Annoying creationists

[The Atheist]

In what way do they not exactly decribe a replicator but come close?

Thank you for correcting the false impression I was under i.e. that two researchers in 2003 did not create life on earth billions of years ago.

The problem is that you are now shifting the goalposts. But hey, I can do this.....

RNA
DNA

next problem.....

Thanks for the link in the previous post.

Now I'm wondering how it's possible that you can make so much sense in half a dozen lines while all Articulett's done in about 6000 lines is scream "creationist".

 

[The Atheist]

I have a Masters of Science in Genetic Counseling, and worked in that field for several years before attending law school--during the Dover trial--that case and my first TAM meeting made me feel like I could be doing a lot more good in the world by teaching biology and critical thinking--so, I am.

Thanks. I'd begun to wonder about your critical thinking as it seemed to be more of the harrassment style than seeking answers, but I'll take your word for it.

And I'd really love to see a conversation between you, John, and Kleinman so I can see if you understand and agree with each other or are making sense to any one other than yourselves.

Oh, that's an easy one. I wouldn't understand any of it.

Yes, I know you hate me because I pointed out that Yahtzi's assessment of your error in logic was correct--but getting all upset and taking it personally doesn't really help you learn anything.

Now you're just being childish, A - I don't hate you. B - I've never claimed to be an expert on this subject, so if I make mistakes I'm happy to own them and C - the only beef I've had with you is what seems to be hounding a bloke because you disagree with him. If John turns out to be a creationist, I'll bring the matches to the burning.

Yes, I know very well I can be wrong. That's why I look for evidence. That's why I ask specific questions and pay careful attention to the answers. I know you think you are supporting your claims and that anyone can see it--but I don't. To me, you sound like Dann. You make unsupported claims and then sling ad homs when someone points it out.

Nope, I sling ad homs all the time, nothing to do with whether I'm right or not.

You make up little side issues so everyone is distracted from your error in logic and then try to make it look like I'm a sneer worthy person. Like Hammy you take great offense at anyone who points out your errors while claiming to be the victim of attacks that you started. By the way, I don't think you are a creationist despite your unsupported claim that I think everyone who doesn't agree with me is; and I don't think Dann is either. I just think you have poor dialog and communication skills and that you can't fathom that you could possibly be one to make logical errors. You would be a "skeptoid" to me in reference to the thread of the same title.

I have no problem with making the odd logical error, I'm no slave to logic. As I said, I'm no scientist; sometimes gut instinct is as good as any. You can keep the "skeptoid" label for yourself as well, I make no claim to be a "skeptic". Instead of Occam's Razor I use the bulldozer, sometimes squashing the facts along the way. It probably is frustrating for you, but I always get what I want in the end. Live with it. My language and comprehension skills - take me on anyday. I'll just make sure it's a subject I know something about.

Hey, I'm guilty too. I thought it was obvious that Hewitt was a creationist--hence my god reference. Apparently others hadn't reached that same conclusion as readily as I had-- I presented evidence when John asked why I believed him to be a creationist, and others seem to have reached the same conclusion. In any case, no one including you seems to know exactly what his theories are. And I still think he is a creationist--he answers questions in the same shifty way that creationists do--it works on people like you; it doesn't work on me.

Were you a Mother Superior in a previous life?

So then, what are your fine references now that I've given you mine?

I have a B Com in Finance and an MBA in Human Resources. I don't expect to be able to hold a conversation with you on genetics and evolution any more than I'd expect you to know about outplacement. The fact that you're infinitely more knowledgeable than me on the subject doesn't worry me a bit. We each have our specialties.

One last comment. I just noted Dr Richard's post and link. He's just stepped up and placed relevant information without the crusade. You don't think that maybe your style is letting you down a little? Sometimes, sticking to the basics without the histrionics gets more attention.

Just a thought.

 

[John Hewitt]

Dr Kleinman, Hewitt, Articulate, Cyborg, et. al.

What is the minimum genome size capable of reproduction/division/replication (or whatever other term you may deem relevant)?

I ask this question because it seems to me that unless we can specify a precise lower limit on the genetic composition of a life form, we can't calculate the odds of its developing by pure chance. However, we only need one life form to develop by chance before natural selection can start influencing future biological changes, so the simpler the initial life form can be, the more likely it can develop by chance.

Any suggestions/evidence?

Concerning the nature of a replicator. In some pedantic formal senses, one could argue that even an organism is not a replicator because living things do not copy themselves completely de novo, they do need inputs. So what one needs to do is begin with a definition and concept of replicator that seems relevant. The following point was made by Grand(e) and Dawkins does agree with it. An organism is only a replicator in the sense that it replicates its pattern. It takes in relatively disordered material from the outside world and imposes onto that material a copy of itself, meaning a copy of its own pattern or structure or its data. It is a matter of thermodynamics that a free energy supply is needed in order to perform this data copying and all organism must make use of an exogenous free energy supply.
For purposes of biological and biochemical discussion, a replicator is something that takes in relatively simple, disordered, low energy molecules, and makes use of an energy supply to impose a replica of its own pattern onto the arrangement of those atoms and molecules.

I believe that the smallest known replicators are cells. The smallest known cells are a matter of debate but some candidates include intracellular parasites, such as the PPLOs (pleuropneumonia like organisms) which, I believe, have just a few hundred genes. However, such things live as parasites within other cells and enjoy a very stable environment. I believe the smallest known free living bacteria have of the order of 1200-1300 genes but that is just from memory. There was a post on this forum, not long ago, which identified it but I don't remember its name.
In any event, a thousand genes would be about 600k base pairs or more. Whatever figure you choose, it is very high and that is not surprising. A cell has to be a Von Neumann machine, a machine which contains the data needed to describe itself, the programs needed to drive its own operations and the physical actuators needed to put those programs into effect. Any such machine is going to involve a large amount of data and some complicated equipment.

The problem is, "How could both the data and the equipment come into being together?" There are really only three general ways in which this could happen.
1. It all happened by chance. The problem with this is that, even on the most generous of assumptions, such a complex machine could not have arisen by chance.
2. It was designed. The problem with this is that it is not really an answer. Whether the designer was God, as the bible suggests, or an alien, as Crick suggests, the designer must himself have been a machine of great complexity and we must still wonder about where that designer came from. Design is, really, a transfer of the problem.
3. Evolution but this too has problems. Evolutionary theory, as presently constructed, describes how one organism can change into another, it does not describe how organisms, as Von Neumann machines, can arise de novo. The task, therefore, is to so construct evolutionary theory that one can describe an evolutionary process in a purely chemical environment and show how that process can lead to the kinds of phenomena we now identify as biology. That is one aspect of what I work on.

However, note that I just said is that one must describe an evolutionary process that does not begin with a replicator. That seems to be Articulett's problem with me. She believes in Dawkins and I don't. I do not believe that replicators, otherwise known as Von Neumann machines, can lie at the base of evolution. I think the base of evolution is data and data flows. I think that it is the sun's data supply, as well as its energy supply, that drove evolution within a chemical environment and which led to life.

 

[John Hewitt]

Thanks for the link in the previous post.

Now I'm wondering how it's possible that you can make so much sense in half a dozen lines while all Articulett's done in about 6000 lines is scream "creationist".

I am glad Dr. Richard makes sense to you because he doesn't to me. He posted a bare link and did not explain what relevance he attaches to it. He seems to be insinuating an opinion rather than expressing it.

His link does not describe DNA acting as a replicator but undergoing an autocatalytic reaction. Autocatalysis is a well-known phenomenon that can be demonstrated in school classrooms. It is also a component part of some theories of abiogenesis, including my own.

 

[John Hewitt]

In what way do they not exactly decribe a replicator but come close?

Thank you for correcting the false impression I was under i.e. that two researchers in 2003 did not create life on earth billions of years ago.

The problem is that you are now shifting the goalposts. But hey, I can do this.....

RNA
DNA

next problem.....

As a further reply to the above, the link that Dr. Richard provided was of a large polynucleotide fragment autocatalyzing a single rather small change in its structure. This nucleotide fragment already contains all its own data and energy. What can one say? A single autocatalytic event does not amount to a fragment copying itself or making use of an exogenous energy supply from simple molecules. It is a fragment that merely undergoes a minor change in its data and energy content and, as the authors say, this is an example of autocatalysis. Unfortunately it does not come close to being a replicator as described above and I don't think autocatalysis is a big deal. It is a well know phenomenon, even in simple chemistry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At least Dr Schneider put some mathematics to his argument about random point mutations and natural selection. So which PROCESS is going to rescue your theory from the mathematical deficiency that is revealed by Dr Schneider’s model?

Do you stamp your foot when you say this?

So you are the evolutionarian who is going to explain what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before this system evolved? In particular, what were helicase and gyrase doing before DNA could be replicated?

These issues raised here are not contrived faults. Data from an evolutionarian written, peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection shows that this process is profoundly slow when using realistic parameters in the model. Why don’t you give us a realistic selection process which corrects the deficiency in the model? Why don’t you describe to us a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo?

Skeptigirl, what you are having trouble understanding is that without random point mutations, how do you transform duplicated genes to new genes? How do you evolve a gene de novo? Random point mutations are the cornerstone for your theory. Unless you can describe a realistic selection process that allows for rapid evolution of new genes by random point mutations, your theory is a flop.

Why don’t you educate us on a selection process that would rescue your theory from the mathematical vortex that it is being sucked into.

Skeptigirl, this discussion is being reduced down to an accounting problem. Dr Schneider thought he had solved this problem but failed to use realistic parameters in his model. You have no way to account for the differences between the genomes of different kinds of creatures based on random point mutations and natural selection. If you think other processes will solve this mathematical deficiency, educate us. Otherwise, your interpretations of your observations will only satisfy devout evolutionarians.

I will repeat my two words, genetic science.

Whatever you think you are on to here is silly. But I'll play along for a while. Until I get bored.

Your underlying premise is totally flawed. We already know evolution is the correct theory because one can follow the genetic trail, manipulate genes, and observe evolution occurring. Am I correct in interpreting your position is that what is observed is not true?

Am I correct that you are stating evolution couldn't be correct merely because you are unaware of how the processes work?

I know how the processes work. It isn't hard to learn. So what is it you think is impossible? New genes? How silly. There are 4 different mechanisms new genes occur in organisms we observe today.

gene transfer mechanisms

Horizontal gene transfer

molecular genetics

genomes in flux

Gene transfer to plants by diverse species of bacteria

There are a multitude of factors you just haven't bothered to learn about here. Unless I have misinterpreted your position. There is a large amount of variation for example in the human genome. When a new selection pressure occurs such as a new epidemic, the genetic diversity assures the genes which may protect some members of the population are already in the population.

The CCR5 deletion is one such example. Persons with 2 copies are highly resistant to HIV yet the mutation arose long before HIV infected humans and being a neutral mutation, there are different percentages in populations based on ancestry alone.

And here you are discussing some nonsense about point mutations being unable to result in new genes? I haven't even begun to discuss the vast amount of knowledge that has been accumulated in genetic science.

Of course, your arguments have been thoroughly discussed both at the Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins, but I suppose in 44 pages those citations have already been posted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Argument from incredulity

It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.

This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or "god of the gaps," is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.

1. Really, the claim is "I can't conceive that (fill in the blank)." Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: "The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).

2. The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mutations and new features

1. Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.

2. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
* the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
* adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
* the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
* evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
* modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
* evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:
* Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)

3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Genome Primer

What We’ve Learned Thus Far The first panoramic views of the human genetic landscape have revealed a wealth of information and some early surprises. Much remains to be deciphered in this vast trove of information; as the consortium of HGP scientists concluded in their seminal paper, “. . .the more we learn about the human genome, the more there is to explore.” A few highlights from the first publications analyzing the sequence follow.
• The human genome contains 3 billion chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G).
• The average gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
• The functions are unknown for more than 50% of discovered genes.
• The human genome sequence is almost (99.9%) exactly the same in all people.
• About 2% of the genome encodes instructions for the synthesis of proteins.
• Repeat sequences that do not code for proteins make up at least 50% of the human genome.
• Repeat sequences are thought to have no direct functions, but they shed light on chromosome structure and dynamics. Over time, these repeats reshape the genome by rearranging it, thereby creating entirely new genes or modifying and reshuffling existing genes.
• The human genome has a much greater portion (50%) of repeat sequences than the mustard weed (11%), the worm (7%), and the fly (3%).
• Over 40% of the predicted human proteins share similarity with fruitfly or worm proteins.
• Genes appear to be concentrated in random areas along the genome, with vast expanses of noncoding DNA between.
• Chromosome 1 (the largest human chromosome) has the most genes (2968), and the Y chromosome has the fewest (231).
• Genes have been pinpointed and particular sequences in those genes associated with numerous diseases and disorders including breast cancer, muscle disease, deafness, and blindness.
• Scientists have identified about 3 million locations where single-base DNA differences (see p. 9) occur in humans. This information promises to revolutionize the processes of finding DNA sequences associated with such common diseases as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, and cancers.

Building a “Systems Level” View of Life

The DNA sequences generated in hundreds of genome projects now provide scientists with the “parts lists” containing instructions for how an organism builds, operates, maintains, and reproduces itself while responding to various environmental conditions. But we still have very little knowledge of how cells use this information to “come alive.” The functions of most genes remain unknown. Nor do we understand how genes and the proteins they encode interact with each other and with the environment. If we are to realize the potential of the genome projects, with far-ranging applications to such diverse fields as medicine, energy, and the environment, we must obtain this new level of knowledge.

One of the greatest impacts of having wholegenome sequences and powerful new genomic technologies may be an entirely new approach to conducting biological research. In the past, researchers studied one or a few genes or proteins at a time. Because life doesn’t operate in such isolation, this inherently provided incomplete—and often inaccurate—views. Researchers now can approach questions systematically and on a much grander scale. They can study all the genes expressed in a particular environment or all the gene products in a specific tissue, organ, or tumor. Other analyses will focus on how tens of thousands of genes and proteins work together in interconnected networks to orchestrate the chemistry of life—a new field called “systems biology” (see “Genomes to Life,” p. 10).

How do genetic variations (SNP patterns) differ across populations?

Charting Human Variation

Slight variations in our DNA sequences can have a major impact on whether or not we develop a disease and on our responses to such environmental factors as infectious microbes, toxins, and drugs. One of the most common types of sequence variation is the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). SNPs are sites in the human genome where individuals differ in their DNA sequence, often by a single base. For example, one person might have the DNA base A where another might have C, and so on. Scientists believe the human genome has at least 10 million SNPs, and they are generating different types of maps of these sites, which can occur both in genes and noncoding regions.

Sets of SNPs on the same chromosome are inherited in blocks (haplotypes). In 2002 a consortium of researchers from six countries established a 3-year effort to construct a map of the patterns of SNPs that occur across populations in Africa, Asia, and the United States. Researchers hope that dramatically decreasing the number of individual SNPs to be scanned will provide a shortcut for tracking down the DNA regions associated with common complex diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and some forms of mental illness. The new map also may be useful in understanding how genetic variation contributes to responses to environmental factors. (For more information, see the NIH URL, p. 12.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The reason I put this material here, when you are discussing "large polynucleotide fragment autocatalyzing a single rather small change in its structure", is because the underlying premise that whatever "gaps" one finds in any particular piece of evolutionary theory is not evidence the theory is in any doubt. It is simply time to move on.

On the other hand, if you are merely arguing for one mechanism over another or that this or that gap needs filling or testing, then fine. But to think the "gap" is so wide as to actually put the theory of evolution in doubt is absurd in light of what current genetic scientists have been able to accomplish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dr Gerald Joyce, Scripps Institute has been working on abiogenesis for example.

We have been able, for example, to evolve variants of the Tetrahymena group I ribozyme that cleave single-stranded DNA with high efficiency and specificity under physiologic conditions. The starting molecule has barely detectable DNA cleavage activity. But after 27 "generations" of in vitro evolution, individuals isolated from the population had accumulated, on average, 17 mutations relative to the wild type and had improved their ability to cleave DNA by 1O5-fold. These designer ribozymes were expressed in Escherichia coil and used to "immunize" the host cell against infection by M13 single-stranded DNA bacteriophage.

In another study, we carried out directed evolution to change the metal dependence of a group I ribozyme, teaching it to operate in the presence of Ca2+ rather than Mg2+ or Mn2+ as is required by the wild type. We were able to correlate specific genetic changes that arose over evolutionary time with their effect on the catalytic properties of the evolving molecules. Our goal at present is to evolve novel ribozymes that carry out a broader range of chemical reactions, including reactions involving substrates other than nucleic acids.

Nano-origami isn't part of the abiogenesis work but it still advances the science.

Scientists at Scripps research create single, clonable strand of DNA that folds into an octahedron A group of scientists at The Scripps Research Institute has designed, constructed, and imaged a single strand of DNA that spontaneously folds into a highly rigid, nanoscale octahedron that is several million times smaller than the length of a standard ruler and about the size of several other common biological structures, such as a small virus or a cellular ribosome.

Making the octahedron from a single strand was a breakthrough. Because of this, the structure can be amplified with the standard tools of molecular biology and can easily be cloned, replicated, amplified, evolved, and adapted for various applications. This process also has the potential to be scaled up so that large amounts of uniform DNA nanomaterials can be produced. These octahedra are potential building blocks for future projects, from new tools for basic biomedical science to the tiny computers of tomorrow.

...Shih and Joyce note that because all twelve edges of the octahedral structures have unique sequences, they are versatile molecular building blocks that could potentially be used to self-assemble complex higher-order structures.

As the evidence for evolution is clearly overwhelming, I see the evolution deniers are switching to the new "gap" of life's beginnings. Trying to find Joyce's work I found all sorts of sites proclaiming in essence, "Oh yeah? Well prove this then."

No worry, mate. Since the evidence is overwhelming it happened, scientific research will eventually provide the evidence of how exactly it occurred.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Ligation on an External RNA Template; Kathleen E. McGinness and Gerald F. Joyce; Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biology and The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA

Summary

Variants of the hc ligase ribozyme, which catalyzes ligation of the 3′ end of an RNA substrate to the 5′ end of the ribozyme, were utilized to evolve a ribozyme that catalyzes ligation reactions on an external RNA template. The evolved ribozyme catalyzes the joining of an oligonucleotide 3′-hydroxyl to the 5′-triphosphate of an RNA hairpin molecule. The ribozyme can also utilize various substrate sequences, demonstrating a largely sequence-independent mechanism for substrate recognition. The ribozyme also carries out the ligation of two oligonucleotides that are bound at adjacent positions on a complementary template. Finally, it catalyzes addition of mononucleoside 5′-triphosphates onto the 3′ end of an oligonucleotide primer in a template-dependent manner. The development of ribozymes that catalyze polymerase-type reactions contributes to the notion that an RNA world could have existed during the early history of life on Earth.

 

[cyborg]

What do you think?

Jesus is a hippy.

Only shocking to an evolutionarian.

Are so you are known as quite the dumbass amongst creationists.

Only if you want to be annoyed again.

Bring it.

Not quite. What I’m banging on about is that natural selection for evolving a gene de novo is nonexistent.

So? I don't give a crap about natural selection. I am interested in divine selection. I want to know how Jesus makes genes.

The sequence of events that leads to a new gene must be ofselective benefit to the creatures in which it is evolving in.

Rubbish. Jesus did it.

Perhaps you would be willing to explain how a partially completed gene would be a selective benefit to these creatures?

Absolutely not. I am with you. Clearly Jesus is responsible.

In particular would you explain to us how the partially completed genes which code for the DNA replicase proteins would be of benefit to the creatures in which these genes would be evolving?

No. Again you seem to fail to grasp the point here.

Then again dementia is an inevitable consequence of ageing. I guess it's really just not possible for you to understand any more. It is nice that the nursing home gives you Internet access though.

That's the only thing that could possibly explain why you are dancing around such a simple question.

I guess you can't tell the difference between a partially completed gene and a 'new' gene then? Is that the problem? You have to resort to flimsy qualitative arguments? Oh, how very persuasive of you. Maybe you'd like to me explain how rubbing the computer is of benefit to the evolving creatures as well?

The part you are having trouble grasping is that we are biologic machines and you are having difficulty in seeing design in these machines.

Speak for yourself. I'm a cyborg you moron.

You don’t seem to have difficulty in grasping the concept of an archeologist digging up a site and finding artifacts which show signs of intelligence in their construction or the SETI experiment looking for radio signals that do not appear to have a natural origin

When the hell did I say I don't have a problem with this? I hate Indiana Jones and Contact was a stupid movie.

but for living things, you have rejected the concept of design even when you are confronted with the mathematical impossibility of your own theory.

Mathematicians don't have the first clue what design looks like. That's all I can conclude from their programming abilities.

You haven't shown the mathematical impossibility of the theory. Namely you haven't got a mathematical definition for the de novo event so you cannot hope to show that it is impossible by any selection method - whatever one it is you want to show it is impossible for. (Free choice! Nothing to do with me! You get to choose the selection!) Merely running simulations is not enough. It is not hard proof and frankly you are not much of a mathematician if you think it is.

You know, algebra and that. Get some formulae together, jiggle them about, see what happens? It is clearly entirely possibly to model the simulation in this way.

I long ago acknowledged my error on this issue. Yet you bring it up again.

Yes. Why not? You refuse to do maths so there's not much left to do than to conclude you are a blow hard who can't. I'm simply presenting the evidence.

You will not win this discussion with these tactics.

I beg to differ.

What makes you so sure?

I'm a cyborg you retard. DUH.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

RNA STRUCTURE: Ribozyme Evolution at the Crossroads; Gerald F. Joyce

Review: In Search of an RNA Replicase Ribozyme; Kathleen E. McGinness1 and Gerald M. Joyce

The theory that an RNA world played a pivotal role in life's evolutionary past has prompted investigations into the scope of RNA catalysis. These efforts have attempted to demonstrate the plausibility of an RNA-based genetic system, which would require RNA molecules that catalyze their own replication. The mechanistic features of modern protein polymerases have been used to guide the laboratory evolution of catalytic RNAs (ribozymes) that exhibit polymerase-like activity. Ribozymes have been developed that recognize a primer-template complex in a general way and catalyze the template-directed polymerization of mononucleotides. These experiments demonstrate that RNA replicase behavior is likely within the catalytic repertoire of RNA, although many obstacles remain to be overcome in order to demonstrate that RNA can catalyze its own replication in a manner that could have sustained a genetic system on the early Earth.

I have discussed this work before and the argument was mainly that it hasn't been established yet how the RNA molecules initially occurred. I am not aware if that was a legitimate issue or not since I thought Joyce made a reasonable argument for the occurrence of the molecules. However, it's just one more "gap" and here is an example of it beginning to be filled in.

 

[hammegk]

Since the evidence is overwhelming it happened, scientific research will eventually provide the evidence of how exactly it occurred.

"It happened"? "exactly"?

Do your unproven and unprovable premises include "I, skeptigirl, am 100% certain god does not exist."? If not, why not? Don't you prefer a logically defensible worldview?

 

[John Hewitt]

RNA STRUCTURE: Ribozyme Evolution at the Crossroads; Gerald F. Joyce

Review: In Search of an RNA Replicase Ribozyme; Kathleen E. McGinness1 and Gerald M. JoyceI have discussed this work before and the argument was mainly that it hasn't been established yet how the RNA molecules initially occurred. I am not aware if that was a legitimate issue or not since I thought Joyce made a reasonable argument for the occurrence of the molecules. However, it's just one more "gap" and here is an example of it beginning to be filled in.

I am not sure to whom you are addressing this post but I find it unfortunate that you refer to links without explaining what you find relevant about them. I have explained before the severity of the problems in the RNA world theory.
My work circumvents those problems and I favour the theory that life began in a random primordial soup, not in a pH and temperature controlled test tube full of purified biochemicals purchased from Sigma. I also prefer my assumption that the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night, over your faith that there is just a tiny, little gap in your theory.

It really is not sensible to believe that an RNA replicator could have emerged, by chance, within the primordial oceans even though nobody can make such a thing in the controlled conditions of a laboratory.

 

[kjkent1]

The task, therefore, is to so construct evolutionary theory that one can describe an evolutionary process in a purely chemical environment and show how that process can lead to the kinds of phenomena we now identify as biology. That is one aspect of what I work on.

Sounds reasonable. What do you think of this hypothetical:

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/bio/lifestart/lifestart.htm#fp_organic

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"It happened"? "exactly"?

Do your unproven and unprovable premises include "I, skeptigirl, am 100% certain god does not exist."? If not, why not? Don't you prefer a logically defensible worldview?

I am 100% sure gods do not exist. I have presented my case in other threads. The basic premise is the only gods that could exist would need to either not interact with the Universe or hide their tracks. No religion describes such gods. Gods which interact with the Universe would be, by definition, detectable.

There have been no gods detected.

In addition, there is a more plausible explanation for belief in gods. That explanation is gods are a man-made construct.

You don't have to agree. You can also argue semantics or the philosophy of science not testing for gods. I prefer a more pragmatic view. Are you 100% certain there are no invisible pink unicorns in your closet? The semantics argument is with the words 'proof' and 100%. The philosophic argument is with proving a null hypothesis. It's fine to argue those concepts when one is discussing what preceded the Big Bang. But for all intents and purposes, it's useless to leave gods and invisible pink unicorns in one's optional beliefs.

As for evolution, yes it happened. When are you going to accept the overwhelming evidence if you haven't already? The theory of evolution is only being held to some absurd standard of evidence because the Bible believers cannot shift their paradigm. They did the same thing when it was discovered Earth wasn't exactly like the Bible described either.

It's hard to believe in a flat Earth since we can observe directly it's a sphere. I observe evolution in my field every time a drug resistant pathogen emerges.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am not sure to whom you are addressing this post but I find it unfortunate that you refer to links without explaining what you find relevant about them. I have explained before the severity of the problems in the RNA world theory.
My work circumvents those problems and I favour the theory that life began in a random primordial soup, not in a pH and temperature controlled test tube full of purified biochemicals purchased from Sigma. I also prefer my assumption that the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night, over your faith that there is just a tiny, little gap in your theory.

It really is not sensible to believe that an RNA replicator could have emerged, by chance, within the primordial oceans even though nobody can make such a thing in the controlled conditions of a laboratory.

I posted the discussion over about 5 posts. The edit feature was not working well so on some posts I edited and some I just added things in the following post. They were all together with one exception.

And the posts were mostly in response to kleinman.

 

[hammegk]

I am 100% sure gods do not exist.

Nice evasion. I'm 100% certain gods don't exist. The question concerned god.

No religion describes such gods. Gods which interact with the Universe would be, by definition, detectable.

Agreed. My discussion concerns the ontology one associates with the Universe (or Multiverse, perhaps). Are you 100% certain that what we have named matter/energy exists? I'm 100% certain thought exists.

There have been no gods detected.

Unknown. I haven't seen any such detection under the current rubric of science.

In addition, there is a more plausible explanation for belief in gods. That explanation is gods are a man-made construct.

Yup.

Are you 100% certain there are no invisible pink unicorns in your closet?

Why yes, I am, knowing the definition of both invisible and pink.

But for all intents and purposes, it's useless to leave gods and invisible pink unicorns in one's optional beliefs.

My question concerned god.

As for evolution, yes it happened. When are you going to accept the overwhelming evidence if you haven't already?

What part of available scientific evidence do you have faith I reject?

The theory of evolution is only being held to some absurd standard of evidence because the Bible believers cannot shift their paradigm. They did the same thing when it was discovered Earth wasn't exactly like the Bible described either.

I have no more faith in the Bible than you do.

It's hard to believe in a flat Earth since we can observe directly it's a sphere.

You're getting sillier as you go along.

I observe evolution in my field every time a drug resistant pathogen emerges.

Do you think I dispute those observed facts? I don't.