Summations Only

Curiously I said start with the video. It's a nice introduction to the science of abiogenesis and the multiple aspects they are working on. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation -- what came first the self-replicating genetic polymer or the cell membrane?Let's go to the next one:

quote:

---

There are many known self-replicating molecules, and a brief listing of some of them is provided below. There is also a large variety of molecules that can self-replicate. Some of the more exciting research (see ref (1) below) confirmed my prediction that self-replicating molecules would compete for resources, and showing how they can dominate the population - chemical evolution: random formation plus selection of the fastest.

​

(1) - Artificial molecule evolves in the lab , 08 January 2009 by Ewen Callaway

quote:

---

A new molecule that performs the essential function of life - self-replication - could shed light on the origin of all living things.
...
Rather than start with RNA enzymes - ribozymes - present in other organisms, Joyce's team created its own molecule from scratch, called R3C. It performed a single function: stitching two shorter RNA molecules together to create a clone of itself.
...
To improve R3C, Lincoln redesigned the molecule to forge a sister RNA that could itself join two other pieces of RNA into a functioning ribozyme. That way, each molecule makes a copy of its sister, a process called cross replication. The population of two doubles and doubles until there are no more starting bits of RNA left.
...
Not content with achieving one hallmark of life in the lab, Joyce and Lincoln sought to evolve their molecule by natural selection. They did this by mutating sequences of the RNA building blocks, so that 288 possible ribozymes could be built by mixing and matching different pairs of shorter RNAs.

​

What came out bore an eerie resemblance to Darwin's theory of natural selection: a few sequences proved winners, most losers. The victors emerged because they could replicate fastest while surrounded by competition, Joyce says.

---

---

And follow that with the new addition to the thread:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Diversification of self-replicating molecules

​

Abstract

​

How new species emerge in nature is still incompletely understood and difficult to study directly. Self-replicating molecules provide a simple model that allows us to capture the fundamental processes that occur in species formation. We have been able to monitor in real time and at a molecular level the diversification of self-replicating molecules into two distinct sets that compete for two different building blocks (‘food’) and so capture an important aspect of the process by which species may arise. The results show that the second replicator set is a descendant of the first and that both sets are kinetic products that oppose the thermodynamic preference of the system. The sets occupy related but complementary food niches. As diversification into sets takes place on the timescale of weeks and can be investigated at the molecular level, this work opens up new opportunities for experimentally investigating the process through which species arise both in real time and with enhanced detail.

---

​

This also begs the question of when "life" develops -- I would say when evolution begins, and that looks like these molecules qualify.

---

I have not tried to access the paper with the free login they have yet. I'm sure someone here can download it and email it.So we see further evidence of evolutionary-like behavior in the molecule chemistry replication behavior ... variation and selection. Can you tell me the difference between:

1. a self-replicating molecule, and
2. a chemically self-replicating genetic polymer?

So we now have two (of the many) self-replicating molecules listed in Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) above ... are they "chemically self-replicating genetic polymers?" Inquiring minds want to know.Are they evolving? Are they life? Which just defines the parameters for possible ways for self-replicating molecules to develop. When you look at each of the different molecules, each with a different setup of controlled environment and selected reagents, then you begin to see the realm of the possible.What we can say is that it is not impossible to make self-replicating molecules. It's been done. It's old news. It's fact. You asked for the best, but what I said was to start there, ... and now we have more ... you give up too easily, my friend, especially when it suits you.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

For three additional reasons.

1. If it is claimed that they are elements of design that are copied from one species to another, then why do the shared characteristics only appear where there is a lineage with a nested hierarchy and in no other lineage or hierarchy. Why there and only there?
   ​
2. Why aren't characteristics ever combined from a number of different lineages in order to form a superior characteristic in any species:
   ​
   1. The octopus eye has a fixed lens and focuses the image by moving the retina to the desired focal length,
   2. The mammal eye has a fixed retina and a flexible lens that can be shaped to focus the image on the retina,
   3. Combining both focal systems would give the organism zoom lenses to see any distance at any magnification desired. Human designers have accomplished this feat of design.
   ​
3. Then there is the question of the purpose of the design, where we of course have the alternative of the Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... which claims that design is for the amusement and entertainment of the god/s. How do you know what kind of designer would be involved?

EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : more

Dawkins' "ignorance is no crime" gives three other alternatives, which includes mendacity ("design"), ignorance and insanity ...But I have been giving this a bit of thought and would like to break it down slightly differently:There are Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works:

1. people too stupid to understand the concepts. These are the unfortunates. It is not their fault.
2. people ignorant of the concepts, possibly through no fault of their own. These are the fortunates -- they can be cured via education. A good starting source is Berkeley: Evolution 101.
3. people that have been misinformed. These are the deceived. It may be possible to cure them with education, however the victims need to be willing to learn, and willing to give up the false concepts they have regarding how evolution works. Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held.
4. people who are charlatans. These are the people that do the deceiving of others. These are the deplorables. They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected. Trolls also fit in this category.
5. people who are clinically insane. These are also unfortunates, as it is not their fault.

Enjoy

I see Ham, Hovind, Batten, etc as type 4 -- they are the ones making up stuff and peddling it as "alternative facts" ... they may have started as type 3 but have built on it and this addition makes them type 4 ... imho.I see the type 3 as the people Dawkins describes as tortured because they are deceived into believing falsehoods that conflict with reality (hence the cog-dis). Well I though Davidjay might be a 5, certainly a 4, making up stuff and trying to pawn it off as real.But this is getting off topic.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

There is in fact a paper that is called "why the earth is green" because of ecology ....Hairston, Nelson G., Frederick E. Smith, and Lawrence B. Slobodkin. "Community Structure, Population Control, and Competition." The American Naturalist 94, no. 879 (1960): 421-25. JSTOR: Access Check.... known as the "Why is the world green" paper.Note: you can register for JSTOR and have free access to a "bookshelf" to read this (and other JSTOR) papers.Or message me your email and I can email a pdf of the paper. Frederick E. Smith was my dad. The others were regulars at our house at the time.Enjoy

The differences between a bunch of designed vehicles and a nested hierarchy of vehicles is in the lineage of traits.When new features are shared across the board rather than only in one lineage, that breaks the nested hierarchy.Example: rear window wipers. Introduce by Volvo (1969 Volvo IIRC), now there is no SUV from any company that doesn't have them.Not a nested trait.Tires from same company on different makes and models vehicles.Not a nested trait.Injection carburetors from the same company on different makes and models vehicles.Not a nested trait.BUT ... this is what evidence of design looks like.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Sort of actually being self-replicating?It doesn't need to be "likely to occur naturally" ... it just needs to be possible to occur naturally.Moving on:

quote:

---

(Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) references continued):

​

(2) - Self-Reproducing Molecules, Reported by MIT Researchers, 09 May 1990 By Eugene F. Mallove

​

quote:

---

In work recently reported in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Professor Rebek and his coworkers, Tjama Tjivikua, a graduate student from Namibia, and Pablo Ballester, a visiting scientist from the University of Palma in Mallorca, Spain, described the creation of an extraordinary self-replicating molecular system.
...
Amazingly, the laboratory-made molecule that Professor Rebek and his colleagues have created can reproduce itself without the "outside" assistance of enzymes. As such, and because of its specific constitution, the molecule embodies some of the "template" qualities of a nucleic acid, and some of the structural qualities of a protein
...
Technically, the self-replicating compound made by the MIT group is called an amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE). This molecule was initially formed by reacting two other molecules.

​

The AATE replicates by attracting to one of its ends anester molecule, and to its other end an amino adenosine molecule. These molecules react to form another AATE. The "parent" and "child" AATE molecules then break apart and can go on to build still more AATE molecules.

---

---

Pretty straight forward. This appears to be the original article.Enjoy

The oldest ice core date I am aware of is 808,008 years (2017) old.Still way longer than all the various versions of YECie fantasy ages combined.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

And what I said was that they were all good examples of self-replicating molecules. Each is different, so ignoring one is only looking at a small amount of the available information.Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away ....Moving on:

quote:

---

(Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) references continued):

​

(4) - Synthetic Self-Replicating Molecules, July 1994 by Rebek, Jr

​

quote:

---

My colleagues and I at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have designed such self-assembling molecules and crafted them in the laboratory. Our efforts are intended to illuminate the ways in which life might have arisen. Probably it began when molecules came into existence that were capable of reproducing themselves. Our organic molecules, although they operate outside of living systems, help to elucidate some of the essential principles of self-replication.

---

---

This is an update on the previous post. Scientific American has changed their website policy and I'm not able to read this article in the new site. I'll update when I can. His CV is at Missing resource | Scripps Research -- you can see he has done a lot of research in this field.

quote:

---

(3) - Self-Replicating Molecules and the Meaning of Life, interview with Dr M Reza Ghadiri, 29 October 1999 by Cliff Walker

​

quote:

---

He mentioned three specific groups of scientists, including his group, that have created self-replicating molecules, and indicated that there are others. I asked him if these were derived from naturally occurring self-replicating molecules, and he said that none of the molecules were derived from naturally occurring molecules.

​

Two of the three groups, his group and that of Guntr KieDrwski, have created peptides, which are similar in structure to naturally occurring molecules.

---

---

Several self-replicating molecules. More to come.Enjoy

Really?Enjoy

Yes it is, because there is objective empirical evidence that the earth is way older than all the YECie assumption filled "calculations" combined.AND it is, because there is objective empirical evidence that evolution occurs, has occurred, and continues to occur.We can also use astro-physics to show an old world and geology to show an old world and paleontology to show evolution and chemistry to show how biology works and biology to show how evolution works -- in other words there are other fields that provide consilient evidence for both an old world and evolution.There are no other supporting systems for a young earth.Any rational open minded but skeptical unbiased person coming to the information from a state of complete ignorance of all the information, who then weighed the information before deciding which position was more valid, would choose the positions backed by evidence.Thought experiment: if you eradicated all bibles and all memories of the bible from the minds of all humans, would it be recreated by anyone interested in finding "truth" about reality?If you eradicated all science books and all memories of the science from the minds of all humans, would it be recreated by anyone interested in finding "truth" about reality?Enjoy