|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Autocatalysis and self-replication are not the same thing. For example:
quote: See, the 32-aa is autocatalytic, but it is not a self-replicator. Different things. In fact, you yourself refute your claim, as follows:
quote: So by your stating that the hammerhead ribozymes are autocatalytic you are claiming that they replicate themselves, even though you say they undergo self-cleavage of their own backbone to produce two RNA products. But how can one be replicating itself if it cleaves its own backbone resulting in two RNA molecules that differ from the original? ********************************Just so that we are all clear on what I actually stated, here’s Black's original statement followed by my reply to it. quote: quote: [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-10-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Only one has been confirmed by experimentation.
quote: quote: Too simplistic and not the one applicable to abiogenesis. More below.
quote: No, it is not self-replication when discussing OOL. You are guilty of equivocation. The GL peptide simply does not self-replicate in any manner relevant to abiogenesis and your attempts to tie its activity to OOL is disingenuous. A self-replicator in the OOL sense cannot rely upon researchers to synthesize every one of its complex and highly improbably halves, preactivate them, and feed them to the reaction. That’s simply not what abiogenesis is about. If the peptide were placed in an amino acid solution and it could create copies of itself, then yes, it would be a self-replicator in a sense relevant to abiogenesis. But it can’t do that, not at all, so it’s not a self-replicator in the OOL sense. And it’s not just me saying this:
quote: Next topic:
quote: quote: One that could have kick started life, of course. There are several criteria, and not all of them are self-evident. Some of them include: 1) Must be able to make a complete (complementary) copy of itself from its constituent monomers - free riobnucleotides — under prebiotically plausible conditions. 2) a) The complementary copy must be able to make a complete (complementary) copy of itself from its constituent monomers — free ribonucleotides — under prebiotically plausible conditions. OR b) The original must be able to make a complete (complementary) copy of its complementary molecule it produced, again from the constituent monomers - free ribonucleotides - under prebiotically plausible conditions. 3) The molecule must be able to evolve. ********************************Edited to add 2b [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
quote: For God's sake, DNA. Say it in one post or don't say it at all, you know? This is excessive badgering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Odd, I didn't see a similar warning given to Mark24 for the following comments he made in another thread.
quote: quote: quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Odd, I didn't see a similar warning given to Mark24 for the following comments he made in another thread. Interesting... do you truly believe that "somebody else did it too!" constitutes a mitigating circumstance? Do you believe that's a mature response? Just curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This message was supposed to be a response to Black's message
EvC Forum: Abiogenesis and was posted in reply to DNAUnion by mistake this edit is a corrction of that mistake, leaving this message I have for DNAUnion:
[This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 04-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Splitting up a reply into multiple posts that address individual topics is not only badgering, but excessive badgering??? Please Crashfrog, get a life! The one doing any badgering here is you Crashfrog. Of the dozens of points raised, addressed, and discussed, you did not reference any of them. All you did was begin waging another of your "badger DNA" campaigns. This is just the latest in your typical gorilla warfare tactics. If you have something of worth to contribute to the discussion, then by all means, please do so. If not, your "contributions" do no good, except to shows us your ability to hold a personal grudge indefinitely. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: That's pretty misleading, but I'll ignore that problem of yours for now. The thing is, I have also shown WHY your actions fit the actual "charges" I have made. They aren't empty charges I fabricated out of thin air, they're supported by facts. 1) You stuffed words into my mouth that I absolutlely did not say and then you pretended to show me to be wrong by attacking your words instead of mine. 2) I called you on it and explicitly stated that I did not say what you claimed I had. 3) Instead of your simply admitting your error - as an honest person would do - you went further by tying to claim I had surely said it - even though I did not and I explicitly stated I did not. 4) I pointed out the error in your "logic" that "showed" I had said it. 5) I've even shown now that YOUR OWN STATEMENTS about autocatalysis and self-replication refute the logic you used. You did not have, and still do not have, any case for your stuffing words into my mouth, or your subsequent compounded disingenuousness. ********************************************** Now, since YOUR OWN STATEMENTS refute your own offered logic for claiming I said what I clearly did not, the question remains: is your act of stuffing words into my mouth an act of dishonesty on your part, the result of a moment of stupidity on your part (since not even you can make your claim make sense), or some third, less obvious option? Just tell us and the matter will be settled. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
EDITED: AbbyLeever moved his post so that it ended up below my reply to it: so I have moved my response so that it once again follows the statements it addresses.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: No, but I do think it is odd that some people can use obscenities - such as you calling me an asshole and Mark24 using "the 'F' word" - and no moderators object, and that some people can make aggressive statements about the inabilitiy of their opponents to understand simple matters ("Absolute & utter hypocrisy", "No, no, NO!!!! Why is this so hard for you to understand?", "You really do have a comprehension problem, don't you?", etc.) - and no moderators object: but when I say the kinds of things the moderator quoted above it must be pointed out and I must be warned.
quote: No, I don't believe yours was a mature response! :-) In fact, I don't believe MOST of your responses to me are mature. You've taken up a badgering posture: you don't address any of the points I raise, you just hide in the shadows and sporadically snipe in a gorilla warfare-like manner. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the following message was posted in response to the wrong message originally, and I am placing it here to correct that mistake. The original post has been edited as well. black --
Well, before I start the message I would like to say a couple things. DNAUnion has make quite a lot of attacks on my character. He has repeatedly called me dishonest. I can sympathize, as a similar experience happened to me. This, and his use of multiple posts in answer to one post, seem to be his main tools in an argument, the purpose of which appears to be an attempt to shout down the other opinions and evidence regardless of their worth. His problem also seems to be exacerbated by a propensity for misunderstanding other posters. He has gone so far as to take out of context quotes from two different posts of mine (separated by a series of other posts and about different things) to give the impression that I have contradicted myself, when in fact there is no such contradiction. That showed me that he was willingly dishonest, and I refuse to reply to any of his posts anymore as a result. I find your posts informative and constructive, and thank you for them. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: Let's get this straight, AbbyLeever, you were the one who attacked me. And I pointed it out at the time.
quote: quote: And then in another exchange:
quote: quote: **********************
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: So you have called me not only a fool and a poor fool, but also willingly dishonest. Yet I am the only one who attacks others? How odd.
quote: This is priceless! You've just stated that you won't talk to me, but you obviously have no problem talking about me! Furthermore, you didn't address ANY of the actual points under discussion: your whole post was dedicated to mud slinging. You aren't interested in honest debate, but in trying to attack me... you and Crashfrog have a lot in common. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
you don't address any of the points I raise, you just hide in the shadows and sporadically snipe in a gorilla warfare-like manner. How can I address your points? They're generally buried in so much ad hominem and boorish behavior that it's impossible to recognize them. I suspect that's why you have such a problem getting your point across to so many posters here - you routinely sacrifice clarity for cheap shots at your opponent or transparent efforts at self-aggrandizement. Oh, and since you've used it twice, I assume you won't mind being corrected - it's "guerilla" warfare. Unless you're referring to my copious back hair?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hee hee. It's "guerrilla warfare", Mr. Pedantfrog, sir.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024