162 of 281 (676239)
10-20-2012 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-20-2012 10:52 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Mad writes:

...the usual bullshit...


You ignored all the replies.

But I guess that was the only way you could claim 'victory'.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-20-2012 10:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1908 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 163 of 281 (676240)
10-20-2012 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-20-2012 11:27 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Due to your Gish-Gallop of bullshit, I'll have to format my reply like so:

Time is comparing two or more lengths to a standard cycle. - No, it isn't.

So the relation is diameter to circumference. - No, it isn't.

That takes human memory. - No, it doesn't.

So what is the time universally? - That is nonsense.

The same irrational pi standing for the present. - That is nonsense.

All the lengths are distances travelled by relative objects so time is perfectly reducible to motion. - No, it isn't.

Is motion itself human construct of the mind? - No, it isn't.

That's a good and open question. - No, it isn't.

Better than the question what is the age of time which is then the question what is the age of motion. - No, it isn't.

Motion can have direction, it cannot age. - Wow, you nearly got something right. Unfortunately, the rest of your post was bollocks.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-20-2012 11:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 12:18 AM Panda has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2163 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 164 of 281 (676242)
10-20-2012 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Panda
10-20-2012 4:48 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
No, Pandy. You are surrounded only by the overwhelming evidence that life is present. No evidence that life had begun is surrounding you at all. Vast difference. Stick to the facts and leave conjectures alone and you'll be a good Pandy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 4:48 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Panda, posted 10-21-2012 8:53 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2163 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 165 of 281 (676244)
10-21-2012 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Panda
10-20-2012 11:47 PM


Re: Your case is lost...
Pandy, if the cat needed a peremptory arbiter of what is and was is not, you would be the last in line for the job. You need to be sharp to do that kind of work but so far you only have shown you are blunt kind of dumb.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Panda, posted 10-20-2012 11:47 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Panda, posted 10-21-2012 8:59 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019