|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
Don’t be fooled by AbbyLeever’s attempt to save face. He’s wronghe knows itwe all know it.
quote: 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: 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: Too bad for AbbyLeever that viruses ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE DNA, transitively, in order to do that. Support rejected.
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: 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: I figured you were referring to the GL (Ghadiri ligase), and now I see that you were here.
quote: 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: If you have support, please provide it.
quote: 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: Now if you could just support that conclusion. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-27-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: Nope, you are.
quote: Tsk tsk...stooping to personal attacks...already!
quote: You haven’t corrected me one iota. On the other hand, I have shown BOTH of your offered supports to be flawed. Enjoy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Tsk tsk...another personal attack. That makes two from you...zero from me. Let's all keep that in mind, shall we.
quote: Nope, what I've shown is that BOTH of your supports are flawed. That was my original point, and still is. quote: 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 options are (q) and (8)??? LOL! You're so steamed you can't even type correctly!
quote: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
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: 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: 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: Will it? Necessarily? Has AbbyLeever never heard of the error catastrophe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Please don't stuff words in my mouth. I did not say that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: No, synthesized.
quote: 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: Huh? I don't remember the GL using a single-stranded DNA hexamer? Did you misplace that paragraph?
quote: Equivocation at a minimum.
quote: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: quote: 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: 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: 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: Sorry, but you still have only 1 out of 4. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-07-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024