-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Origin of Life
- Thread starter Av8torbob
- Start date
@AronRa
Uh ... nope. Maybe you didn't read these articles in full, or maybe you assumed I wouldn't. But, I did. And what I found are some attempts to add more detail to the story you keep telling. You can glean a few points from this (which I've highlighted in red). Please note that the research teams in question "designed self-folding molecules" which required prior molecules to function.
Also note the words "hope," "suggested," "could," "did not prove" etc. These illuminate the elements of the story being told. They certainly aren't proof that the story is true. Just that it might be. They hope so, anyway.
But I especially like the lead sentence of the third citation (in green). I could have SWORN that's what I said! In any case, I have to commend you for making a strong case for my point of view -- that every step of this process requires intelligent intervention to make it work.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intent though
______________
From the first citation:
A team around Ennio Zangrando from the University of Trieste, Italy, Piotr Chmielewski from the University of Wrocław, Poland, and Sijbren Otto from the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, has now designed a self-assembling, self-folding molecule
Although the building block molecule needs a nucleobase part to form macrocycles, it could accept various types such as adenine or guanine. The researchers are now exploring how modifying the monomer structure changes its self-assembly and folding behaviour for example to make bigger or smaller rings. They hope this will help them to design bespoke folded structures.
From the second citation:
The experiment did not prove that proteins were formed on primordial earth using primarily heat, but Fox and Kaoru Harada believed it suggested that if proteinoids could be synthesized using just heat and the amino acids formed from the Miller–Urey experiment, then more research could lead to an answer
From the third citation (I could only read the abstract):
Current theories on the origin of life reveal significant gaps in our understanding of the mechanisms that allowed simple chemical precursors to coalesce into the complex polymers that are needed to sustain life. The volcanic gas carbonyl sulfide (COS) is known to catalyze the condensation of amino acids under aqueous conditions, but the reported di-, tri-, and tetra-peptides are too short to support a regular tertiary structure.
So, @AronRa, before we move on -- by going back to the last step -- do you now admit that the "evidence" you're relying on is really just an attempt to tell a story about the origin of life? Are you willing to admit that each step in the process requires intelligent intervention by researchers to make it work?
Uh ... nope. Maybe you didn't read these articles in full, or maybe you assumed I wouldn't. But, I did. And what I found are some attempts to add more detail to the story you keep telling. You can glean a few points from this (which I've highlighted in red). Please note that the research teams in question "designed self-folding molecules" which required prior molecules to function.
Also note the words "hope," "suggested," "could," "did not prove" etc. These illuminate the elements of the story being told. They certainly aren't proof that the story is true. Just that it might be. They hope so, anyway.
But I especially like the lead sentence of the third citation (in green). I could have SWORN that's what I said! In any case, I have to commend you for making a strong case for my point of view -- that every step of this process requires intelligent intervention to make it work.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intent though
______________
From the first citation:
A team around Ennio Zangrando from the University of Trieste, Italy, Piotr Chmielewski from the University of Wrocław, Poland, and Sijbren Otto from the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, has now designed a self-assembling, self-folding molecule
Although the building block molecule needs a nucleobase part to form macrocycles, it could accept various types such as adenine or guanine. The researchers are now exploring how modifying the monomer structure changes its self-assembly and folding behaviour for example to make bigger or smaller rings. They hope this will help them to design bespoke folded structures.
From the second citation:
The experiment did not prove that proteins were formed on primordial earth using primarily heat, but Fox and Kaoru Harada believed it suggested that if proteinoids could be synthesized using just heat and the amino acids formed from the Miller–Urey experiment, then more research could lead to an answer
From the third citation (I could only read the abstract):
Current theories on the origin of life reveal significant gaps in our understanding of the mechanisms that allowed simple chemical precursors to coalesce into the complex polymers that are needed to sustain life. The volcanic gas carbonyl sulfide (COS) is known to catalyze the condensation of amino acids under aqueous conditions, but the reported di-, tri-, and tetra-peptides are too short to support a regular tertiary structure.
So, @AronRa, before we move on -- by going back to the last step -- do you now admit that the "evidence" you're relying on is really just an attempt to tell a story about the origin of life? Are you willing to admit that each step in the process requires intelligent intervention by researchers to make it work?
Last edited:
AronRa
Administrator
The question was "do you understand and accept the evidence I have shown so far?" The answer is obvious no because no. Pity. I don't know why believers don't understand that science is an investigation rather than a belief. Believers certainly don't understand how dishonest it is to assert baseless speculation as if it was a matter of fact. Instead, you're never allowed to proclaim absolute truth; everything has to be tentative and theoretical. Otherwise it loses credibility. If scientists made the sort of assertions that religious apologists do, they'd be accused of fraud. Creationists don't care about that because everything they believe in is fraudulent.@AronRa
Uh ... nope. Maybe you didn't read these articles in full, or maybe you assumed I wouldn't. But, I did. And what I found are some attempts to add more detail to the story you keep telling. You can glean a few points from this (which I've highlighted in red). Please note that the research teams in question "designed self-folding molecules" which required prior molecules to function.
Also note the words "hope," "suggested," "could," "did not prove" etc. These illuminate the elements of the story being told. They certainly aren't proof that the story is true. Just that it might be. They hope so, anyway.
But I especially like the lead sentence of the third citation (in green). I could have SWORN that's what I said! In any case, I have to commend you for making a strong case for my point of view -- that every step of this process requires intelligent intervention to make it work.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intent though
______________
From the first citation:
A team around Ennio Zangrando from the University of Trieste, Italy, Piotr Chmielewski from the University of Wrocław, Poland, and Sijbren Otto from the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, has now designed a self-assembling, self-folding molecule
Although the building block molecule needs a nucleobase part to form macrocycles, it could accept various types such as adenine or guanine. The researchers are now exploring how modifying the monomer structure changes its self-assembly and folding behaviour for example to make bigger or smaller rings. They hope this will help them to design bespoke folded structures.
From the second citation:
The experiment did not prove that proteins were formed on primordial earth using primarily heat, but Fox and Kaoru Harada believed it suggested that if proteinoids could be synthesized using just heat and the amino acids formed from the Miller–Urey experiment, then more research could lead to an answer
From the third citation (I could only read the abstract):
Current theories on the origin of life reveal significant gaps in our understanding of the mechanisms that allowed simple chemical precursors to coalesce into the complex polymers that are needed to sustain life. The volcanic gas carbonyl sulfide (COS) is known to catalyze the condensation of amino acids under aqueous conditions, but the reported di-, tri-, and tetra-peptides are too short to support a regular tertiary structure.
So, @AronRa, before we move on -- by going back to the last step -- do you now admit that the "evidence" you're relying on is really just an attempt to tell a story about the origin of life? Are you willing to admit that each step in the process requires intelligent intervention by researchers to make it work?
I didn't expect you to understand anything I presented so far, which is why you tried to find something, anything you could pretend to be wrong with it. I don't expect you to understand this next bit either. I asked whether you understood that "redox and pH gradients drive amino acid synthesis in iron oxyhydroxide mineral systems. Alanine and valine, two of the proteinogenic amino acids thought to be among the most abundant on a prebiotic earth, can polymerize into peptides." You tried to pretend that it didn't say what it says, but it actually does say that.
Another study showed that redox and pH gradients drive amino acid synthesis in iron oxyhydroxide mineral systems. Alanine and valine, two of the proteinogenic amino acids thought to be among the most abundant on a prebiotic earth, can polymerize into peptides.
Further studies show it is remarkably easy for peptides to subsequently assemble into ordered protein-like, two-dimensional structures – amyloids – from basic building blocks. This discovery supports the researchers’ hypothesis that primal life could have evolved from amyloids such as these.
Protein-like structures from the primordial soup
Experiments have shown that it is remarkably easy for protein-like, two-dimensional structures -- amyloids -- to form from basic building blocks. This discovery supports the researchers' hypothesis that primal life could have evolved from amyloids such as these.
www.sciencedaily.com
Because peptides can spontaneously form self-replicating protein structures in the presence of carbonyl sulphide.
Does This Explain the Origin of Life?
Two things certain to cause nightmares for creationists are: (1) fear of the discovery of life on some other world — especially intelligent life; and (2) fear that some godless scientists wil…
sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com
They can also dry into polypeptides, because some of these chemicals become increasingly complex after repeated cycles of inundation, dehydration and irradiation. Then once the right phosphate is involved, they become ribonucleotides.
Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory. Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might...
Again, do you understand and accept any or all of these three lists of facts in evidence for a natural formation of biochemistry?
Understand that evidence is a body of objectively verifiable facts that are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other. Abiogenesis is one hypothesis, and as you have already seen, (and will continue to see) it is supported by evidence. Creationism doesn't even count as an hypothesis, and it's not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Though you pretended at one time that it was, when you pretended that, just because I don't like it doesn't mean it isn't there. But you gave up that ruse once we asked to see what your alleged evidence was. Since you cannot and will not present even one fact in evidence of a supernatural creation to counter the several facts of natural origin that I have already presented, and that I will continue to show, will you now admit that your failure to produce anything ever isn't just because you don' wanna, but because you couldn't if you tried? Because you already knew you never had any evidence to begin with?
Science is never 100% complete because that would close our minds. Imagine that Newton said that his work was 100% and Einstein never continued on it. We know that Einstein general relativity is not 100% for a long time, its waiting until the next person comes and presents a better theory. Same with Evolution we still are learning and that is how it should be our knowledge as humans is growing and we understand far more then 100 years ago. If someone can disprove evolution in a scientific way he or she would win so many prizes, be on television, radio and can write books that will sell so much he/she would become rich.
That said believe never wants to change stuff in the Bible has been disproven like a dome, but will it be corrected no because insert reason. So while science is always trying to understand more. Believers especially some on like @Av8torbob wants no progress or understanding. I don’t believe in a God but for arguments sake lets say there is, i would say that God made a detective story for us to find how everything works. Later maybe travel beyond the stars like Star Trek.
Do you know the episode from Star Trek TNG - Devil’s Due https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Due_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) watch it a few times. A society that was on the brink of collapse and the devil came and made everything right. Could this be done here with God, so that people acted better?
That said believe never wants to change stuff in the Bible has been disproven like a dome, but will it be corrected no because insert reason. So while science is always trying to understand more. Believers especially some on like @Av8torbob wants no progress or understanding. I don’t believe in a God but for arguments sake lets say there is, i would say that God made a detective story for us to find how everything works. Later maybe travel beyond the stars like Star Trek.
Do you know the episode from Star Trek TNG - Devil’s Due https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Due_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) watch it a few times. A society that was on the brink of collapse and the devil came and made everything right. Could this be done here with God, so that people acted better?
I didn’t think so
Oh, don't worry, neither did we. We called it from the outset, we knew you wouldn't offer anything in support of your own position, you even admitted that. But instead of acknowledging your failings, which were predicted from the outset, you decided to complain about us, as if we'd done something wrong.
You've had ample time, didn't you say you would check in "periodically" ?
What does that mean to you? Never?
It's not all that "discombobulating" if you are capable of thinking clearly. Go read my last reply to @AronRa. I didn't just offer my opinion. I refuted his claims by quoting from the citations HE offered! No response from him, or anyone else for that matter, about the fact that the "studies" he cited are full of wishful thinking, "could be" explanations, and the necessity of intelligent intervention at every step to make their story sound like it works.
I have been checking back. It's not my fault you and all your smart-alec, keyboard warrior buddies can't respond to my last reply. When you do ... or when you admit that @AronRa's evidence is vacuous, I'll be glad to respond. But as long as all I get is your sarcastic nonsense, I have nothing to respond to.
Methinks the gentleman protesteth too much
I know you have. Sorry you aren't as smart as Alec.
As for keyboard warrior, I'll debate you on voice, with webcam if you like? No of course you don't like.
But you have had responses to your last reply, this is just a factual statement as evidenced by anyone who can read this thread...
Once again, you prove my point.
Who the fuck do you think you're kidding, @Av8torbob ?
@AronRa replied to your post March 13th, you didn't respond. Then @We are Borg also replied 17th March, it's all on the screen. You replied to neither.
@AronRa replied to your post March 13th, you didn't respond. Then @We are Borg also replied 17th March, it's all on the screen. You replied to neither.
This from the "Administrator" demands that everyone "READ THE RULES!"
From the "rules" ...
- Be civil and polite to other users, even when you really disagree with them! Mutual respect is important.
Dear "Administrator,"
When I get a response that addresses the specific points I made in my post quoting @AronRa's citations, I will be happy to respond.
Lemme guess, you think it's ad hominem don't you?!
For such a highly esteemed "Administrator," you seem to have problems understanding simple English -- including the very "RULES" you claim to enforce (but only on everyone else, apparently).
Please show me where I labeled this an ad hominem? I'll wait ...
FYI, this is an example of a different thing. It's what we call, H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-C-Y
You don't seem to understand that whilst I'm an "administrator" I'm allowed to contribute to threads and conversations. Actually, you do understand that, but you're going to pretend you don't, just like you've been pretending the whole time you've been here that you had something of substance to offer.
When I'm posting as an administrator I'll let you know, chap.
Until then, I'm posting as a member.
When I'm posting as an administrator I'll let you know, chap.
Until then, I'm posting as a member.