abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Meh. It's Sunday. Probably busy making obeisance to some imaginary deity.
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
Meh. It's Sunday. Probably busy making obeisance to some imaginary deity.
This is one, of many, posts in which Daniel opines on what he thinks (others' think) science is.
I'd like to test this, using a specific, concrete, and (presumably) widely accepted discovery. One that is highly pertinent for this thread.
This link takes you to an annotated version of Watson and Crick's 1953 paper in the journal Nature, "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid".
Given Daniel's (quoted) definition of science (or the scientific method), I'd like to challenge him (and anyone else) to map - in detail - the seven steps to the contents of this paper.
For completeness, there are two other papers which, together, are usually regarded as the ones which describe the discovery of the structure of DNA: Franklin&Gosling (1953), and Wilkins+ (1953). So perhaps Daniel may need to refer to one or other (or both) of these as well.
This is, again, one of many posts by Daniel in which he stresses the importance of an independent variable in hypothesis testing (as he defines it, per quotes).ha ha ha. Thank You for coming right out and saying what we already knew.jimbob said:
Well Sir, because Experiment/TESTING....Hypothesis TESTING: IS SCIENCE !!!!!! That's why I'm 'hung up' on it.
Well there's a difference between "Predictions" and "Scientific Predictions".
"Scientific Predictions" are the Consequent of The Antecedent --- "Independent Variable" Manipulation. THIS...THEN THAT motif.
"Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.
The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.
Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment. An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion.
http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm
"Predictions" without an Antecedent are: Jeanne Dixon/Edgar Cayce/Nostradamus/Carnival TENT motifs.
See the difference?
<snip>
I'd like to challenge Daniel (or anyone else) to show, in detail, what the dependent and independent variables are, in the Watson&Crick 1953 paper. To be certain we are on the same page, please quote the hypothesis being tested first.
If, as I expect, Daniel (or anyone else) cannot show - by directly quoting the paper(s) - what the seven steps are, I think this will be a highly relevant demonstration of why Daniel's claim re the scientific method is inconsistent with the reality (of work on DNA at least).
Likewise, if, as I expect Daniel (or anyone else) cannot show - by directly quoting the paper(s) - what the independent and dependent variables are, ...
..........Danielscience will just declare it "not science". Simple.
I think it's been pointed out before, but this is trivially easy to show.blah blah blah. It's REAL EASY TO REFUTE, so you can table all the: juvenile theatrics, metric tons of utter Baseless Assertions (and every other Fallacy in the catalog), ad hominems direct and implied, the fairytale pretending you (and your cohorts) have the first clue of what you're talking about (lol, btw and Thanks)...
To refute, simply: SHOW ONE!!Show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
GO.....?
<snip>
Let's remind ourselves of what the status of the Special theory of Relativity (SR) and the General theory (GR) is, in Danielscience:
(my bold)
Leave aside the 3rd-Graders Are Smarter Than Einstein Fallacy.
Since one of the (two) postulates of SR may be summarized as "the laws physics are everywhere and everywhen the same" (the other is that the measured speed of light, in a vacuum, is always the same), it is logical to conclude that, in Danielscience, these laws can (and do) vary. From place to place. From time to time.
Thus it is a piece of cake to show that "a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein [...] formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism". One simply postulates that, at time t and in place (x,y,z) the laws of physics (and chemistry) were such that such a spontaneous formation was not only possible, but common. And it's consistent with what I think may be an important phenomenon/event recorded in a book Daniel may refer to often, the turning of water into wine (or was it the other way round?)
Important note: there's no need for any supernatural entities in this demonstration, no FSM, no gods, etc. And if there were scientists (of the Danielscience kind) around at the time, with the appropriate lab equipment, it'd have been
Hmm ...
Even leaving aside the fact that, in Danielscience, internal consistency is unnecessary, such a conclusion would DEMOLISH most of what has been written (and quoted) about DNA being a code/containing information/etc.
Why?
Because all that stuff follows from the work of Franklin, Watson, Crick, et al. If the structure of DNA cannot be established - using the (quoted) methods of Danielscience - how can it be shown that DNA contains a message/is a code/carries information/etc? In a manner that is consistent with Danielscience?
Last edited:
So Scientific Laws are Models, eh?...
https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/the-basics-of-physics-1/the-basics-of-physics-31/models-theories-and-laws-195-6078/ ...
"The terms model, theory, and law have exact meanings in relation to their usage in the study of physics.
Model
A representation of something difficult or impossible to display directly
Law
A concise description, usually in the form of a mathematical equation, used to describe a pattern in nature
theory
An explanation for patterns in nature that is supported by scientific evidence and verified multiple times by various groups of researchers "
"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity."
http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/hypothesis.htm
"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Scientific Law Definition
A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/Scientific-Law-Definition.htm
Law:
A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
<snip>
There has been some discussion, in this thread and at least two others, as to what fields of science (as it is commonly understood) would be included or excluded using the definitions Daniel has posted/quoted.
I wonder where linguistics fits? Is it a valid field, within Danielscience?
As I understand it, in linguistics one determines the meaning of words by analyzing how they are used. It is recognized that some words may have quite different meanings within different "speech communities" (I think that's an appropriate term; anyone more familiar with linguistics?), even if the members share the same language. And meanings can change over time; e.g. 'dope', 'rage', 'gay'.
So, to gauge how some words - such as "theory" and "model" - are used, and what they mean, by scientists, a linguist would examine the writings of scientists. Among those writings would be, today, blogs written by scientists themselves.
Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist, and one of two authors of the blog, Backreaction (the other is her husband, Stefan Scherer). She recently posted Dear Dr. B: What are the requirements for a successful theory of quantum gravity?
This part of her blog post I found quite interesting (bold in the original; there's also a neat graphic which I can't reproduce):
Bee said:
Perhaps just as interesting is this comment on this blog post, by Carsten Führmann:
Carsten Führmann said:
And Bee replied:
(my bold)Bee said:
The bold part is interesting for another reason: pace Daniel, per what he has posted/quoted here, consistency is necessary, both in physics and mathematics. And not just any kind of consistency, but mathematical consistency.
But perhaps Daniel has, himself, done a good linguistic analysis of the contemporary use of "theory" and "model" by physicists and mathematicians, and can show objective, independently verifiable evidence that the usage/meanings he quotes are consistent with those of such professionals? Or that among the speech community of biologists and chemists, the meanings are different in important ways?
I think Daniel is still claiming that nobody has given him a theory of evolution. Here are some examples that I have found with a short search:
Anyone else up to posting it until Daniel admits that the basic theory of evolution is simple and easy to understand? I don't have any hope of any understanding of the modern analysis of the actual mechanisms of evolution inlife self-replicating systems* with DNA or RNA (which as far as I am concerned are a couple of subsets of one of many possible evolutionary scenarios, but the only one that we have discovered so far)
*Viruses certainly evolve, but they aren't alive by the conventional definition.
I understand that there is some evidence that prion proteins are also subject to evolution.
Anyone else up to posting it until Daniel admits that the basic theory of evolution is simple and easy to understand? I don't have any hope of any understanding of the modern analysis of the actual mechanisms of evolution in
*Viruses certainly evolve, but they aren't alive by the conventional definition.
I understand that there is some evidence that prion proteins are also subject to evolution.
Last edited:
That's the best part. Anything that reproduces or replicates or otherwise copies itself imperfectly does what is essentially evolution. Living things, viruses, languages, social structures, computer programs both intentionally and unintentionally. Everything that changes over time either gets better or is eliminated by something that changes faster.
It's so clear and simple and obvious.
I have zero expectation that Daniel will respond to my post, so this is for other readers.Yea yea sure. I hope everybody reads it!! Understanding it (with this crowd)....Not Bloody Likely. So lets have a go, shall we...
Steve: That the early biological world was an RNA-based world.
de Duve: Well that's the conclusion of my fellow laureate Walter Gilbert, who got the prize for sequencing DNA. And he invented the world, RNA world, and that kind of theory has become extremely popular among all the experts in the field. Leslie Orgel was one, Stanley Miller to some extent, but just then the others and all the people really very much involved in this field had bought this idea of RNA world; I don't buy it.
Well @ least he has some sense.
de Duve: So, the question that I asked in Nature, "Did God Make RNA?" is still valid today because nobody knows.
Ahh Christian, we sure know What Didn't
Steve: So did he?
de Duve: Well, of course not, I mean, I don't know (laughs) I mean, I don't know.
No waffling; decisive...Speaks from Validated Scientific Experiments.
de Duve: My belief is that early chemistry,first of all, my belief is that it was chemistry, because the problem is a chemical problem—how do you get a molecule like RNA together? Once you have it, it can reproduce itself, but how do you get it together?
It can Reproduce itself? LOL....Why, HOW???
de Duve: But, as a scientist, I have to take as a working hypothesis that this came about naturally and not supernaturally.
A Nobel Prize winning Biochemist and doesn't even know what a Scientific Hypothesis is!!! Priceless. Hey Christian what's your "Independent Variable"...your Imagination? Eyelids? Other??
de Duve: Then answer number two is this chemistry is biochemistry, because you see, that is what Stanley Miller and Leslie Orgel and all the people who work in this field do not accept. They believe that this is a special kind of chemistry they call abiotic chemistry which has nothing to do with biochemistry that created the first RNA molecule.
Hey Christian, they probably don't "Accept" it because to have the "Bio" in Biochemistry...you have to have LIFE ("Bio") First, Great Googly Moogly!!
Tell us sir, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop...True or False??
de Duve: And my reason to believe that something like biochemistry had to arise originally is a somewhat complicated argument; but for the new chemistry to arise, the new, the biochemistry is based on enzymes; because all the reactions of biochemistry are reactions that would not take place on their own.
Oy Vey, AGAIN... How on Earth can you have BIOchemistry without the BIO??
ENZYMES, where'd you get those?? Start here sir....
Of the ~500 Amino Acids (AA's) known, 23 of them are Alpha Amino Acids. All Life requires and exclusively uses 20 Essential Alpha AA's.
1. Please show (CITE Source) of the "Natural" Formation of ALL 20 Essential Alpha AA's from their "Building Blocks"....? (This is ONE of the dirty little secrets you never hear about, it's really quite mind numbing...but they know they can 'Whistle Past The Graveyard', because of the utter ignorance and "Blind" Faith of their target audience).
2. We could in-effect stop right here, but where's the fun in that.
3. Once you get all of the Alpha AA's "Naturally" (and...you won't), they exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed. But LIFE exclusively uses Left-Handed Amino's (There are Exceptions but not material and outside the scope of our discussion). To be "Functional" Proteins, you not only need their Primary Structure (Proper Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif. ONE "right-handed" AA in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat.
In EVERY SINGLE OOL Paper with AA's/Proteins (and SUGARS---we'll get to that), take a look @ "Materials and Methods" Section... their other dirty little secret, you'll find EVERY-SINGLE TIME the word "PURIFICATION" or equivalent. Because they **sequestered**---if Proteins, then left-handed AA's are chosen...if Sugars, then right-handed ones are chosen, before they even start on their "a priori" fairytale.
**This is Investigator Interference and PROVES the need for Intelligent Agency!
4. The DeltaG for Polymerization of AA's to form Polypeptides is "Positive" i.e., Non-Spontaneous.
5. Peptide Bond Formation is "Condensation Reactions". Ahhh, That is....Peptide Bonds won't form IN WATER, from both a Thermodynamic and Kinetic point of view... Peptide Bonds won't form between two AA zwitterions, this is the form AA's are found in Aqueous Environments.
You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than attempting even a cogent explanation of how this could be in the Galactic Universe of Possibility, let alone actually Physically/Chemically forming a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein, "Naturally"!!
AND...This is even before we discuss: Primary Structure, Sunlight which destroys AA's (and Nucleo-Bases), pH, Cross Reactions, Brownian Motion, Hydrolysis, and Oxidation.
I suppose this is what the Grand Poobah of Origin of Life Research (Dr. Leslie Orgel) was referring to, when he said...
"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008) The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.
You/They were told this Years Ago, but didn't listen....
Dr Murray Eden, Professor MIT, concluded that, ‘...an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical and biological.’
Murray, Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
de Duve: So my conclusion was that biochemistry had to be prefigured already in the early chemistry, and so I'm looking for an early chemistry that could do something like biochemistry.
So there had to be BIO ("Life") chemistry already prefigured in early ("Non-Life") Chemistry? So a Married Bachelor motif?
de Duve: I'm thinking of catalysts that could have occurred under the primitive conditions and that could mimic what enzymes do, and I'm thinking of peptides—those associations of amino acids. The amino acids were there; Stanley Miller, showed it, they are on meteorites, the amino acids are available and how they got together is not so difficult, it's not a big thermodynamic problem.
1. Ahh Sir, Stanley Miller??...
a. Show all 20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids produced in this experiment...?
b. Please confirm the Fairytale atmosphere they used: Methane, Ammonia, Water vapor, Hydrogen....?
c. They used only 'SELECT' wavelengths of UV Light (Good Thing, because UV Light destroys AA's (and Nucleobases) )
d. They FILTERED OUT (using "Catch Basins"), natural process eh ?...the products. They made: 85% carcinogenic resin, that also included cyanides and carbon monoxide, and 2% amino acids. Mostly 2 amino acids...The amino acids will bond with the tar and others long before they bond to each other (good thing they filtered, eh?).
2. Not a Big Thermodynamic Problem???All execpt for this of course...
"Such reactions, however, are condensation reactions, requiring the elimination of a water molecule for every peptide bond formed, and are thus unfavorable in aqueous environments both from a THERMODYNAMIC and KINETIC point of view. In addition, PEPTIDE BOND FORMATION WILL NOT OCCUR between two amino acids in their zwitterionic form, the predominate state in a bulk aqueous environment."
Griffith EC, Vaida V; In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water-air interface; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 08/2012; 109(39):15697-701
My suggestion, Take the Next 3 days off....then Quit.
Oy Vey, de Duve
I may be mistaken, but there's one hypothesis (in a general sense) re the origin of life on Earth that has had rather scant coverage so far, namely panspermia.
As of today, there's almost no experiment or observation that one could describe, which could be carried out within a year or two, that would test any panspermia hypothesis (well, except for a SETI search coming up positive).
However, within the lifetime of at least some reading this today, such tests may be possible. For example, robotic missions to Mars, Europa, Titan, Enceladus (more?) to search for existing or extinct (carbon-based) life, on or near the surface of Mars, and in the deep under-surface water oceans for Europa, Titan, and Enceladus. There are quite a few, logically consistent, possibilities of how such life could relate to that on the early Earth, but whatever is discovered - including a null result (i.e. no sign of any complex carbon-based chemistry) - the results from such missions will provide good data with which to test various abiogenesis hypotheses.
Likewise, within a decade or three, the study of the atmospheres of exoplanets may reach the point where indirect evidence for the existence of life far beyond our solar system becomes strong (e.g. an atmosphere which is similar to that of today's Earth, in terms of its structure and composition).
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: Asking Stanley Miller (died May 20, 2007) questions is ignorant
4 April 2016 Daniel: Asking Stanley Miller (March 7, 1930 – May 20, 2007) idiotic questions is ignorant.
Noticed in the same post by Daniel:
4 April 2016 Daniel: Asking Stanley Miller (March 7, 1930 – May 20, 2007) idiotic questions is ignorant.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: The Miller-Urey experiment produced "all 20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids"
. Thus not was not really expected that all "20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids" would be produced, especially in an experiment conducted in the 1950's when technology to identify them was in its infancy. The originally published Miller-Urey experiment showed that is possible for conditions on the early Earth as understood in the 1950's to produce amino acids, etc.
But the Miller-Urey experiment actually produced more than the "20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids".
Miller–Urey experiment
!
No one is trying to replicate millions of years of prebiotic conditions in the lab, Daniel
. Thus not was not really expected that all "20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids" would be produced, especially in an experiment conducted in the 1950's when technology to identify them was in its infancy. The originally published Miller-Urey experiment showed that is possible for conditions on the early Earth as understood in the 1950's to produce amino acids, etc.But the Miller-Urey experiment actually produced more than the "20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids"
.Miller–Urey experiment
4 April 2016 Daniel: The Miller-Urey experiment produced "all 20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids" and more
!Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: Experiments on abiogenesis, e.g. Miller-Urey, did not end in 1953
4 April 2016 Daniel: Experiments on abiogenesis, e.g. Miller-Urey, did not end in 1953!
As shown in 4 April 2016 Daniel: The Miller-Urey experiment produced "all 20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids" and more! the "volcano-like" version of the Miller-Urey experiment produced well over 20 different amino acids.
The original 1950's Miller-Urey experiment used the early secondary atmosphere as estimated at the time, i.e. "Methane, Ammonia, Water vapor, Hydrogen". Then the estimate changed to a CO2 rich mixture and Miller-Urey type experiments also produced amino acids, etc.
Also see Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment:
Miller repeated his experiment in 1983 with an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen and got a few amino acids. Jeffrey Bada added that the primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals and got many more amino acids.
The "Fairytale atmosphere" makes this an inane and ignorant question from Daniel.
4 April 2016 Daniel: Experiments on abiogenesis, e.g. Miller-Urey, did not end in 1953!
As shown in 4 April 2016 Daniel: The Miller-Urey experiment produced "all 20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids" and more
! the "volcano-like" version of the Miller-Urey experiment produced well over 20 different amino acids.The original 1950's Miller-Urey experiment used the early secondary atmosphere as estimated at the time, i.e. "Methane, Ammonia, Water vapor, Hydrogen". Then the estimate changed to a CO2 rich mixture and Miller-Urey type experiments also produced amino acids, etc.
Recent results suggest more H2 and that the "organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept" should not be abandoned.
Also see Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment:
Miller repeated his experiment in 1983 with an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen and got a few amino acids. Jeffrey Bada added that the primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals and got many more amino acids.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: It is a lie that Miller, Urey, etc. used selected wavelengths of UV light
4 April 2016 Daniel: It is a (creationist?) lie that Miller, Urey, etc. used selected wavelengths of UV light for terrestrial amino acid generation.
I suspect that this is also a creationist lie about extraterrestrial tests.
This is a lie, Daniel. The Miller–Urey variants that tested extraterrestrial generation of amino acids sometimes substituted ultraviolet light for lightning as the energy source for chemical reactions. AFAIK the Miller–Urey experiments and terrestrial variants have the flasks sitting on lab benches in either ambient light or a dark room.
4 April 2016 Daniel: It is a (creationist?) lie that Miller, Urey, etc. used selected wavelengths of UV light for terrestrial amino acid generation.
I suspect that this is also a creationist lie about extraterrestrial tests.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: A delusion about "FILTERED OUT" products
That is definitely 3 amino acids and possibly one other - aspartic acid.
4 April 2016 Daniel: A delusion about "FILTERED OUT" products.
We have to add cherry picking through ignorance and the delusion that science stopped in 1953:
4 April 2016 Daniel: The Miller-Urey experiment produced "all 20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids" and more!
4 April 2016 Daniel: Experiments on abiogenesis, e.g. Miller-Urey, did not end in 1953!
4 April 2016 Daniel: A delusion about "carcinogenic" resin being relevant in a prebiotic chemistry experiment!
4 April 2016 Daniel: A delusion that the "amino acids will bond with the tar and others" when non-bonded amino acids were detected!
Which is a delusion, Daniel, since Miller and Urey tested the entire product of their experiment with the exception of volatile impurities: At the end of one week of continuous operation, the boiling flask was removed, and mercuric chloride was added to prevent microbial contamination. The reaction was stopped by adding barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, and evaporated to remove impurities. Paper chromatography revealed the presence of glycine, α- and β-alanine. Miller could not ascertain aspartic acid and GABA, due to faint spots.[4]
That is definitely 3 amino acids and possibly one other - aspartic acid.
4 April 2016 Daniel: A delusion about "FILTERED OUT" products.
We have to add cherry picking through ignorance and the delusion that science stopped in 1953:
4 April 2016 Daniel: The Miller-Urey experiment produced "all 20 Essential Alpha Amino Acids" and more
! 4 April 2016 Daniel: Experiments on abiogenesis, e.g. Miller-Urey, did not end in 1953!
4 April 2016 Daniel: A delusion about "carcinogenic" resin being relevant in a prebiotic chemistry experiment
!4 April 2016 Daniel: A delusion that the "amino acids will bond with the tar and others" when non-bonded amino acids were detected!
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: A lie by quote mining Griffith and Vaida
Griffith EC, Vaida V; In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water-air interface; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 08/2012; 109(39):15697-701
!
This paper hints that a Miller-Urey experiment with its water-air interface could produce peptides. And that is what Miller produced in 1958 in an unpublished study and reported on 25 June 2014.
A Plausible Simultaneous Synthesis of Amino Acids and Simple Peptides on the Primordial Earth
4 April 2016 Daniel: A lie by quote mining Griffith and Vaida; In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water-air interface!
Yet another lie by quote mining from Daniel, as even the title shows!
Griffith EC, Vaida V; In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water-air interface; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 08/2012; 109(39):15697-701
This is a paper reporting an observation of peptide bonds forming from amino acids at the interface between air and water. The authors explicitly state that this is "a means for the emergence of peptides on early Earth"
!This paper hints that a Miller-Urey experiment with its water-air interface could produce peptides. And that is what Miller produced in 1958 in an unpublished study and reported on 25 June 2014.
A Plausible Simultaneous Synthesis of Amino Acids and Simple Peptides on the Primordial Earth
4 April 2016 Daniel: A lie by quote mining Griffith and Vaida; In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water-air interface!
Let us not forget that the story being told in the Bible, in particular Genesis, is a translation and reinterpretation of a translation and reinterpretation of a translation and reinterpretation of a translation and reinterpretation, etc., etc., etc., back to who knows when it orginally began, to Sumerian for sure, which I found to have an over all story that seemed to be a translation and reinterpretation of an older story from the Turic (I believe, it has been years I may get the names shuffled a bit right here.) mythos of Tengri, which seemed strangely similar to the Sumerian mythos, just not as expensive in gods, and minus the Mesopotamian cultural connections. Only came to Tengri at all because the original archeologists who excavated and translated the Sumerian tablets all felt that Sumerian wasn't a language isolate, but some version of early pre-writing Turic/Turkic. Point is story was told eons before the Bible and it's sibling books were put into even the most rudimentary of publication, so if your looking an accurate, or fairly close, record of what may have been a creation, the Bible is on the wrong end of the chain of hand me down story reinterpretations. Like play that game as children, in school, where everyone sat in a giant circle and one person would whisper a sentence into the ear of one of people beside them, and it repeats whisper by whisper around the circle till it gets back around so we could be see what it morphed into and all had a great time. Not trying to degrade Christianity, or Christians or the Bible, see it how you want, tell however you like, and use which ever names for which ever God/gods makes you happy and content, its all good. But don't try to glean some data of the sentence that has been whispered all the way around the circle, stamp it as fact. Label it as the absolute unquestionable truth handed to you personally by God himself and expect everyone not to react as if you may be a slight bit special, or just laugh and ridicule you, or just continuously deny your claim and not even consider it, and these are good day reactions. Now if you track that sentence till you locate it's original source and brought that source, verifiable source, to the table as part of the argument of creation and a possible record of that creation with a time frame, then it is at least worth discussing seriously, and trying to see it as you do. But if your are going to whip out the old King James, and start pulling out factual data to use, I simply have to ask that you be prepared to show cross-reference to verifiable data and timeframe from both Aesop's fables and Macbeth. Sorry, you just got to be able to present correlated facts from multiple sources.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Preacher, meet the choir? All that has been pointed out many many many many many times, and infact, by the poster you quoted, and who had his tongue so firmly imbedded in his cheek that it damn near punctured it....
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,050
One thing Daniel and I seem to be unable to agree on is his statement that anything that requires any form of laboratory equipment is immediately intelligently guided.
I'd like to see his reasoning on how exactly the laws of nature get altered in laboratories.
Because as far as I know, in a test tube a reaction still takes place according to natural processes.
And the natural process used in laboratories for RNA work is the fact that increased concentration increases the reaction speed, but not the actual reaction mechanism.
The core of this is of course that laboratory experiments show that nucleotides can from ribozymes which have both information and function, which directly counters Daniel's claim that 'dumb molecules' cannot do this.
He oy vey's this away by both claiming that it is somehow relevant where the 'dumb molecules' come from (without explaining why this is relevant) and by claiming that a laboratory is immediately intelligently guided.
It's that second part I would like explained here. How exactly is the use of laboratory equipment influencing the specificity of a polymerization reaction when chemically there is no difference between the parts of the nucleotides used and therefore theory suggests that only random chance dictates which nucleotides would link (which by the way is also what the outcome of the experiments suggests).
I'd like to see his reasoning on how exactly the laws of nature get altered in laboratories.
Because as far as I know, in a test tube a reaction still takes place according to natural processes.
And the natural process used in laboratories for RNA work is the fact that increased concentration increases the reaction speed, but not the actual reaction mechanism.
The core of this is of course that laboratory experiments show that nucleotides can from ribozymes which have both information and function, which directly counters Daniel's claim that 'dumb molecules' cannot do this.
He oy vey's this away by both claiming that it is somehow relevant where the 'dumb molecules' come from (without explaining why this is relevant) and by claiming that a laboratory is immediately intelligently guided.
It's that second part I would like explained here. How exactly is the use of laboratory equipment influencing the specificity of a polymerization reaction when chemically there is no difference between the parts of the nucleotides used and therefore theory suggests that only random chance dictates which nucleotides would link (which by the way is also what the outcome of the experiments suggests).
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
TheAdversary
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2015
- Messages
- 1,548
+JeanTate Nice post. Like to add one thing :
'And not just any kind of consistency, but mathematical consistency.'
The reason contradiction is disallowed is because of the Principle of Explosion. See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
There are logics possible called paraconsistent that allow contradiction, but do require that the Principle of Explosion doesn't occur.
It's the ability to infer anything at all that makes a logic or theory useless, since anything and everything can be shown to be true. This is called trivialism.
So consistency isn't the requirement, paraconsistent logics are being researched and applications can be imagined, like handling inconsistent database
entries more elegantly. Also there's an area in mathematics called smooth infinitesimal analysis where the Principle of Excluded Middle is relaxed, leading
to a novel way of doing calculus.
So, I'd replace the requirement of consistency with the requirement of non-trivialism, to include paraconsistent logics.
But maybe trivialism is what people actually mean when the say things like 'That's contradictory.'
'And not just any kind of consistency, but mathematical consistency.'
The reason contradiction is disallowed is because of the Principle of Explosion. See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
There are logics possible called paraconsistent that allow contradiction, but do require that the Principle of Explosion doesn't occur.
It's the ability to infer anything at all that makes a logic or theory useless, since anything and everything can be shown to be true. This is called trivialism.
So consistency isn't the requirement, paraconsistent logics are being researched and applications can be imagined, like handling inconsistent database
entries more elegantly. Also there's an area in mathematics called smooth infinitesimal analysis where the Principle of Excluded Middle is relaxed, leading
to a novel way of doing calculus.
So, I'd replace the requirement of consistency with the requirement of non-trivialism, to include paraconsistent logics.
But maybe trivialism is what people actually mean when the say things like 'That's contradictory.'