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?
Actually, it could be argued that RNA runs the cell. DNA is simply a stable form of RNA created by the reaction of RNA and proteins. Ribosomes are made of RNA, and the ribosomes make proteins from RNA. Also, RNA is capable of catalyzing reactions like a protein. It is possible that the first life did not have any DNA, nor did it require any.
DNA has a highly sophisticated means of fixing those errors.
But not all of them are fixed and offspring are produced with mutations. That is a fact.
Most mutations are bad. Very few are good.
At least in modern life, most mutations are neutral while very few are either deleterious or beneficial. In early life there probably would have been fewer neutral mutations, but more beneficial and deleterious mutations. Given a smaller genome and the dependence on RNA folding (probably) there would probably be more constraint on most sequences.
I said for my purposes, which are the advancement of My understanding and not the conservation of any one's dogma. So for those purposes the book on life's origins by Thaxton, Olsen and Bradley is as good as the one by Robert Shapiro. I could not care less whether either of them was peer-reviewed or not and which side any of the authors were on. Yes, abiogenesis as such is something from something, yet it is Dawkins who is talking with his head deep in the arse of Hawking and not the other way round. Speculative cosmogony puts constraints on biology, whereas it should by rights be the other way round.
They use information to mean anything it could be possibly derived from. Any cause is information that could be possibly read in any effect. This way the cat loves to debunk the blackholists' concept of an event horizon where the flow of information is allegedly in one and only direction - across the horizon and into the purported hole. The moggy points out that the gravity the hole is exerting on the rest of the galaxy is passing oodles of information from the hole to the galaxy and further to Penrose and Hawking heads.
Yes, abiogenesis as such is something from something, yet it is Dawkins who is talking with his head deep in the arse of Hawking and not the other way round.
Hawking's work has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Please stay on topic.
Speculative cosmogony puts constraints on biology, whereas it should by rights be the other way round.
The constraints put on abiogenesis are based on the evidence we have of what the early Earth was like and the conditions found don meteors/comets. The universe could have been magically poofed into being with its current set of laws and conditions 13.7 billion years ago and abiogenesis would be unchanged. The BB has nothing to do with abiogenesis, so why keep bringing it up?
No, you don't get it. The Universe may not have any origin necessarily and by definition. Therefore as the Universe may not have any measurable age and is a collective idea not compatible with the notion of age or duration, life might not have any traceable origin or age either. Whereas the speculative consensus-nonsensus cosmogony definitely claims that the Universe, ie, the existence as a whole and as such is 13.7 billion years old. That, if accepted at face-value makes life as such to be necessarily no older than that. No life is logically possible in an absence of the Universe. That is the constraint on biology put by the fancy cosmogony the cat is talking about. You lot don't take hints. You need everything chewed carefully out.
No, you don't get it. The Universe may not have any origin necessarily and by definition. Therefore as the Universe may not have any measurable age and is a collective idea not compatible with the notion of age or duration, life might not have any traceable origin or age either.
None of this has anything to do with abiogenesis or the simplest protein.
That is the constraint on biology put by the fancy cosmogony the cat is talking about.
Biology is constrained by the age of the solar system, not the age of the universe.
Snow flakes are symetrical. If you know what one side looks like you now have information about the other side.
quote:First, not all snowflakes are the same on all sides. Uneven temperatures, presence of dirt, and other factors may cause a snowflake to be lop-sided. Yet it is true that many snowflakes are symmetrical and intricate.
(emphasis mine) You are arguing against yourself again. This happens when you don't know what you are talking about.
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
No, that is nothing but your conjectures and bare assertion. Solar system is an island in the galaxy but is not by any means a perfectly isolated system. Exchange of matter between star systems is slow but steady. Extremophiles are known to last for millions of years as endospores so life could well be dormant inside rocks, comets, planet debris, rogue planets captured by new suns and so on. The Solar System formation is not understood any too well either. These ideas are present now even in the dogmatic mainstream. The cat read not so long ago a paper by a Spanish astrobiologists team where they ran a computer simulation of such a process claiming that such was the most likely way life had first appeared on earth.
This thread was opened to argue that even one of the simplest proteins could not have formed naturally because that would require all the amino acids to come together in the right order spontaneously by chance. If you have some other reason why even a simple protein could not have formed naturally then it belongs in a different thread.
I must admit, Percy, that I am well and truly puzzled by the whole thing. I've no facile explanation. Any death escaping machine is a mind-boggling structure. The cat got no clue.
Kindly stop posting rubbish, then.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
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