Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abiogenesis
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 142 (95136)
03-27-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
03-24-2004 12:45 PM


Re: Viruses, prions and curious implications
Don’t be fooled by AbbyLeever’s attempt to save face. He’s wronghe knows itwe all know it.
quote:
Finally, DNA can exist outside a living cell although it degrades with time -- no longer has the mechanic doing tune-ups ... but it is not the minimum requirement for abiogenesis to have occurred. Viruses use an abbreviated RNA that hi-jacks the cell mechanism to replicate its nefarious (to us) messages. Then we get to prions like the ones that cause mad cow disease, which are even less 'complete' than viral RNA ... enjoy (all ellipses in original)
In the third part of AbbyLeever’s first sentence, it refers to DNA (or a living cell, which would be even worse for him/her, so we’ll go with DNA). So we have:
quote:
AbbyLeever: [DNA] is not the minimum requirement for abiogenesis to have occurred.
Agreed. But then AbbyLeever goes on to support his/her paragraph’s opening sentence by giving two examples, both of which are flawed supports.
quote:
AbbyLeever: [DNA] is not the minimum requirement for abiogenesis to have occurred. Viruses use an abbreviated RNA that hi-jacks the cell mechanism to replicate its nefarious (to us) messages.
Too bad for AbbyLeever that viruses ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE DNA, transitively, in order to do that. Support rejected.
quote:
AbbyLeever: [DNA] is not the minimum requirement for abiogenesis to have occurred. prions like the ones that cause mad cow disease, which are even less 'complete' than viral RNA
And since prions are not living, they are irrelevant to abiogenesis: furthermore, prions also REQUIRE DNA, transitively, in order to "replicate". Support rejected.
As I originally pointed out, and consistently pointed out, AbbyLeever's only two supports are both flawed. And none of his attempts to distract us from this fact, by switching subjects, works.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2004 7:52 PM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 142 (95201)
03-27-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Black
03-27-2004 7:35 PM


quote:
OK, DNAunion, you asked me to back up my statements, well here we go!
Where? You don't support ANYTHING. Simply posting article titles is not supporting one's position, neither is posting mere abstracts. Science is in the details. Now, if you have actual evidence that supports for your position, then you should present it.
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Amino acids could link together (as peptides) and reproduce naturally
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amino acid chains have been observed that can reproduce naturally:
I figured you were referring to the GL (Ghadiri ligase), and now I see that you were here.
quote:
David H. Lee, Juan R. Granja, Jose A. Martinez, Kay Severin & M. Reza Ghadiri; "A self-replicating peptide" Nature 382, 525 - 528 (1996).
That peptide was NOT formed naturally, nor can it replicate in any way relevant to abiogenesis (which was the context in which you made your assertions).
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(3) RNA could form from amino acid chains (peptides)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What I meant was RNA could come from peptide nucleic acids:
If you have support, please provide it.
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(4) RNA would need neither DNA nor protein to catalyze its own replication
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, this is true:
Then present the evidence that shows this.
There has been no experiment carried out under prebiotically plausible conditions that has produced RNA capable of replicating itself in an abiogenesis relevant manner.
quote:
Thus, the conclusion I come to is that abiogenesis is possible.
Now if you could just support that conclusion.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Black, posted 03-27-2004 7:35 PM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Black, posted 04-01-2004 7:29 AM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 142 (95203)
03-27-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Black
03-27-2004 7:35 PM


A note on why article titles are not sufficient to support one's position. Here is an article title from Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere (vol 30, No 1, Feb 2000): Self-Programmable, Self-Assembling Two-Dimensional Genetic Matter.
What an impressive sounding paper! If the experiment accomplished what the title leads one to believe, then the origin of life would basically be solved. Genetic matter self-assembling and self-programming! Wow!
But when one reads the actual paper, one sees a completely different picture. Basically, they dumped some nucleotides on a surface and since their were some irregularities in the arragenment that resulted....bingo, self-programmable, self-assembling, two-dimensional genetic matter.
The actual science is not to be found in the title - it's in the details of the experiment. Maybe if some scientists were sued for false advertisement - which is about what their very misleading titles basically amount to - then we'd see more honesty.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Black, posted 03-27-2004 7:35 PM Black has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2004 8:12 PM DNAunion has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 142 (95207)
03-27-2004 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
03-27-2004 7:52 PM


Re: Viruses, prions and curious implications
quote:
AbbyLeever:
You still have not shown where I say that viruses or prions are living.

Wow, big letters! You MUST be right! LOL!
Here, let me use even bigger letters so I will be even more right.
I have shown BOTH of your offered supports to be flawed.
Yep, that’s my claim and that’s fact.
quote:
AbbyLeever: Until you do that your argument is all based on a false assumption of what I said.
Nope, I addressed what you said. I’ve shown BOTH of your supports to be flawed and now you’re attempting to distance yourself from your errors. We all understand.
quote:
Abbyleever: You are in error. Again.
Nope, you are.
quote:
AbbyLeever: I have no need to converse with fools who repeat their mistakes.
Tsk tsk...stooping to personal attacks...already!
quote:
AbbyLeever: Especially after being corrected.
You haven’t corrected me one iota. On the other hand, I have shown BOTH of your offered supports to be flawed.
Enjoy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2004 7:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2004 8:56 PM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 142 (95232)
03-27-2004 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
03-27-2004 8:56 PM


Re: Viruses, prions and curious implications
quote:
AbbyLeever: Poor fool.
Tsk tsk...another personal attack. That makes two from you...zero from me. Let's all keep that in mind, shall we.
quote:
AbbyLeever: ALL you have shown is that viruses and prions are not living.
Nope, what I've shown is that BOTH of your supports are flawed. That was my original point, and still is.
quote:
The fact is that you continue to attack something that is not there.
Nope, the fact is I trashed your flawed supports, and since then, you've tried to distract everyone by moving the goal posts.
quote:
The only conclusion is that you are congenitally incapable of either (q) seeing the truth or (8) admitting you made a mistake even to yourself.
The options are (q) and (8)??? LOL! You're so steamed you can't even type correctly!
quote:
AbbyLeever: As such I will take pity on you and no longer reply to your posts.
You won't reply anymore? You mean I don't get to be called names by you anymore? Darned!
And that you supposedly won't respond anymore doesn't matter anyway since I already won several posts ago.
quote:
You still have not shown where I say that viruses or prions are living.
I've shown exactly what I intended to...that BOTH of your offered supports are flawed. You haven't even attempted to show otherwise.
Enjoy.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2004 8:56 PM RAZD has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 142 (95241)
03-27-2004 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
03-27-2004 7:52 PM


Re: Viruses, prions and curious implications
quote:
AbbyLeever: I didn't claim that you made errors
quote:
AbbyLeever: You are in error. Again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2004 7:52 PM RAZD has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 142 (95262)
03-27-2004 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
03-16-2004 9:48 PM


Re: Building Blocks
AbbyLeever has linked to or posted his famous conclusion on building blocks several times. I thought I’d take a look at his support.
quote:
Abbyleever:
Conclusion
From these building blocks it should be clear to a rational mind that the building blocks needed for the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times.
Nope. That conclusion does not necessarily follow from the support AbbyLeever presented (he/she seems to have a recurring problem with supporting his/her conclusions!).
I read through all of his/her blocks on the page linked to and the only biological building blocks mentioned were amino acids and unnamed sugars (acetic acid and pyruvic acid, also mentioned, are not typically considered biological building blocks — they’re not monomers that are linked together to form polymers). Conspicuously missing were nucleotides, the building blocks of nucleic acids, which are the (or at least one of the) primary molecules focused on in OOL research..
As far as polymers of the basic biological building blocks, conspicuously missing were both proteins and RNA (and DNA).
No nucleotides, no proteins, and no RNA!
Seems AbbyLeever draws his own conclusions and mistakenly believes he/she has supported them to an extent that anyone who doesn’t agree with him/her is irrational ( it should be clear to the rational mind). He/she seems blinded to reality.
quote:
AbbyLeever: It also should be clear to a rational mind that the natural processes for forming more complex structures from those basic building blocks were prevalent on the earth at least 3.5 billion years ago in a variety of forms and locations. We are left with a scenario that has a random combination of plentiful and multitudinous organic molecules forming amino acids all over the earth, with a second scenario that has random combination of plentiful and multitudinous amino acids into peptides and proteins, and a third scenario that has random combinations of plentiful and multitudinous peptides and proteins into the first "replicators" (the predecessors to RNA and DNA), a simple 3 step process where the probability of a successful combination is almost inevitable: it is no longer a matter of "if" but of "when" it will occur under these conditions ...
Another conclusion AbbyLeever forgot to support. What evidence did AbbyLeever give for self-replicating proteins forming prebiotically? The rational mind knows the answer...0!
Shoot, he didn’t even support the idea that proteins could form prebiotically, let alone self-replicating ones.
quote:
AbbyLeever: ...and once self replication occurs the frequency of replication will necessarily outpace the random action
Will it? Necessarily? Has AbbyLeever never heard of the error catastrophe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 9:48 PM RAZD has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 142 (96195)
03-30-2004 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
03-30-2004 1:53 PM


Re: jump in the mix
Just to make sure we're all on the same page....
The probability that event E occurred given that we already know that E in fact did occur is 1 (100% certainty). However, if we only strongly believe that event E occurred, then it's probability doesn't have to be 1.
For example, what is the probability that life arose on Earth? We can't say "It's 100% because we know it happened". We DON'T know it happened: life may have arisen on Mars or elsewhere and then been transferred here, for example.
So to restate it, we can't simply say that the probability of a "past event" is 100% unless we know for sure that it actually did occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2004 1:53 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 03-31-2004 9:37 AM DNAunion has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 142 (96775)
04-01-2004 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Black
04-01-2004 7:29 AM


Re: Details, man, details
quote:
Black: Let's start with autocatalyzing RNA. You say this don't exist.
Please don't stuff words in my mouth. I did not say that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Black, posted 04-01-2004 7:29 AM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Black, posted 04-06-2004 10:10 PM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 142 (96777)
04-01-2004 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Black
04-01-2004 7:29 AM


Re: Details, man, details
quote:
Black: Well, we also now know that RNA can do the function of proteins and act as an enzyme (this was proved by Nobel Prize-winning researcher Thomas R. Cech).
Technically, that is incorrect. Enzymes are (biological) catalysts and catalysts are not permanentaly altered when they catalyze a reaction. The ribozymes that Cech discovered spliced segments out of themselves and did not have multiple turnover capabilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Black, posted 04-01-2004 7:29 AM Black has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 142 (96784)
04-01-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Black
04-01-2004 7:29 AM


Re: Details, man, details
quote:
Black: There have been several self-replicating peptides discovered.
No, synthesized.
quote:
Black: The one I referenced was a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4,
Yeah, I know: the scientists designed that molecule to "self-replicate": it wasn't discovered.
It also cannot self-replicate: it absoluately requires researchers to synthesize all of its highly complex "halves" and preactivate them. Using the term self-replicating for the simple activity this molecule performs and then trying to use this molecule's self-replication when talking about abiogenesis is equivocation.
quote:
Black: It uses a single-stranded DNA hexamer and its two trimer fragments) are based on a polymer catalysing its own formation from two fragments.
Huh? I don't remember the GL using a single-stranded DNA hexamer? Did you misplace that paragraph?
quote:
Now you say this does not have any application for abiogenisis. I say it does. Self replicating peptides DO exist.
Equivocation at a minimum.
quote:
Black: I admit that they were not *formed* by some abiogenesis expirement, but they *exist* which is what I was saying.
So? Pentium 4 CPUs exist...what do they have to do with abiogenesis?
There's no valid link between the Ghidari Ligase and abiogenesis.
quote:
Black: Self replicating peptides ARE one of the pieces. Before we discovered self replicating peptides, we needed some way for amino acids to reproduce....and we did not have a way. The discovery of self-replicating peptides was in a way confirmation of a prediction that abiogensis theories made. If you think not, you should explain why not.
Because that peptide can't actually self-replicate, despite the misleading term so many scientists use.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Black, posted 04-01-2004 7:29 AM Black has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Brad McFall, posted 04-02-2004 11:27 AM DNAunion has not replied
 Message 99 by Black, posted 04-07-2004 5:24 PM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 142 (96793)
04-01-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
04-01-2004 12:27 PM


Re: Details, man, details
quote:
AbbyLeever: Are you saying that we do not need DNA in a protocell construct to show behavior attributed to living matter? Would not this structure be somewhere between a virus and a (primitive) cell (the virus having lost elements of the protocell that it can replace by using elements in a current cell)?
Forget about viruses already. A virus requires a living host cell to "reproduce": if there are no living host cells, there are no viruses. Viruses are not involved in abiogenesis. A self-replicating RNA of the type proposed by OOL researchers is not a virus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2004 12:27 PM RAZD has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 142 (96797)
04-01-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
04-01-2004 12:27 PM


Re: Details, man, details
quote:
Abbyleever: Is this occurring within a cell (or protocell) environment or is it occurring in a more open environment?
No. It's occuring in a lab with the researchers synthesizing all of 15-aa and 17-aa molecules, and preactivating them, with those presynthesized and preactivated halves being required for the full template - which the researchers designed - to then simply align them to help them bond - as intended - more readily.
quote:
AbbyLeever: Agreed this is not "LIFE" but it certainly looks to the development of self-replicating organic systems, definitely applicable to abiogenesis.
Definitely not applicable to abiogenesis. Unless you are suggesting that some intelligent researchers were around 3.5 - 4 billion years ago continuousaly synthesizing highly complex and specific 15-aa and 17-aa halves, preactivating them as required, and feeding them to the reaction.
Of course researcher invention would not be required if the molecules could actually self-replicate. But they can't.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2004 12:27 PM RAZD has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 142 (98579)
04-07-2004 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Black
04-06-2004 10:10 PM


Re: Details, man, details
quote:
Black: Let's start with autocatalyzing RNA. You say this don't exist.
quote:
DNAunion: Please don't stuff words in my mouth. I did not say that.
quote:
Black: Oh, really?
Yes really. And anyone who made it past elementary school can see that I didn't say it.
Your following support falls flat on its face. But since you seem incapable of grasping something so simple, let me explain it to you.
quote:
Black: Let's see what you said before:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DNAunion: The only actually supported point you have is that amino acids can form naturally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said you only agreed with #1 (amino acids forming naturally), therefore you disagreed with the others.
Did you chance your mind?
Nope. Did you lose your mind? Yep.
If you had half a brain and were honest you wouldn't be able to try to claim that two very different things you said were the same. Here, look again at your original list of 4, for which only (1) has been demonstrated.
quote:
(1) Amino acids could form naturally
(2) Amino acids could link together (as peptides) and reproduce naturally
(3) RNA could form from amino acid chains (peptides)
(4) RNA would need neither DNA nor protein to catalyze its own replication
Now, Black, which one of those says just that autocatalyzing RNA exists? Not one of them! And no, (4) doesn't say that: it says something COMPLETELY different.
quote:
Black: If so, then its two down and two to go.
Sorry, but you still have only 1 out of 4.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-07-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Black, posted 04-06-2004 10:10 PM Black has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 04-07-2004 11:51 PM DNAunion has not replied
 Message 105 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-08-2004 12:29 AM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 142 (98801)
04-08-2004 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by AdminAsgara
04-08-2004 12:29 AM


Re: Details, man, details
Black stuffed words in my mouth, setup a strawman, then knocked it down, then pathetically pretended he didn't do any of it. The best explanations involve an act of stupidity and/or dishonesty: you got a better explanation?
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-08-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-08-2004 12:29 AM AdminAsgara 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