Origin of Life

[Av8torbob]

Yet you want to waste time of others if you can’t answer simple questions we do not know what you all ready know. People here no both sides better then you know the side you are on, like Aron says read the Bible cover to back and think critically. Will give an example

You really don't understand sarcasm, do you?

 

[*SD*]

This is getting beyond tiresome.

 

[We are Borg]

This is getting beyond tiresome.

Yes like so many before him.

@Av8torbob you are correct English is not my primary language.

 

[Av8torbob]

I have read the articles, and they all say that they could happen naturally with a materialistic explanation. Remember that is what you said you were looking for.

Keywords: “COULD happen”

Of course, anything COULD happen. But that is most certainly NOT what I asked for.

What I asked for (and still have not received) is peer-reviewed, repeatable, scientific evidence for the mechanisms and processes that led a couple of random amino acids to become information-rich, self-replicating DNA.

Not how they COULD have, but how they DID.

Not sure why this is so hard for you all to understand but I agree with the esteemed “Administrator” and forum-rule-breaker @*SD*, that it has become tiresome waiting for you to do so while you all PRETEND you already have. The only one who has even TRIED is @AronRa.

And, no, (in case he tries AGAIN), @he_who_is_nobody’s lame-ass Googling “Abiogenesis” and picking the first Wikipedia page that pops up doesn’t count as “trying.”

 

[We are Borg]

What I asked for (and still have not received) is peer-reviewed, repeatable, scientific evidence for the mechanisms and processes that led a couple of random amino acids to become information-rich, self-replicating DNA.

There are papers that explain how amino acid to tRNA from tRNA you go to DNA, i don’t think you can go from amino acid to DNA in one go. Also remember what i said about science its never 100% else we close our minds to change. If it works the hypothesis is kept if it doesn’t its discarded and you need to make a new hypothesis. But even when a hypothesis becomes a theory its never 100% we never want to close our minds we could be wrong or there could be things we missed. Like i said Einstein’s general relativity is not 100% complete we can use it and predict but we know for years its not 100% complete. So abiogenesis is a discovery there is not one but a few that could work and its to science that they narrow it done until they find the one that works. Same with the Big Bang its a discovery.

 

[Av8torbob]

There are papers that explain how amino acid to tRNA from tRNA you go to DNA, i don’t think you can go from amino acid to DNA in one go. Also remember what i said about science its never 100% else we close our minds to change. If it works the hypothesis is kept if it doesn’t its discarded and you need to make a new hypothesis. But even when a hypothesis becomes a theory its never 100% we never want to close our minds we could be wrong or there could be things we missed. Like i said Einstein’s general relativity is not 100% complete we can use it and predict but we know for years its not 100% complete. So abiogenesis is a discovery there is not one but a few that could work and its to science that they narrow it done until they find the one that works. Same with the Big Bang its a discovery.

You're having trouble with the "could"/"did" dichotomy again.

RNA first theory is a classic chicken-or-the-egg scenario. Where did you get the RNA to begin with?

Read this: https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-23

From the article, The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)

"From a biosynthetic – as well as, arguably, evolutionary – perspective, DNA is a modified RNA, and so the chicken-and-egg dilemma of 'which came first?' boils down to a choice between RNA and protein. This is not just a question of cause and effect, but also one of statistical likelihood, as the chance of two such different types of macromolecule arising simultaneously would appear unlikely."

• RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically.
• RNA is inherently unstable
• catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only
• the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You're a liar ... which is why I will be ignoring you going forward.

Well, that did not last long, now did it?



Look at that. You are not ignoring me. That being the case, it would behoove you to address this next time you respond to me:

I saw your argument from ignorance. What of it? Did you see where I addressed your points about oxygen and RNA? Did you see where AronRa and *SD* corrected your misunderstanding about the Miller-Urey experiment? Will you admit to being wrong about the Miller-Urey experiment never being reproduced and debunked?

You realize that running for unanswered questions does not work on a written forum, right?

Is English your second language maybe?

No.

You lied when you said I "called you a name." And you continue to tell the same lie.

I did not. I even quoted and emphasized your name-calling. Fascinating that you had to cut out my quoting of you, but what else would I expect from a faithless antagonist?

See, normally, name-calling is associated with ... well, with ... calling someone a name. Read the quote you shared. Where is the name I called you?

I emphasized it. Is English your second language?

Here ... since Wikipedia seems to define the extent of your knowledge on things, they have a page for that too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

Name-calling is a form of argument in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group.

Now we compare the definition to what you said:

He who Googles “abiogenesis” (because he’s apparently never heard the word before)

And the shoe fits. Wikipedia exceeds your knowledge yet again. But what else would I expect from a faithless antagonist?

You already used this. Do you just think it's hilarious or are you really out of material? At least you deepened your research capability from beyond Wikipedia to include GIFs. But they do have more than one, just so you know.

It got the job done, right?

This wasn't me. It was your rocket scientist buddy, @We are Borg ... It's so ridiculous I just chose to ignore it. Didn't want to make him feel bad ... but I'm not going to let you attribute it to me.

No shit, and I never attributed it to you. I quoted We are Borg and responded to him. Are you unaware of how forums work?

So, not only one response but two responses from Av8torBob after proclaiming he will ignore me. Amazing how that works.

Keywords: “COULD happen”

Of course, anything COULD happen. But that is most certainly NOT what I asked for.

That is precisely what you asked for:

I simply asked him to share the “series of facts supporting” a naturalistic/materialist explanation for abiogenesis (where inert matter became a self-replicating life form).

Since what you asked for was so quickly provided, are you trying to shift the goalposts?

What I asked for (and still have not received) is peer-reviewed, repeatable, scientific evidence for the mechanisms and processes that led a couple of random amino acids to become information-rich, self-replicating DNA.

You have gotten that several times from several different members of this forum. Yet, all you have done in the face of that is dismissed the evidence based on nothing more than your incredulity. You did make one positive argument but were quickly shown to be utterly wrong about it twice.

Not how they COULD have, but how they DID.

​

Not sure why this is so hard for you all to understand but I agree with the esteemed “Administrator” and forum-rule-breaker @*SD*, that it has become tiresome waiting for you to do so while you all PRETEND you already have. The only one who has even TRIED is @AronRa.

Again, we have provided the evidence several times, and you have only addressed it with your incredulity. The funny thing is your shifting of the goalposts is a tacit admission that what has been provided met what you were looking for, thus the change.

And, no, (in case he tries AGAIN), @he_who_is_nobody’s lame-ass Googling “Abiogenesis” and picking the first Wikipedia page that pops up doesn’t count as “trying.”

What exactly is wrong with Wikipedia? As my initial questions (and you keep ignoring) show, it already addresses two of your ignorant objections. First, you asked for peer-reviewed and repeatable evidence, and I linked to the citation page for Abiongenesis from Wikipedia. Is it because you are unaware of how Wikipedia works? Seeing how you are a novice in this topic (demonstrated by your ignorant take on Miller-Urey), maybe you should read the Wikipedia page and learn about this topic before pretending your incredulity is a meaningful argument.

 

[*SD*]

I float the motion that nobody responds to our newest Bob here until he starts answering questions. And by that I mean by actually answering the questions that have been asked of him, as opposed to simply writing some words and hitting the post reply button.

It's not like anyone reading this, even if they happen to be on his 'side' so to speak could ever form the opinion that he's an honest interlocutor anyway.

 

[*SD*]

@Av8torbob Bob? Bob! What happened? What happened to your profile picture? Don't leave us, Bob. Stay! Did you get a new haircut or something? Bob! Don't go!

 

[AronRa]

• RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically.
• RNA is inherently unstable
• catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only
• the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited.

And here I thought you'd buggered off somewhere. I guess I'll continue where I left off.

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 | ScienceDaily

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? | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

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 | WIRED

www.wired.com

If ribonucleotides come into contact with montmorillonite, they spontaneously produce strands of RNA, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664692/

Further laboratory experiments discovered a primordial soup that yields RNA bases. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02622-4

Activated RNA can replicate itself even without the usual enzyme. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4959843/

Scientists running a long-term RNA replication experiment witnessed the transition from a chemical system towards biological complexity when a single RNA type evolved into multiple variants in a complex replication system.

New Insight Into Possible Origins of Life: For the First Time Researchers Create an RNA Molecule That Replicates

scitechdaily.com

RNA also builds DNA. RNAs have enzymatic activity on their own that DNA lacks, and is an essential component in many cellular processes. Then there is the ribosome, which right in the name tells you that it is a ribonucleoprotein, and it's essential in protein synthesis, so it's everywhere.

Ribozymes: Catalytic RNAs that cut things, make things, and do odd and useful jobs - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Look at primase. Synthesis of a DNA strand is preceded by laying down a short stretch of RNA on single-stranded DNA to prime the activity of DNA polymerase. Or telomerase, an enzyme that carries an RNA template which is used to make the DNA at the ends of chromosomes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3770912/

Then there are spliceosomes. Introns are cut out of DNA by snRNPs (small ribonucleoproteins) that chop out and splice the DNA, and some of them are self-splicing -- just the RNA in the intron itself can cut itself out.

 

[We are Borg]

@AronRa dont think he will be back, deleted his own avatar and last seen 28 March.