Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Daniel]

For those following the discussion, one of the things Daniel seems to find surprising is the existence of ribozymes.

Huh?

This discovery removed the chicken/egg problem for protein synthesis.

Yea sure...

"This discussion concerning the first RNA replicase ribozyme has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential."
Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 13 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993
https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/monographs/article/view/3786/3003

So: 'Straw Man' (Fallacy), 'The Myth', and 'Straining Credulity'; The tools of the trade, eh?


And as I've been saying for weeks...

"The evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life."
Shapiro, Robert: Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life; Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (PNAS); vol. 96 no. 8 > Robert Shapiro, 4396–4401, doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.8.4396
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full

In fact, it is possible to strip ribosomes of their proteins and still have them perform their function.

What on Earth?

The Eukaryotic Ribosome contains 2 Subunits; 60S and 40S: (The 60S: { 28S rRNA --- 4,718 Nucleotides, 5.8S rRNA ---- 160 Nucleotides, 5S rRNA ---- 120 Nucleotides, and 49 Functional Proteins} The 40S: { 18S rRNA ----1874 Nucleotides "single stranded" and 33 Functional Proteins}) The rRNA's and FUNCTIONAL PROTEINS have to be in just the RIGHT SEQUENCE to conform/stabilize Secondary Structure to confer Functionality!! Total 80S Ribosome

Prokaryotic Ribosome: 50S and 30S: ( The 50S: { 23S rRNA ----2900 Nucleotides, 5S rRNA ---- 120 Nucleotides, and 34 Functional Proteins} The 30S: { 16S rRNA ---- 1540 Nucleotides "single stranded" and 21 Functional Proteins}). Total 70S Ribosome

If you strip Ribosomes of their "Functional Proteins"...you don't have Ribosomes!


And where'd you get RNA in the First Place, for goodness sakes!


oy vey

 

[Reality Check]

For those following the discussion, one of the things Daniel seems to find surprising is the existence of ribozymes.

Daniel would be really pleased with Wikipedia's description of The ribosome (/ˈraɪbəˌsoʊm, -boʊ-/[1]) is a complex molecular machine found within all living cells, that serves as the site of biological protein synthesis (translation). (my emphasis added) except that he has an unfounded hatred of Wikipedia except when he links to Wikipedia articles!

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Still cannot understand a set of reviews of the RNA World is abiogenisis

Yea sure...

An ignorant rant about ribozyme from Daniel - what a surprise!
31 March 2016 Daniel: Still cannot understand that "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World" is a set of reviews of the RNA World, i.e. a theory of abiogenesis !
This is a Joyce and Orgel quote pointing out that they do not believe in a "self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides", i.e. the old fashioned primeval soup model.

And as I've been saying for weeks...

31 March 2016 Daniel: A actual lie since Daniel has not been saying for weeks anything about prebiotic cytosine synthesis!
Shapiro, Robert: Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life is a analysis from 1998 !

A number of theories propose that RNA, or an RNA-like substance, played a role in the origin of life. Usually, such hypotheses presume that the Watson–Crick bases were readily available on prebiotic Earth, for spontaneous incorporation into a replicator. Cytosine, however, has not been reported in analyses of meteorites nor is it among the products of electric spark discharge experiments. The reported prebiotic syntheses of cytosine involve the reaction of cyanoacetylene (or its hydrolysis product, cyanoacetaldehyde), with cyanate, cyanogen, or urea. These substances undergo side reactions with common nucleophiles that appear to proceed more rapidly than cytosine formation. To favor cytosine formation, reactant concentrations are required that are implausible in a natural setting. Furthermore, cytosine is consumed by deamination (the half-life for deamination at 25°C is ≈340 yr) and other reactions. No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine, even in a specialized local setting, at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition. On the basis of this evidence, it appears quite unlikely that cytosine played a role in the origin of life. Theories that involve replicators that function without the Watson–Crick pairs, or no replicator at all, remain as viable alternatives.

(my emphasis added)
What Daniel quote mined:

Suitable chemistry for such transformations has not been demonstrated, however, and may not exist. The evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life. This conclusion could be reversed if a prebiotic simulation were devised that produced all of the bases in good yield under a single set of conditions, by using a plausible combination of water, atmospheric components, and minerals. In the absence of such a demonstration, more attention should be given to origin-of-life theories that do not require the four RNA bases: (i) The first living system used a replicator constructed of more accessible and stable components. A number of possibilities may exist, with the clay system of A.G. Cairns-Smith (74) perhaps the best known. (ii) Life began with cycles of autocatalytic reactions. Storage and transfer of information at the polymer level came later. A number of writers have discussed this possibility, including F. Dyson (75) and S. Kauffman (76). One possible system has been described in detail by G. Wächtershäuser (77).

 

[abaddon]

An ignorant rant about ribozyme from Daniel - what a surprise!
31 March 2016 Daniel: Still cannot understand that "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World" is a set of reviews of the RNA World !
A Joyce and Orgel quote pointing out that they do not believe in a "self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides", i.e. the old fashioned primeval soup model.


And as I've been saying for weeks...

Yes but there is a difference.

You respond to posts, Daniel ignores posts.

For example, I have lost track of how many times the ToE has been provided to Daniel on a silver platter. He continues to lie when he states it has not been presented. I'm pretty sure the holey babble to which he subscibes has some harsh things to say about that.

In any event, here you are again, Daniel, and that is just a starting point.

You won't read it. You failed to read your holey babble, why would one expect you to read anything else?

 

[Reality Check]

I'm pretty sure the holey babble to which he subscibes has some harsh things to say about that.

Daniel is violating one of the Ten Commandments - Exodus 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" or Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
In Daniel's case the neighbor is at least all of the scientists that he has quote mined either by himself or by parroting creationist lies ("spreading a false report" as above).

Exodus 23:1-2 states this in the context of legal testimony:

You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.

So we should interpret the ninth commandment as do not lie on a witness stand (or to a king - see 2 Samuel). But later the ninth commandment was interpreted as a prohibition against all lying.

Later still we have the lying is allowed to evangelize people loophole. Daniel must know that loophole cannot be used because the continuous parroting of the fantasy that information can only be created by intelligent agency without any scientific evidence has removed any credibility he has.

 

[hecd2]

Huh?

What on Earth?

The Eukaryotic Ribosome contains 2 Subunits; 60S and 40S: (The 60S: { 28S rRNA --- 4,718 Nucleotides, 5.8S rRNA ---- 160 Nucleotides, 5S rRNA ---- 120 Nucleotides, and 49 Functional Proteins} The 40S: { 18S rRNA ----1874 Nucleotides "single stranded" and 33 Functional Proteins}) The rRNA's and FUNCTIONAL PROTEINS have to be in just the RIGHT SEQUENCE to conform/stabilize Secondary Structure to confer Functionality!! Total 80S Ribosome

Prokaryotic Ribosome: 50S and 30S: ( The 50S: { 23S rRNA ----2900 Nucleotides, 5S rRNA ---- 120 Nucleotides, and 34 Functional Proteins} The 30S: { 16S rRNA ---- 1540 Nucleotides "single stranded" and 21 Functional Proteins}). Total 70S Ribosome

If you strip Ribosomes of their "Functional Proteins"...you don't have Ribosomes!

Hats off to Lukraak_Sisser for raising this point:

One of the leads towards the RNA world hypothesis was the discovery of the fact that the machinery needed to translate RNA into proteins in fact depends wholly on RNA for it's function. In fact, it is possible to strip ribosomes of their proteins and still have them perform their function. This discovery removed the chicken/egg problem for protein synthesis.

Daniel has feigned incredulity, or perhaps he really is incredulous, but that's because his mentors who prepare the quote mines from which he oh-so-tediously selects the same quotes over and over again don't seem to keep up to date with their science. L_S is referring to the determination of the structure of ribosome (of the halobacterium Haloarcula marismortui) in 2000 by Thomas Steitz, Peter Moore et al (N. Ban, P. Nissen, J. Hansen, P. B. Moore, T. A. Steitz, The Complete Atomic Structure of the Large Ribosomal Subunit at 2.4 Å Resolution, Science 289, 905 (2000) and P. Nissen, J. Hansen, N. Ban, P. B. Moore, T. A. Steitz, The Structural Basis of Ribosome Activity in Peptide Bond Synthesis,Science 289, 920 (2000)).

The structure demonstrated that the active site of the ribosome consists entirely of RNA and the current function of the proteins is to provide support and act as a scaffold for the RNA. This is direct evidence that RNA perecedes proteins as the unsupported RNA would still have been able to catalyse the formation of polypeptide chains. This led to the perspective paper by Thomas Cech in the same issue titled "The ribosome is a ribozyme". From that paper:

"The part of the subunit's surface that is most devoid of protein is the active-site region...It is the absence of any protein moiety within 18 Å of the correctly bound inhibitor in their structure, coupled with earlier work that defined this conserved part of the large-subunit rRNA as the "peptide transferase center," that led the authors to conclude that RNA (and not protein) must be responsible for catalysis. The ribosome is a ribozyme, admittedly one dependent on structural support from protein components- substantially deproteinized large subunits still carry out peptidyl transfer, although complete deproteinization destroys this reactivity".

Steitz won the 2009 Nobel Prize for this work. From his Nobel lecture: "Francis Crick had wondered in 1968 whether the catalytic heart of the
ribosome was all RNA. Realizing that evolution had faced the “chicken or the egg problem” (which came first?) because the first machine to make a protein could not have been a protein, he wrote “it is tempting to wonder if the first ribosome was made entirely of RNA” (Crick, 1968). Noller and coworkers attempted to establish that indeed the ribosomal RNA is responsible for its catalytic activity by using proteases to digest the r-proteins (Noller et al., 1992). However, many peptides in the 10K molecular weight range, as well as intact L2 and L3, remained. Consequently, this experiment did not confirm the hypothesis that the catalysis is done by the RNA component of the ribosome. When we examined the positions of all of the proteins that have portions that approach the heart of the PTC, we observed (Fig. 5) in 2000 that the closest protein component lies 18 Å from the PTC (Nissen et al., 2000). Even taking into account that a loop of protein L10e is disordered in this crystal and located in the neighborhood of the PTC, it cannot even hypothetically be extended into the PTC. Therefore, we were led to conclude in 2000 that “The ribosome is a ribozyme”. This was the first experimental verification of the hypothesis that had been advocated by many in previous years.

 

[Daniel]

Hats off to Lukraak_Sisser for raising this point:

And what point was that, pray tell?? You and they continue to argue points that are.... NOT THE ARGUMENT!!

It's well beyond hilarious @ this point.

Daniel has feigned incredulity, or perhaps he really is incredulous, but that's because his mentors who prepare the quote mines...

You're (and cohorts) are reduced to floating Baseless Nonsensical Assertions, "labels"--- ("Quote Mine", "Quote Mine", "Quote Mine") like Pavlov's Dogs every time because you have nothing and you're reduced to posting color commentary drivel. It's mind numbingly juvenile...

Do even know what a "Quote Mine" is?? If so....Please tell us, when are you gonna one day attempt to actually SUPPORT one of these claims?

OR....(LOL) do you think just posting 'a quote' is Quote Mining?? OR (even more inane) did you think by just stating it...that by mere innuendo, it offers some veracity, Inherently?? (rotflol).
You didn't even state which quote was allegedly "Quote Mined", for goodness sakes.
This is tantamount to running up to a police officer on the corner and saying, "See that guy, he robbed the Bank!!"...then as the Cop is attempting to gain more information (like "which bank"??)....you just stare @ him.

Absolute Bankruptcy sir, THANKS

And who on Earth are 'My Mentors'??

Now for more nonsensical rambling. Do you even know what you're arguing, by chance?? It's Rhetorical...

which he oh-so-tediously selects the same quotes over and over again...

This Appeal is tantamount to the Defense exclaiming to the Jury that: the Prosecutor has nothing new; he just keeps repeating the same: Finger Prints on the Murder Weapon, Video Surveillance, His Skin Cells under the finger nails of the victim et al....then claims his client is Innocent because the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything new.

L_S is referring to the determination of the structure of ribosome (of the halobacterium Haloarcula marismortui) in 2000 by Thomas Steitz, Peter Moore et al (N. Ban, P. Nissen, J. Hansen, P. B. Moore, T. A. Steitz, The Complete Atomic Structure of the Large Ribosomal Subunit at 2.4 Å Resolution, Science 289, 905 (2000) and P. Nissen, J. Hansen, N. Ban, P. B. Moore, T. A. Steitz, The Structural Basis of Ribosome Activity in Peptide Bond Synthesis,Science 289, 920 (2000)).

Sure and....? Guess what I'm gonna say next ...

Errr... Where'd you get Functional RNA??
"There is no reason to presume than an indifferent nature would not combine units at random, producing an immense variety of hybrid short, terminated chains, rather than the much longer one of uniform backbone geometry needed to support replicator and catalytic functions. Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy. Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above."
Shapiro, Robert: A Simpler Origin for Life; Scientific American, Feb 2007.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-simpler-origin-for-life/

The structure demonstrated that the active site of the ribosome consists entirely of RNA and the current function of the proteins is to provide support and act as a scaffold for the RNA.

Yes, and....? What's your Point?

This is direct evidence that RNA perecedes proteins as the unsupported RNA would still have been able to catalyse the formation of polypeptide chains.

rotflol. Let's keep it simple, Ready..this may shock you:

Where'd You Get Functional RNA ??? (lol)

"Christian de Duve, the Nobel laureate, once wrote a letter to Nature which was headed, 'Did God Make RNA?' Because it's hard to think of any other manner in which RNA out of purely abiotic chemistry would assemble itself on the early Earth." --- Robert Shapiro
https://www.edge.org/conversation/robert_shapiro-robert-shapiro%E2%80%94life-what-a-concept

And again...

"The evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life."
Shapiro, Robert: Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life; Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (PNAS); vol. 96 no. 8 > Robert Shapiro, 4396–4401, doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.8.4396
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full

This led to the perspective paper by Thomas Cech in the same issue titled "The ribosome is a ribozyme". From that paper:

"The part of the subunit's surface that is most devoid of protein is the active-site region...It is the absence of any protein moiety within 18 Å of the correctly bound inhibitor in their structure, coupled with earlier work that defined this conserved part of the large-subunit rRNA as the "peptide transferase center," that led the authors to conclude that RNA (and not protein) must be responsible for catalysis. The ribosome is a ribozyme, admittedly one dependent on structural support from protein components- substantially deproteinized large subunits still carry out peptidyl transfer, although complete deproteinization destroys this reactivity".

Looks right. And....?

Do I have to say it again?

Steitz won the 2009 Nobel Prize for this work. From his Nobel lecture: "Francis Crick had wondered in 1968 whether the catalytic heart of the
ribosome was all RNA. Realizing that evolution had faced the “chicken or the egg problem” (which came first?) because the first machine to make a protein could not have been a protein, he wrote “it is tempting to wonder if the first ribosome was made entirely of RNA” (Crick, 1968). Noller and coworkers attempted to establish that indeed the ribosomal RNA is responsible for its catalytic activity by using proteases to digest the r-proteins (Noller et al., 1992). However, many peptides in the 10K molecular weight range, as well as intact L2 and L3, remained. Consequently, this experiment did not confirm the hypothesis that the catalysis is done by the RNA component of the ribosome. When we examined the positions of all of the proteins that have portions that approach the heart of the PTC, we observed (Fig. 5) in 2000 that the closest protein component lies 18 Å from the PTC (Nissen et al., 2000). Even taking into account that a loop of protein L10e is disordered in this crystal and located in the neighborhood of the PTC, it cannot even hypothetically be extended into the PTC. Therefore, we were led to conclude in 2000 that “The ribosome is a ribozyme”. This was the first experimental verification of the hypothesis that had been advocated by many in previous years.

Ok. And....??? (rotflol)

Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or larger that formed spontaneously, "Naturally".....Outside a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE!

Would it help if I get the request Notarized ?


ps. And by the way, you still have the 'chicken or the egg problem' Because to make "Functional RNA" you need what??


oy vey^10000...

 

[marplots]

Errr... Where'd you get Functional RNA??
"There is no reason to presume than an indifferent nature would not combine units at random, producing an immense variety of hybrid short, terminated chains, rather than the much longer one of uniform backbone geometry needed to support replicator and catalytic functions. Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy. Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above."
Shapiro, Robert: A Simpler Origin for Life; Scientific American, Feb 2007.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-simpler-origin-for-life/

If you agree with Shapiro's criticism of RNA-first abiogenesis, do you also agree with his metabolism-first replacement?

That's the part that seems disingenuous. You quote the criticism but ignore the rest of the article which firmly comes down on the side of "no God needed." It's as if you recognize Shapiro's authority and expertise when he agrees with you, but want to deny it when he disagrees with you.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Misses the point of ribosomes functioning without their proteins

And what point was that, pray tell??

The point was an ignorant, incredulous reply from you, Daniel[/B, just like this one !
31 March 2016 Daniel: Misses the point that ribosomes functioning without their proteins was a pointer toward the RNA world hypothesis for abiogenesis!

Lukraak_Sisser made this point today: One of the leads towards the RNA world hypothesis was the discovery of the fact that the machinery needed to translate RNA into proteins in fact depends wholly on RNA for it's function
hecd2 provided further description and citations for this including that Steitz won the 2009 Nobel Prize for this work.

Daniel's response: to this science: Total incredibility, nonsense and insults.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Ignorantly quoting Robert Shapiro who proposed "metabolism first" abiogenesis

...Shapiro, Robert: A Simpler Origin for Life; Scientific American, Feb 2007.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-simpler-origin-for-life/

Fallacy of argument from ignorance (of Robert Shapiro). Daniel cannot even understand the title of what he quotes - A Simpler Origin for Life!
31 March 2016 Daniel: The ignorance of quoting Robert Shapiro who proposed the "metabolism first" theory of abiogenesis (no God there!) !

We know that there are several theories of abiogenesis and that different people support different theories. It is dumb to cherry pick someone supporting one theory and say that all theories are wrong. It becomes a lie to repeat this for every abiogenesis theory that exists !

 

[Jodie]

Do even know what a "Quote Mine" is?? If so....Please tell us, when are you gonna one day attempt to actually SUPPORT one of these claims?

It's when you pull a few statements out of an old research paper that's nearly 20 years old and use it out of context. I did provide you with links to support my statement.However, I don't think you understood what you were reading, if you read my links at all, which only confirms that you can't put in what God left out.

OR....(LOL) do you think just posting 'a quote' is Quote Mining?? OR (even more inane) did you think by just stating it...that by mere innuendo, it offers some veracity, Inherently?? (rotflol).
You didn't even state which quote was allegedly "Quote Mined", for goodness sakes.

Actually, it was very specifically pointed out.

Sure and....? Guess what I'm gonna say next ...

Errr... Where'd you get Functional RNA??

Evolution

quote mining-------> "There is no reason to presume than an indifferent nature would not combine units at random, producing an immense variety of hybrid short, terminated chains, rather than the much longer one of uniform backbone geometry needed to support replicator and catalytic functions. Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy. Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above."
Shapiro, Robert: A Simpler Origin for Life; Scientific American, Feb 2007.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-simpler-origin-for-life/

Except gorillas typing on typewriters don't have covalent bonds on their finger tips that attract the right letters to type words.

Let's keep it simple, Ready..this may shock you:

Where'd You Get Functional RNA ??? (lol)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/evolution/first-metabolic-processes-detected-outside-of-cells/

"Perhaps even more astounding is their detection of ribose 5-phosphate, a precursor to RNA. RNA is DNA’s single-stranded cousin—it encodes information, can replicate, and helps jumpstart chemical reactions. This finding suggests that oceanic metabolic processes could have, over time, engendered the conditions necessary for RNA precursors to appear.

The reactions observed so far only go in one direction—from complex sugars to the simpler, end-product molecules they’ve seen like pyruvate. Researcher’s still haven’t seen it go the other way, where reverse reactions create, rather than break down, complex sugars. Without evidence of those, some biologists are skeptical that these circumstances gave rise to today’s pathways. But, other scientists argue, chemical reactions are reversible. So maybe it’s just a matter of time."

"Christian de Duve, the Nobel laureate, once wrote a letter to Nature which was headed, 'Did God Make RNA?' Because it's hard to think of any other manner in which RNA out of purely abiotic chemistry would assemble itself on the early Earth." --- Robert Shapiro
https://www.edge.org/conversation/robert_shapiro-robert-shapiro%E2%80%94life-what-a-concept

See above, it's not a definitive "yes" yet but it seems to cast doubt on Mr. Shapiro's opinion.

And again...

"The evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life."
Shapiro, Robert: Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life; Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (PNAS); vol. 96 no. 8 > Robert Shapiro, 4396–4401, doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.8.4396
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full

Wrong, they were there.

Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or larger that formed spontaneously, "Naturally".....Outside a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE!

Would it help if I get the request Notarized ?

It's just a matter of time.

ps. And by the way, you still have the 'chicken or the egg problem' Because to make "Functional RNA" you need what??


oy vey^10000...

All the right stuff.

 

[Jodie]

deleted

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Ignorantly thinks that an opinion in a letter to nature is science

"Christian de Duve, the Nobel laureate, once wrote a letter to Nature which was headed, 'Did God Make RNA?' Because it's hard to think of any other manner in which RNA out of purely abiotic chemistry would assemble itself on the early Earth." --- Robert Shapiro
https://www.edge.org/conversation/robert_shapiro-robert-shapiro%E2%80%94life-what-a-concept

31 March 2016 Daniel: Ignorantly thinks that Christian de Duve's opinion in a letter to nature is science !
Add highlighting of the title and we have Danielscience!

Citing an interview of Shapiro is more ignorance from Daniel.
Robert Shapiro—LIFE: WHAT A CONCEPT! does show Shapiro is biased, e.g. he implies that Stanley Miller faked the Miller-Urey results because his first over-cautious run did not produce amino acids and his second run did.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Science does not stop just because you want it to stop - 1998 is not 2016

"The evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life."
Shapiro, Robert: Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life; Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (PNAS); vol. 96 no. 8 > Robert Shapiro, 4396–4401, doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.8.4396
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full

Oy Vey: Ignorance and reminding everyone of a lie!
31 March 2016 Daniel: The ignorance of quoting Robert Shapiro who proposed the "metabolism first" theory of abiogenesis (no God there!)!
31 March 2016 Daniel: A actual lie since Daniel has not been saying for weeks anything about prebiotic cytosine synthesis!

ETA: Abysmal comprehension of English (or willing to lie about a quote): "The evidence that is available at the present time" is the evidence that was available in 1998!
31 March 2016 Daniel: Science does not stop just because you want it to stop - 1998 is not 2016!
An honest person would research the advances in abiogenesis during the last 18 years to see if that opinion was correct and is still correct.

 

[Reality Check]

A quick look at the citations of Shapiro, Robert: Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life (1998) that Daniel is ignorantly touting hints that it has inspired at least one solution to Shapiro's doubts.
Prebiotic chemistry in eutectic solutions at the water–ice matrix (2012)

A crystalline ice matrix at subzero temperatures can maintain a liquid phase where organic solutes and salts concentrate to form eutectic solutions. This concentration effect converts the confined reactant solutions in the ice matrix, sometimes making condensation and polymerisation reactions occur more favourably. These reactions occur at significantly high rates from a prebiotic chemistry standpoint, and the labile products can be protected from degradation

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I always find it interesting how creationists are willing to ignore the work of thousands of people for decades (if not more) and push it away with 'I didn't see it happen / I don't understand it so it is wrong', yet at the same time apply none of that criticism to their own (interpretation of their) holy book, which by the way took a fraction of the effort to write compared to even the most obscure scientific field.

@ Daniel, there are experiments (done in the 80's I think I remember) where prokaryotic ribosomes were cleared of their proteins and they were still able so synthesize proteins, hence a ribosome stripped of proteins IS still a ribosome.

In the RNA world hypothesis the RNA 'comes' from self assembled ribonucleotide strings (experimentally proven to form) followed by natural selection. The ribosome is the result of a long time of selection.

But you are right, Shapiro's Metabolism first theory is quite elegant too, I'm surprised you are using it to prove a point though.

 

[steenkh]

You're (and cohorts) are reduced to floating Baseless Nonsensical Assertions, "labels"--- ("Quote Mine", "Quote Mine", "Quote Mine") like Pavlov's Dogs every time because you have nothing and you're reduced to posting color commentary drivel. It's mind numbingly juvenile...

Do even know what a "Quote Mine" is?? If so....Please tell us, when are you gonna one day attempt to actually SUPPORT one of these claims?

OR....(LOL) do you think just posting 'a quote' is Quote Mining?? OR (even more inane) did you think by just stating it...that by mere innuendo, it offers some veracity, Inherently?? (rotflol).

Quote mining is when you pick out quotes that say something else than if they had been seen in their context. It is a kind of lying, and you do it all the time.

In fact, your unethical use of quotes is so common that it would seem like a pure coincidence if you happened to get a quote right. You are in the habit of bringing a quote from some authority (like Orgel or Shapiro) and only bring their criticism, while their solution to the criticism is left out, thus giving the false impression that they think that natural abiogenesis is impossible.

Besides, as I have pointed out many times now, there is no actual physical law preventing abiogenesis, so if we are left with a choice between your creator God and natural forces, Occam's Razor directs us towards natural forces without new entities like gods. This means that even if you could find an authority supporting your position (and strangely it seems you can't; you are probably not looking hard enough), it would not be sufficient to stop researching abiogenesis. After all, relying on authorities is also a fallacy.

I know the answer, but you could try to surprise me: are you going to admit your lying with your quote mining, and stop doing it, or are we going to see more of the same (yes, you even bring the same discredited quotes over and over)?

Your continued unethical use of quotes and failure to defend yourself gives us the impression that behind your bluster you really are aware that you are left without arguments. One wonders what makes you continue? Has God told you to lie for Him?

 

[hecd2]

@ Daniel, there are experiments (done in the 80's I think I remember) where prokaryotic ribosomes were cleared of their proteins and they were still able so synthesize proteins, hence a ribosome stripped of proteins IS still a ribosome.

I think this is referring to the work done by Harry Noller et al in the 80s. To be fair, I think that they managed to strip most but not all proteins from the ribosome. As far as I know, subsequent work has shown that in the environment of bacterial cells, there is a very small number of proteins which are essential for ribosome functionality - I could probably find the papers if people are interested.

Of course this doesn't change the conclusion that it is the RNA which is the catalyst for elongation not proteins and so it is supportive of RNA-first.

In the RNA world hypothesis the RNA 'comes' from self assembled ribonucleotide strings (experimentally proven to form) followed by natural selection. The ribosome is the result of a long time of selection.

Yes.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I think this is referring to the work done by Harry Noller et al in the 80s. To be fair, I think that they managed to strip most but not all proteins from the ribosome. As far as I know, subsequent work has shown that in the environment of bacterial cells, there is a very small number of proteins which are essential for ribosome functionality - I could probably find the papers if people are interested.

Of course this doesn't change the conclusion that it is the RNA which is the catalyst for elongation not proteins and so it is supportive of RNA-first.

It's quite possible, it's been about 15 years ago since I last worked in the field, the amount of literature is staggering, and since Daniel dismisses all non-creationist literature out of hand I could not be bothered to actually dig it up.
And while the ribosome as it is today needs proteins to function in a cell, they are not involved in the actual protein synthesis or tRNA selection.

 

[annnnoid]

Quote mining is when you pick out quotes that say something else than if they had been seen in their context. It is a kind of lying, and you do it all the time.

In fact, your unethical use of quotes is so common that it would seem like a pure coincidence if you happened to get a quote right. You are in the habit of bringing a quote from some authority (like Orgel or Shapiro) and only bring their criticism, while their solution to the criticism is left out, thus giving the false impression that they think that natural abiogenesis is impossible.

Besides, as I have pointed out many times now, there is no actual physical law preventing abiogenesis, so if we are left with a choice between your creator God and natural forces, Occam's Razor directs us towards natural forces without new entities like gods. This means that even if you could find an authority supporting your position (and strangely it seems you can't; you are probably not looking hard enough), it would not be sufficient to stop researching abiogenesis. After all, relying on authorities is also a fallacy.

I know the answer, but you could try to surprise me: are you going to admit your lying with your quote mining, and stop doing it, or are we going to see more of the same (yes, you even bring the same discredited quotes over and over)?

Your continued unethical use of quotes and failure to defend yourself gives us the impression that behind your bluster you really are aware that you are left without arguments. One wonders what makes you continue? Has God told you to lie for Him?

Natural forces!?!?!?! What the hell are ‘natural forces’…?

…in case it has escaped your attention, there is no such thing as matter or energy. There is ‘something’ else. Therefore there is no such thing as ‘natural forces’.

Perhaps you could explain what coherent interpretation of Occam generates a conclusion that has absolutely no explanatory presence what-so-ever!

Your ‘natural forces’ are just another name for ‘natural laws’ (and that is EXACTLY what others [Darwin123 for example] have called them). 'Natural laws' are just another word for 'we don't know what the eff is actually going on here!'

…so your interpretation of Occam goes…” I have no idea what this means and nor does anyone else…but that can't possibly matter!”

ALL of you ALWAYS return to this defense. What is remarkable is that you think it actually is one. That it somehow corroborates your position.

..."Yeah...it's obviously NOT God...cause we have these here 'natural forces' (which we actually have absolutely no explanation for or understanding of [sort of like dark energy / matter] but maybe if we have a word for them that will be enough to convince us that we know what we're talking about and you don't)."

What are these ‘natural forces / laws / whatever ‘ and where do they come from?

None of you can every answer this question.

…ever!

(…what is truly laughable…is that it is at this precise moment that many of you now resort to arguing that ‘natural laws’ do NOT actually exist…until such time as you need them to argue against Goddidit…and then it’s Occam-all-the-way…until we ask ‘what are natural laws and where do they come from’…at which point it’s back to …”there’ s no such thing as natural laws…”…and round and round and round we go!)

What it simply comes down to …is that you somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics / nature / whatever) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to ANY conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

…oh yeah…and all those ‘natural laws’...for some inexplicable reason they all seem to function remarkably consistently with the equivalent scientific and physical laws that us humans have created to describe and predict them.

…so consistently that we have created literally trillions of experiments and pieces of technology based on this relationship…(what degree of theoretical and technical precision is required...just for example...to create what is necessary for this forum to function?)(…in the real [aka: natural] world…where all of you never stop insisting that NO natural laws exist…or they do…or they don’t…or they do…or they don’t)(…isn’t there some kind of psychosis that describes someone who occupies two blatantly contradictory positions contemporaneously…?)

…which ALL of you insist is nothing more than a spectacular coincidence.

It is also worth pointing out that the laws we generate are NOT merely descriptive. Meaning, they’re not just metaphorical. It’s not just interpretive art! They actually work in the real world. In spades.

IOW…we make laws based on reality that describe and predict reality…and we never stop insisting that ‘natural laws’ do in fact exist (or not, depending on how sane you are at any particular moment)…and 'our' laws are an explicit representation of them...

…but there is no direct relationship between the two (it's just poetry dontcha know!)…and these ‘natural laws’ aren’t the same thing as our laws (because, quite obviously, if that were the case that would implicate ‘intelligence’…and we can’t have that…so it just isn’t the case)…natural laws ‘just are’… they’re not really laws…they’re something that is something as long as it’s something that isn’t a law like what we think is a law except that…

…if it looks like a duck, it sounds like a duck, it smells like a duck, and it acts like a duck…

…it’s of course not a duck!

But that’s another story.

ETA: It is also worth pointing out that there isn’t anyone anywhere anyhow who can even begin to explain how we acquire a single one of the laws that we ourselves generate or what matter of phenomenology they do (or do not) themselves have. We don't know what a 'law of physics' is (and where it comes from) any more than we know what a 'law of nature' is (and where it comes from).

IOW…we have two currently unfathomable mysteries:

…. Natural laws which, according to all of you…either exist or not depending on what side of bed you wake up on in the morning and which are the ‘cause’ of everything that is.

…and the ‘laws’ we create that describe and predict them.

Everyone here insists that there is absolutely no relationship between the two (despite the obvious fact that they are similar in every way that anything possibly could be!). Just a coincidence (…yeah…and the fact that the internet works so well, that’s just a coincidence as well …). They both also occupy a phenomenology that is increasingly described by the word ‘information’. Of course, you all insist this is irrelevant because we can’t define the word ‘information’.

…but that is incorrect. We can’t explicitly, empirically, define the word. We have normative definitions…

…and they work.