Sione Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) Dude, explain why a polymer is a code if it codes for nothing? Where is the connection between code and replication? It looks like you use it synonymously. Who says it codes for nothing? Of course it does, it "codes" itself so to be able to self-replicate - it has a code to make itself, ok? Self-replicating polymer (like Phosphoramidate DNA) is a "code" by definition of "genetic information", what do you imagine DNA and RNA are made of? What is it you want to argue? I don't see the basis for your objection? Can't see the point you are trying to make and why? Does this misunderstanding make any of my earlier statement false or less true somehow, which one? Edited January 21, 2009 by Sione
scrappy Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Abiogenesis is not the theory of EVOLUTION, but ORIGIN. Please explain what you mean by this mumbo jumbo. It seems like something a creationist would spew. By your reasoning the invention of the automobile had nothing to do with the evolution of the auto industry.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Please explain what you mean by this mumbo jumbo. It seems like something a creationist would spew. By your reasoning the invention of the automobile had nothing to do with the evolution of the auto industry. Correct. You can't make a better car, if there is no car. It is similar to other questions one might ask you. If god created everything, where did god come from. Why did god decide to create everything? Do you consider that line of questions separate from the question of whether god created everything? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor extra fun, what was the first car? Could it really be called a car? What particular change made the difference between the early non-car designs and the first car design?
Kyrisch Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Unfortunately, the properties of DNA to which scrappy continues to refer are true only of eukaryotic cells. What he fails to grasp is the simplicity of the structure at the point where the line blurred between life and non-life. The whole role of nucleic acid as a CODE for anything did not even come about until later. All evolution requires to begin is a self-replicating molecule (that can survive long enough to replicate). The theory of Abiogenesis explains how such a simple structure could very well have arisen spontaneously.
Sione Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) Unfortunately' date=' the properties of DNA to which scrappy continues to refer are true only of eukaryotic cells. What he fails to grasp is the simplicity of the structure at the point where the line blurred between life and non-life. The whole role of nucleic acid as a CODE for anything did not even come about until later. All evolution requires to begin is a self-replicating molecule (that can survive long enough to replicate). The theory of Abiogenesis explains how such a simple structure could very well have arisen spontaneously. [/quote'] Thank goddess Chance there is still intelligence on this planet. I ditto what Kyrisch said. Abiogenesis is not the theory of EVOLUTION' date=' but ORIGIN [/quote'] Please explain what you mean by this mumbo jumbo. It seems like something a creationist would spew. Amazing. I'm quoting SCIENTIFIC knowledge from text-books here. It is scientific standpoint that life EMERGES SPONTANEOUSLY from inanimate matter. If you disagree with that, then your only standpoint can be 'GOD DID IT'. No? What I mean by that "mumbo jumbo" is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis -"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time." Why do you do that to yourself? Most of the general knowledge, as this, is only a click away... stop insulting yourself already and pay attention! Spontaneously means 'without willingness', 'without planning' , 'naturally', 'self-acting'... If you do not agree with that than you suggest: WILLINGNESS, PLANNING, INTERVENTION... INTELLIGENT DESIGN?! Correct. You can't make a better car' date=' if there is no car. It is similar to other questions one might ask you. If god created everything, where did god come from. Why did god decide to create everything? Do you consider that line of questions separate from the question of whether god created everything? [/quote'] I'm not sure on whose side are you on? "You can't make a better car, if there is no car." Yes, but you can still make a car without having one, otherwise it would be called improvement or evolution. But, when you have something out of something else, then you call it creation or origin. And if that "assembly" can happen without intelligent intervention then we call it SPONTANEOUS. Spontaneous is how all molecules form. They bump into each other and bond or otherwise change molecule properties. These properties will make some molecules more flexible and resistant than others to external factors such as temperature, pressure, water currents and other "climate dynamics". Given enough time and suitable external dynamics, it is a property built-in into PERIODIC TABLE of elements that will eventually, spontaneously give emergence to such molecules as to be able to manifest growth and self-replication as a means to persist, not by their "will" (yet), but as a mere effect of underlying electromagnetic attraction, which is what we call "natural selection". While the theory of Evolution IS different to that of Abiogenesis, they both still share the same mechanism, they are nothing more than a sheer "willingness" of elementary particles to get together, and stay together. Edited January 21, 2009 by Sione
scrappy Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Unfortunately, the properties of DNA to which scrappy continues to refer are true only of eukaryotic cells. What he fails to grasp is the simplicity of the structure at the point where the line blurred between life and non-life. The whole role of nucleic acid as a CODE for anything did not even come about until later. All evolution requires to begin is a self-replicating molecule (that can survive long enough to replicate). The theory of Abiogenesis explains how such a simple structure could very well have arisen spontaneously. You mean to say that life emerged BEFORE a genetic code appeared? You and I may not share the same definition of life. To me, life must have heritability, and that's not possible without genes or protogenes.
Kyrisch Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Please explain what you mean by this mumbo jumbo. It seems like something a creationist would spew. By your reasoning the invention of the automobile had nothing to do with the evolution of the auto industry. Correct. You can't make a better car, if there is no car. It is similar to other questions one might ask you. If god created everything, where did god come from. Why did god decide to create everything? Do you consider that line of questions separate from the question of whether god created everything? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor extra fun, what was the first car? Could it really be called a car? What particular change made the difference between the early non-car designs and the first car design? Sione, Mr Skeptic is "on our side". He was pointing out that in scrappy's attempt to use a reductio-ad-absurdum-type proof, the statement he came up with is actually completely valid, and not nearly as absurd as scrappy might hope. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou mean to say that life emerged BEFORE a genetic code appeared? You and I may not share the same definition of life. To me, life must have heritability, and that's not possible without genes or protogenes. Wow... we are speaking in nuances, and it would do you well not to ignore them. Life as we know it WAS NOT, I will repeat for emphasis, MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT much like the first biotic matter. This simple stuff was easily and quickly outcompeted by the more advanced structures that evolved therefrom. I will repeat what has been said over again. All that is necessary for evolution to take place is an imperfect replicator. The event of abiogenesis is defined as the moment that a self-replicating molecule arose from non-self replicating molecules. Something that self-replicates has a crude function of heritability. Its "offspring" will resemble itself. This is where evolution began. In your words, this WAS the "protogene", keeping in mind, however, that we are still talking simply of a single self-replicating molecule. Edited January 22, 2009 by Kyrisch Consecutive post/s merged.
iNow Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I'm quoting SCIENTIFIC knowledge from text-books here. It is scientific standpoint that life EMERGES SPONTANEOUSLY from inanimate matter. This is not true, and borders on (even potentially crosses the border of) strawman. I challenge you to name even ONE textbook that states that, give us the exact quote, or retract it.
scrappy Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 What I mean by that "mumbo jumbo" is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis -"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time." The so-called "theory of abiogenesis," as portrayed by your wiki author, begins with a precarious assumption: abiogenesis happened on Earth, either uniquely here or multi-regionally. I don't see how anyone can defend that assumption; it seems awfully geocentric to me. In any case, your theory of abiogenesis (more like an hypothesis) has to address the origin of digital genetic code...and "spontaneous" doesn't quite get us anywhere. Why do you do that to yourself? Because my girl friend left me and there's no else around to do it to me? Spontaneously means 'without willingness', 'without planning' , 'naturally', 'self-acting'...If you do not agree with that than you suggest: WILLINGNESS, PLANNING, INTERVENTION... INTELLIGENT DESIGN?! I don't use the word "spontaneous" in a scientific context; it has a large big woo-woo factor. Pasteur pretty much put an end to it.
Kyrisch Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Let me ask a direct question. Do you refuse to accept to possibility that a single self-replicating molecule could ever form spontaneously on early Earth?
Sione Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) This is not true, and borders on (even potentially crosses the border of) strawman. I challenge you to name even ONE textbook that states that, give us the exact quote, or retract it. I accept the challenge, mate. Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Spontaneous_generation By definition ABIOGENESIS = SPONTANEOUS emergence. It means OPPOSITE of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Therefore you are sorely confused or you believe in God, pick one. a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis –noun Biology. 1. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis does not (should not) only refer to that kind of experiments, but anything that was not caused by INTELLIGENT DESIGN. By the way, Dictionary is wrong about credibility, because the theory was recently CONFIRMED experimentally. Anyway, you can't really discredit such general theory with few unsuccessful experiments. The lack of evidence is not proof of absence. Spontaneously means "naturally", opposite of which is "artificially", opposite of "intelligent design". Is this so hard to understand, sheesh! Now, your turn.... Do you believe in god? Pick one: a.) GOD DID IT (Religious explanation) b.) SPONTANEOUS (Scientific explanation) ------------------------------------------------- c.) Something else? Explain. (Your explanation) What say you, up for challenge? In any case' date=' your theory of abiogenesis (more like an hypothesis) has to address the origin of digital genetic code...and "spontaneous" doesn't quite get us anywhere. [/quote'] I see whats the problem now. You simply are not aware of the meaning for the word SPONTANEOUS. Kids should not be so arrogant and should use a dictionary to avoid embarrassment. Humans define words and their meaning in dictionary. There is no woo-woo there, only definitions. I don't use the word "spontaneous" in a scientific context; it has a large big woo-woo factor. Pasteur pretty much put an end to it. There is no many better word to describe what "spontaneous" means. But all it matters here is that it means OPPOSITE of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Recent experiments actually have produced environments where spontaneous emergence of self-replicating molecules occur. That is no secret' date=' Google it and pay attention! [b']spon⋅ta⋅ne⋅ous[/b] –adjective 1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency 3. arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting. 4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous. 5. produced by natural process. I answered all your questions, would you now care to share your theory: a.) GOD DID IT (Religious explanation) b.) SPONTANEOUS (Scientific explanation) ------------------------------------------------- c.) Something else? Explain. (Your explanation) Edited January 22, 2009 by Sione
scrappy Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Let me ask a direct question. Do you refuse to accept to possibility that a single self-replicating molecule could ever form spontaneously on early Earth? I accept that possibility, of course, but only as an extremely remote occurrence. What kind of probability would you care to attach to it? P = 1/1 x 10^1,000,000? I think you give too much credit to this spontaneous magic, but you’re not the only one. Take Stuart Kauffman, for instance, in his At Home In The Universe (1995, p. 45): “There are compelling reasons to believe that whenever a collection of chemicals contains enough different kinds of molecules, a metabolism will crystallize from the broth. If this argument is correct, metabolic networks need not be built one component at a time; they can spring up full-grown from a primordial soup. Order for free, I call it. If I am right, the motto of life is not We the improbable, but We the expected.” Kauffman might be delivering a sermon to The Church of Life, but he’s not saying anything defensible in a scientific context. I think the Miller-Urey experiment went to his head. His assumptions are baseless. Are you one of those who believes in such primordial miracles? I’d like to, but I’m not that religious.
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Kids should not be so arrogant and should use a dictionary to avoid embarrassment. I would lose the invectives if I were you. They make your position look weak, despite not having anything to do with it. They are also, of course, just plain rude.
Kyrisch Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I accept that possibility, of course, but only as an extremely remote occurrence. What kind of probability would you care to attach to it? P = 1/1 x 10^1,000,000? I think you give too much credit to this spontaneous magic, but you’re not the only one. Take Stuart Kauffman, for instance, in his At Home In The Universe (1995, p. 45): “There are compelling reasons to believe that whenever a collection of chemicals contains enough different kinds of molecules, a metabolism will crystallize from the broth. If this argument is correct, metabolic networks need not be built one component at a time; they can spring up full-grown from a primordial soup. Order for free, I call it. If I am right, the motto of life is not We the improbable, but We the expected.” Kauffman might be delivering a sermon to The Church of Life, but he’s not saying anything defensible in a scientific context. I think the Miller-Urey experiment went to his head. His assumptions are baseless. Are you one of those who believes in such primordial miracles? I’d like to, but I’m not that religious. Not that you can even calculate such a probability with any reasonable error, it still stands that there are, approximately, a billion billion planets. That's quite a few. Is it really that unlikely that such an event did occur on one single planet? And, obviously, if it is probable, then it is only rational to think that it must have occurred on our planet because, well, we're here.
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Yawn, we have had this probability argument before. The incredibly high probabilities that get bandied about fall down due to the vast scope of potential for self-replicating molecular structures to emerge from quadrillions of interactions occurring in oceans of matter across millions of years.
iNow Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) I accept the challenge, mate. Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Spontaneous_generation <...> a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis –noun Biology. 1. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. You said that scientific textbooks stated this. I asked you support it. You quoted wikipedia and a dictionary. Sorry. Please try again. Now, your turn.... Do you believe in god? Pick one: a.) GOD DID IT (Religious explanation) b.) SPONTANEOUS (Scientific explanation) ------------------------------------------------- c.) Something else? Explain. (Your explanation) Well, I sure am glad you offered choice C, as the other was a false dichotomy. Good save. The scientific explanation is not "spontaneous." It's slow changes over time... slight modifications. IIRC, it started with hydrophobic cell membranes, but I may be skipping a few steps. Either way, it's the concept of steps which is tantamount here. It's not like something poofed into existence "spontaneously," so you're strawmanning the actual scientific positoin, instead of arguing against what it really states. Now, let's see the textbook version you claimed was so readily available. Author, publisher, version, and page please. EDIT: Oh yeah. I don't believe in god, nor do I believe in Thor, Apollo, Baal, the flying spaghetti monster, or the countless other ridiculous human conceits lying dead in the graveyard of our collective mythology. Edited January 22, 2009 by iNow
Mr Skeptic Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Short tempers make for short threads. Amen? Sione and scrappy, both of you are being quite uninteresting, to put it nicely.
CharonY Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Re: genetic code. The genetic code specifically refers to the coding of amino acids by DNA. That in turn means that the origin of the genetic code refers to how the first amino acids got coupled to a certain DNA sequence. There are number of theories out there, specifically the stereochemical theory, the coevolution theory, the error minimization theory, and I think another one, but I forgot how it was called (or maybe it was only three). What you are talking about is something different, simply because the replication mechanism (as in contrast to the replication process) is not directly dependent on the sequence itself. Hence it does not code for self-replication or whatever you are insinuating.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis–noun Biology. 1. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. That is not what people are talking about. Back in the day, people thought that maggots magically appeared on rotting meat, and various scientists showed that that doesn't happen so easily. They didn't show that abiogenesis was impossible, what they showed was that it wasn't happening all the time and with complex organisms. The current though is that abiogenesis might have occurred occasionally over billions of years throughout the entire universe, not in a week when you leave the meat out. And the life they are suggesting could arise would hardly qualify as life by modern standards. Then again, life is poorly defined so no one would agree whether certain things are alive or not. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI accept that possibility, of course, but only as an extremely remote occurrence. What kind of probability would you care to attach to it? P = 1/1 x 10^1,000,000? That seems quite small but here is a thought: if the universe is infinite, how often would something with the probability that you suggest happen? Our universe seems to have very roughly 50% a chance to be infinite, or at least that is my understanding of the measurement of the constant called omega.
DrDNA Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) I love the smell of DNA in the morning. Therefore you are sorely confused or you believe in God, pick one. Both! My Faith is unwavering. However, I'm getting more confused by the minute; primarily because............... THE ORIGIN OF THE GENETIC CODE: - "The pre-biotic environment contained many different types of nucleotides beside DNA and RNA. Recent experiments have shown that some of these are capable of spontaneous polymerization' date=' such as Phosphoramidate DNA." [/quote'] Phosphoramidate DNA has not been shown to occur naturally. And nobody, except the divine entity that you mentioned above, knows what was in the "pre-biotic" environment.... .........and many experiments have indicated that it probably was NOT any sort of nucleotide which beget life in the primordial cup of soup You're putting the proverbial cart before the donkey, because........ Now, all I'm saying that these polymers form spontaneously as experiments prove. ................Anyway, can you explain why "nucleotide polymers that can self-replicate" is not a definition of 'genetic code'? Yes. The very short version is: nucleotide polymers do not equal self-replication does not equal genetic code Self-replicating polymer (like Phosphoramidate DNA) is a "code" by definition of "genetic information", what do you imagine DNA and RNA are made of? After reading this, it became obvious to me that you probably do not understand the difference between 'spontaneous polymerization' and 'self replication'; or even 'replication'. I can synthesize any number of compounds in the lab that will spontaneously polymerize; even some with nucleobases attached to them and/or sugar backbones. You mentioned Phosphoramidate DNA which is a good example. Credit: Borrowed from one of Jack Szostak's presentations. HOWEVER, these things, after they have 'spontaneously polymerized', do NOT necessarily "self replicate" or undergo the process of self replication. Taking that further, no one has yet been able to figure how to make a "self replicating" or a "life-mimicking molecule" (if you want to call it that) that can assemble itself from simpler components than two halves of itself. Are you are familiar with Gerald Joyce's or Rebek's work on self replicating molecules? Edited January 22, 2009 by DrDNA
npts2020 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 scrappy; I would say that if all of the right conditions occur, the chance of "life" spontaneously emerging is 100%. How is this notion wrong?
scrappy Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 scrappy; I would say that if all of the right conditions occur, the chance of "life" spontaneously emerging is 100%. How is this notion wrong? On what known principles do you base your judgement? You are using the same argument that Isaac Asimov used in his Extraterrestrial Civilizations (he says the chance of there being a extraterrestrial civilization out there is 1.0), which is totally unsupported by any known principles I know of. Are you willing to settle for the "billion and billions and billions principle" (i.e., chances are that chances are that chances are...)? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYawn, we have had this probability argument before. The incredibly high probabilities that get bandied about fall down due to the vast scope of potential for self-replicating molecular structures to emerge from quadrillions of interactions occurring in oceans of matter across millions of years. What "vast scope of potential" are you talking about? Is it the one you feel in your gut? Are you saying that vastness alone will solve this probability argument? If so, don't you need to know something about the principles behind abiogenesis to make that claim? Without any known principles all there is is belief, with which science does a lousy job. As a scientist, I require more than: "It was bound to happen because there were so many molecules sloshing around in the primordial soup."
iNow Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 As a scientist, I require more than: "It was bound to happen because there were so many molecules sloshing around in the primordial soup." But nobody here is suggesting that it was "bound to happen." The point is that the number you find too tiny to be a legitimate probability is actually significantly larger when viewed across geologic time... Basically, when put into the proper context the probability increases dramatically. I love how people argue on the basis that the probability of life is too low to have happened, suggesting that they are simply holding their truths to a higher standard, and yet they so readily fall back on the god position to explain it all, a position which has zero proof. It's really quite funny to watch. I'm not necessarily saying anyone here is doing that, just offering an observation.
scrappy Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 But nobody here is suggesting that it was "bound to happen." The point is that the number you find too tiny to be a legitimate probability is actually significantly larger when viewed across geologic time... Basically, when put into the proper context the probability increases dramatically. I love how people argue on the basis that the probability of life is too low to have happened, suggesting that they are simply holding their truths to a higher standard, and yet they so readily fall back on the god position to explain it all, a position which has zero proof. It's really quite funny to watch. I'm not necessarily saying anyone here is doing that, just offering an observation. Look at it another way: There are important principles enabling abiogenesis that we do not yet understand. It is as if we were trying to understand the Milky Way before we knew anything about galaxies. Some very huge parts to the puzzle of life are still missing. Otherwise, we'd be making it from scratch in the laboratory by now.
Sione Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) ================================================= Scrappy: Life coming out of space = SPONTANEOUS (unless you suggest GOD DID IT somewhere in outer space?) ANYTHING that is not created by INTELLIGENT BEING = SPONTANEOUS ================================================= ================================================= iNow: "changes over time", "slight modifications" = SPONTANEOUS (unless you suggest GOD DID those changes and modification?) Changed by WHOM? Modified by WHOM? a.) by INTELLIGENT BEING b.) SPONTANEOUSLY (by itself, naturally) ...there is no 'c' my young friend, by the very definition, so pick one. Check and Mate. Wikipedia IS scientific textbook, articles are taken out of text-books and you can see reference at the bottom of each article, stop insulting yourself and buy new textbooks if yours say differently. Read some dictionary and stop pretending, you're making your adolescence very obvious by exposing your limited vocabulary. ANYTHING that is not created by INTELLIGENT BEING = SPONTANEOUS ================================================= That seems quite small but here is a thought: if the universe is infinite' date=' how often would something with the probability that you suggest happen? Our universe seems to have very roughly 50% a chance to be infinite, or at least that is my understanding of the measurement of the constant called omega. [/quote'] Yes. It is fascinating how some people fail to understand that. Life to arrive on Earth on some comet is just moving the problem few millions of light years away, problem still stays. Even if some aliens created life on Earth, who created aliens? Even if God created everything, who created god... "It" either OCCURRED, or it was CREATED. Comet, Aliens, God... whatever, if exists it MUST HAVE formed SPONTANEOUSLY, at some point. There is simply no other way in any human vocabulary to describe ORIGIN which was not created by already existing being. Edited January 22, 2009 by Sione
Recommended Posts