So much for that 9th commandment

[Sparhafoc]

I missed that part. A bigot is "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." I tolerate your opinion. I just disagree vehemently. Only one of us wants the other's opinions censored in public and is trying to get into public office to do that. Only the worst kind of human being believes in censorship. You want to shut off my end of the debate in any way you can and you show that in every piece of art you make. You'd be burning Bible's by the thousands if you could. That's a bigot.

Any evidence for all this character assassination?

Where has AronRa tried to censor your opinions?

I was under the impression he actively invited you here so that you could discuss your opinion with him - that doesn't seem to tally with the picture you're trying to paint here.

For the record.. I called you a fraud not because I am intolerant of you or your beliefs but because I believe you are wrong and dishonest. I served my country to prove I believe that you have a right to your opinion. I would risk my life to defend your right to speak your mind in public and I hate what you do... but I would die to defend your right to do it.

i) calling someone a fraud doesn't look like you give two hoots about opinions, and as it's an accusation, you need to support it with material evidence. Otherwise, tossing out such labels is just a discoursive strategy, which according to your own definition would thereby be dishonest, and consequently make you the target of your own labels.

ii) you didn't serve your country to protect peoples' opinion; that's garbled ideological bollocks. Not one action you ever took preserved AronRa's opinion.

iii) if you want to be seen as a defender of free speech and free thought, then perhaps it would be better not to call people names for expressing their free speech and thought?

And I called you a coward because at least five of my answers to your original debate request disappeared from youtube. It left it looking like I simply ran away from your original challenge. Maybe that was a coincidence, not sure. If it was then you're not a coward. Only you know for sure.

That's how tenuous it is.

Firstly, you call him a fraud because you 'believe' he is wrong and dishonest, then you call him a 'coward' because you can't find some of the comments you made on YT. Neither of your reactions follows logically - really, it looks like you're just trying to justify acting like an asshole.

The way you've written the last accusation looks particularly mendacious, allow me to exemplify:

I don't know if you're a pedophile, but if you aren't sexually aroused by kids, then ok. Only you know for sure.

It's still an accusation, only the way it's framed puts maximal doubt on the target, frames their potential innocence as being unknowable, and allows you to assume their guilt.

If you can't support your accusation, how about not fucking making an accusation in the first place?

Sorry pal, you're not winning anything here so far acting like this.

I stand by everything else I said....

That is about as helpful as sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA

and again, one by one we can do this but your jamming, spamming, gish galloping only proves you can't stand the weight of specific critical assessment on any one specific point in prolonged debate.

None of which is evident to anyone else except you, but interestingly, you are using these accusations instead of engaging in substantive debate, suggesting you are projecting here.

This was what the posts that disappeared from youtube said.

Post you assert you made, but which no one actually knows the truth of. So if we're playing the insinuate and accuse game, shouldn't you be just as much open to those insinuations and accusations?

I mean, normally I would suggest there could be some technical error, or even user error - but given your discursive strategy so far, wouldn't it be more apposite to call you a liar and dismiss the notion that you ever made such posts?

Or is sauce only for the goose?

If your willing to take on all comers then lets do this and to the end. If not then don't make excuses and just say you won't but don't act sanctimonious like someone who is deigning to speak to me because the only things you have proved so far is that you have little or no formal education and are perfectly willing to accuse Jews of supporting child sacrifice, slavery and evil with a religion they practice today. They call that anti-semitism. That's a bigot.

Your sentence doesn't know when to end.

Any chance there's some evidence for this paragraph's accusation?

Can you quote AronRa accusing Jews of supporting child sacrifice? Or is there a slim chance that he said nothing of the sort and you've made it all up?

 

[Collecemall]

Any chance there's some evidence for this paragraph's accusation?

Can you quote AronRa accusing Jews of supporting child sacrifice? Or is there a slim chance that he said nothing of the sort and you've made it all up?

I suspect he's referring to some sort of discussion of child sacrifice in the Bible. I'm not an expert by any means but there are situations where child sacrifice is either encouraged, demanded (see Abraham) or not condemned when other sacrifices were used in substitution. As Abraham ended up doing. Which isn't saying the better sacrifice wouldn't have been the child. Only that god can take animal death instead of human death as a passable replacement. Off the top of my head I can't place the other stories. John Loftus had a brief section on this. I'll paste it below.

"When it comes to child sacrifice, it was actually commanded by God. In Exodus
22:29-30 we read: "You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and
from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me.
You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with
its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me." Later on God admitted he did this
in Ezekiel 20:25-26 where he purportedly said: "Moreover I gave them statutes that
were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them
through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might
horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD" (see note).19 The context of the Exodus passage just quoted above concerns offerings and
sacrifices, and it says God requires that firstborn sons are to be literally sacrificed to
him. Hence, unlike other passages where there is the possibility of redemption with
a substitute sacrifice (cf. Exod. 13:13; 34:10-20), none is stated there. The concept
of "redemption" is an interesting one that goes hand in hand with child sacrifice,
because animals were substituted for the firstborn. Yet that says nothing against the
idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child himself, and many people in the
Old Testament did just that.Circumcision was probably a substitutionary child sacrifice (Exod. 4:24). Child sacrifice was probably only considered evil when it was
done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely
because it was offered toanother deity (Lev. 20:2, 18:21; Dent. 12:31, 18:10; 2
Kings 17:17, 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3, 33:4-10; Ps. 106:38; Isa. 57:5, 6; Jer. 7:31,
32:35; Ezek. 16:20, 21, 20:26, 31, 23:37, 39; Acts 7:43). Child sacrifice was something that several biblical people either did, or assisted
others in doing so. Abraham was not morally repulsed by the command itself and
there is no command against this practice there by God (Genesis 22). Then there is
Jepthah who sacrificed his daughter because of a stupid vow (Judges 11); David (2
Sam. 21:7-9); Solomon and his wives (1 Kings 3:16); Ahab (1 Kings 16:33-34);
Ahaz (2 Kings 16:2-3); Hoshea (2 Kings 17:7); and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6). It was a problem for King Josiah (2 Kings 23:10), for Jeremiah (Jer.
7:30-31; 19:35; 32:35), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:20-21; 20:25-26, 30-31). The
prophet Micah wonders if he should sacrifice his oldest son "as a sin offering"
(6:6-8). It was a practice so prevalent when offered to foreign gods, that it is named
as one of the reasons God sent the Babylonians to conquer Israel and forcibly take
many of them as captives (2 Kings 17:16-18). We even read where the King of
Moab sacrificed his son, which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab's sacrifice created a great "wrath" (ketzef), which was an external force to the warriors in
the story, indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab
(2 Kings 3:26-27). In the New Testament God the Father sacrifices his only son
(Jesus) as the central redemptive act of Christianity, and God still seeks to fulfill his
lust for human sacrifice by burning humans forever in the lake of fire."

If you'll read closely God even admits he did it so that he could horrify them. I have no interest in listening to or responding to apologetics for this. I just thought it might help you understand why it was possibly brought up and why it would be an issue. I hope this is semi clear. Late and I'm half asleep.

 

[Sparhafoc]

If you'll read closely God even admits he did it so that he could horrify them. I have no interest in listening to or responding to apologetics for this. I just thought it might help you understand why it was possibly brought up and why it would be an issue. I hope this is semi clear. Late and I'm half asleep.

I am not sure that amounts to what MatthewLee charged AronRa with.

you... are perfectly willing to accuse Jews of supporting child sacrifice, slavery and evil with a religion they practice today.

I mean, I am perfectly willing to accuse Bronze Age proto-Jews (and early Iron Age) of child sacrifice, but there's a wealth of difference between that and claiming modern day Jews support child sacrifice. I expect the distinction was perfectly clear in the first instance of this discussion and it isn't being represented fairly.

But I do very much want to know because if it is not being represented fairly, then it presents a rather different vision of the barrage of accusations.

 

[AronRa]

On Christmas day, a Christian cranked out a 10,000 word post accusing me of Gish-galloping. :roll: This after I already told him twice that I had given him more time than I had left to spare this month. Fortunately this thread will sit until I can pick it up again, because I will not be able to reply with the same obsessive compulsive fervor. Y'all are welcome to continue the discussion, but it will be the middle of January before I can join in again. I have another video and an interview to complete by the end of this week. Next week and the week after that I'll be in Europe giving a presentation that is not yet ready, nor am I. So I'm working on that this week too-while moving my daughter into a new apartment three hours away. Those are my priorities right now, but I will continue this once I'm back in the states.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This is going to be a pointless waste of both our times if we keep debating dozens of points at a time. Can we stick to one point at a time because neither of us has this kind of time. And it's getting confusing.

I do agree that cutting down the topic to a few subjects will help the flow of this discussion. However, since AronRa has already said he will not be able to return to this until the middle of January, Perhaps you should take the lead on this and pick the main topic and start from there?

 

[MatthewLee]

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused i

Wiki/Gish Gallop

 

[AronRa]

Just so I don't keep people waiting, maybe I'll just answer one bit at a time. I get the feeling that Matt Lee is grasping at straws and clinging tenaciously to them, though he doesn't seem to realize that. I also get the impression that he will not concede any error and will always only ever rudely criticize me whenever he doesn't understand what I'm talking about. It had been suggested that I divide Matt's rant against me into sections, so I'll start with the first one.

The original start of this debate was my assertion that you “Gish Gallop” if you recall.

Yes. Ironic that a creationist would accuse me of using a tactic named for the creationist who invented it. But then creationists also commonly refer to atheism as a religion having faith in science. So the projection is not really that surprising.

Gish gallop [named for Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research] is a term for a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

That is clearly NOT what I have done at any time, neither in my conversation with you, nor in the Australian interview where you first complained about this. I do interviews myself for my podcast, and I've been interviewed many times, sometimes for documentary films. So I have experience from both sides. I will explain again what you missed or ignored before. The interviewer isn't trying to "get a word in edge-wise". An interview is not a debate. The one being interviewed should do the lion's share of the talking. People watch interviews to hear the one being interviewed, not the one doing the interview.

Secondly, I never tried to flood you with arguments. I didn't even make arguments. I stated facts and I did that in response to your charges and questions. I would not state those facts if I didn't already know from vast past experience that I certainly can defend their accuracy, and you will see me demonstrate that as we proceed. If you ask dozens of questions, you'd better expect dozens of answers.

You have posted dozens of conclusions. Each of these conclusions would require paragraphs to unpack and to disprove… which I assure you that many may be quite substantively.

No, you will not be able to disprove anything I've said, not one thing, but I can and already have disproved a number of things that you've said.

It would take a book to show not just why what much of what you said was wrong but to disprove it with substantive citation.

As your 10,000+ word post to me shows, you would write a book just to complain about how you disagree with me, but you can't disprove anything I've said. I think your strategy was to overwhelm me, and if I properly address every point or query as I should, then you accuse me Gish-galloping even though that's obviously not what I did.

Each time you make a claim you have not substantiated with academic citation from a resource higher than you then you are relying on your own authority which you have admitted is not established by anything the world uses to establish these things. Stuff like degrees and teaching certificates.

Once again, I don't assert anything on my authority. The truth is what the facts are whether the one presenting them has a degree or not. But I am beginning to see your problem. One of the likely reasons you're religious and I'm not is that I base my position on the facts regardless of authority while you base your position on authority regardless of the facts. That's why you still believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible even though we can prove that none of the important parts ever happened as described.

Your conclusions are, on the whole, poorly formed and only a handful of them cited with anything close to a useful or comprehensive resource you could even use in a freshman research paper. I’ve written more than a few.

This coming from the guy who categorically denies mainstream science and wasn't even aware of any of the matters of scripture that I've had to point out to you either. You apparently knew nothing at all about comparative mythology. So I shared some details with you. I realize these things are not taught in your apologetics, but that's not my fault and it's not a mark against me. It's my advantage over you. You could have looked up any of those names to prove that I'm right, but you didn't do that. If you doubted any of them and asked for a reference, I would have readily provided them, as I have every other time you've asked for such things. You're just so desperate to find fault to accord with your obvious prejudice that this just another straw for you to clutch.

I think you are prone to claim victory a bit too early. First of all… nowhere in your answer did you come close to verifying you original statement which was “RNA builds DNA.” You cited two research publications which were stating hypotheses and attempting to substantiate the need for further review of them with some very good evidence… none of which specifically showed a pathway directly from RNA to DNA without intermediates or incredibly complex mechanisms we can demonstrate happen in nature now or could happen outside of a laboratory which can only speculate on the prebiotic conditions of several billion years ago.

Now you're criticizing the research because it indicates intermediates? Why is any and every evident reality such a problem for you?

It showed some possible pathways through complex and yet unproven routes which would have be verified by peer analysis… and you showed none of the peer review criticism which I assume you read as well before accepting this paper as gospel. Doesn’t science require peer review?

Yes science requires peer-review, but if something is evidently correct, why would it be criticized? Criticism comes when scientists find a flaw and publish to point it out. If no one can find a flaw, then they can't contest the study and wouldn't want to.

Can you post one objection to the posted literature or does it represent the generally accepted factual theory accepted by all biology universally? Or is it just an abstract on one possible hypothesis?

The RNA-world hypothesis is apparently the one that is overwhelmingly accepted, as you'll see in a moment.

“At this point, I had not realized that the quote I gave actually was talking about a computer program. I'm not a programmer, and Matt has already exhausted more of my time than anyone deserves. So I admit I didn't read his last couple posts thoroughly enough. But I obviously wasn't getting classroom biology lessons from a computer programming course. I said that my instructors said that RNA and builds DNA and I showed Matt a video explaining how. But he already knows about the central dogma, so he surely already knows about messenger RNA. Yet he's still asking me to explain that. Why?”

How did you miss the fact that you said “The RNA command…” in the beginning of your quoted assertion of evidence?

I had no suspicion that he might be talking about computer coding. I'm not a programmer, so I wouldn't have recognized the meaning of command. For all I know, geneticists might use that lingo.

I am unaware of any RNA command in the process of replication or transcription. You posted a quote from the resource you cited meaning you read neither the quote nor even fully understood exactly what you posted.

You asked me for a course number or a syllabus or a hand-out or the name of my professor to prove that he used the sentence "RNA builds DNA" in his explanation of the ways RNA contributes to the synthesis of constituent DNA. You even asked for a transcript to verify my grade! All your requests were absurd and none of them would produce what you said you were looking for. The only thing you'd be satisfied by is some authority (in this case, a biologist) saying that RNA builds DNA. So having heard that expressed a few times before, I thought that's what I found for you.

“Once again, I repeat, I am obviously NOT contradicting the central dogma. My previous explanations and videos demonstrate that. The evidence that my video did in fact present and which you somehow missed despite repeatedly viewing it thoroughly described how "Scientists had already shown that by dripping solutions of amino acids or RNA nucleotides onto a particular type of clay it produced polymers. Nucleotide precursors spontaneously assembled into RNA strands, even without the help of enzymes or ribosomes".

So my statement still holds that :
“You also failed to prove that RNA can spontaneously self-replicate (with or without enzyme in your words) outside of tightly controlled laboratory circumstances.”

As was explained in the experiment, they were duplicating natural conditions of the pre-biotic earth, natural conditions that don't currently exist on this planet but were the natural conditions once a time. That fact satisfies your request.

I also think that the experiment you cite was a bit more complex than just dripping amino acids onto clay.

So now you're insinuating that I was lying when I said that "by dripping solutions of amino acids onto hot, dry sand, clay, or rock, researchers have shown that the amino acids will hook together without the help of enzymes". Yet you're obviously wrong about this too, and it's obvious that I'll never get that apology you promised me.

I believe the resource you posted to this end suggests a far more complex and hard to reproduce process than occurs in nature and it required tweaking by scientists such as in the next quote.

“I guess you thought I was lying when I said that, but you should figure out pretty quickly that I don’t lie. That “particular type of clay” is montmorillonite. “It catalyses the formation of oligomers of RNA that contain monomer units from 2 to 30–50. Oligomers of this length are formed because this catalyst controls the structure of the oligomers formed and does not generate all possible isomers. ...This montmorillonite serves as an efficient catalyst for the formation of RNA oligomers, if the exchangeable cation is an alkali or an alkaline earth metal ion. ...Changing the phosphate-activating group from imidazole to 1-methyladenine resulted in the formation of 40–50 mers of A or U in 1–3 days without the need of a primer. These advances were important because they generated longer oligomers with the capability of storing more genetic information as well as having enhanced catalytic capability. ...The formation of two identical copies of the same 50 mer would require the synthesis of 1054 RNAs weighing 1034 g. Two RNAs may be required to catalyse the synthesis of the other. Catalysis provides a solution to this problem of RNA oligomers.

First off, did you miss the part in the posted citation right at the beginning where it says “Indeed, if life originated on Earth, then little is known about the chemical processes that initiated the first life.”

Yes, I caught that, and unlike you, I understand it. I even explained that in my abiogenesis video, another important detail you overlooked. Yet another one is the fact that duplicating natural conditions does not make them unnatural. By your logic, the level of difficulty in creating a natural oceanic environment in a salt water aquarium would call into question whether the oceans could really exist.

Next, to disprove my assertion that this does not happen in nature show me WHERE IT HAPPENS IN NATURE and not just under guided and tightly controlled laboratory conditions. Do you have evidence that this has ever been witnessed in nature under natural conditions without any interference from scientific manipulation? This only suggests that some scientist think it is hypothetically possible which is a far cry from your absolute statement about how we know that “RNA builds DNA” which does not occur directly in any of the literature you posted.

You're asking me to show where non-scientists witnessed the formation of macromolecules on a beach somewhere but without microscopes or any of the necessary means of controlling conditions to verify this, is that right?

“This is according to Montmorillonite-catalysed formation of RNA oligomers: the possible role of catalysis in the origins of life. Since you wouldn't take my word for it before, and imagined that I could just make up something like this, are you now satisfied that I have provided sufficient evidence to show that I was telling the truth?”

Not remotely. Do you know what an oligomer is and how far it is from a fully formed and reproducible strand of RNA with any meaningful genetic information of any kind?

So first you said that RNA was never spontaneously generated, and now you seem to be admitting that it was, but you think it doesn't count because the initial strands weren't very long?

You asserted absolute certainty. This paper is even self-described by its author as a discussion and is still under serious peer review which you can read at the footnotes. Did you miss the part in the title where it says the “POSSIBLE” role of… This is still miles off from disproving anything I requested proof of. Proof of something is not showing that it is “possible.”

Funny that you say that since you're a creationist arguing for things that are IMpossible. :lol: Remember I told you before the first step in this is to show that what you suggest is actually possible.

“I took my biology classes at the University of Texas at Dallas. I don't remember the instructor's name; nor would that matter either today or all those years ago. Nor would a syllabus or hand-out detail all the lessons and certainly not everything the instructor every said.”

Taking one, two or even three biology course still would not provide you with the requisite knowledge of physics, chemistry and other disciplines to be able to fully understand the depth of the conclusion you are proposing.

Yet I've only taken a few relevant college courses and clearly understand the depth of the conclusion you think I'm proposing. Again it's funny that you say these things because my only mistake with you was that I gave you too much credit. I assumed you knew at least as much as I did, both about biology and comparative religion. However having seen your performance since then, I have learned not to expect so much from you again.

Surely at least one resource (textbook?) would reiterate something you say was REGULARLY SAID but that I can find nowhere else. I grant you that if you took it a long time ago then it make sense that it was hard to find material which reiterates this from the original course. I can accept that perhaps you have no corroborative evidence of the course you took but you still have failed to demonstrate the claim from accepted scientific canon.

Canon? Again that's funny.

Since you don't care what the facts are and only accept arguments from authority, I emailed the following to a couple of biologist friends on YouTube:

"In an online argument in a discussion forum, I was trying to explain the RNA world hypothesis. I said that "RNA builds DNA" referring to the RNA primer, mRNA and tRNA all having different roles in the reproduction of DNA strands as well as actually building the building blocks of DNA, and that this is what lead scientists to believe that RNA built the first DNA way back when.

My interlocutor insists that no one ever said that "RNA builds DNA" and that I am a liar and a fraud for saying so. How would you address that comment?"

C0nc0rdance is PhD biologist who co-hosted a regular podcast with me years ago. He responded thus:

The really heavy tech background:
My work in grad school was on retroviruses, which have a viral RNA genome that they reverse transcribe into proviral DNA once they're established in the cell, either integrated into the host genome, or floating in the nucleus as an episome; so the ways that RNA can act as a template for DNA are something I know well. We also worked on viral nucleotide 'metabolism' (dUTPase) for infecting terminally differentiated cells, which is relevant here. Fully mature cells (not stem cells) accumulate deoxyuridine (dUTP) through the deamination of deoxycytodine, which can be incorporated into either DNA or RNA, but dUTP acts as a "wobble base", producing non-Watson/Crick base pairing with G or A. Any retrovirus that infects fully mature cells has to have a strategy to deal with misincorporation of non-standard nucleotides. This work on nucleotide metabolism has implications for RNA World to DNA switchover. Some modern enzymes and ribozymes have no ability to discriminate between deoxyribose (DNA) and ribose (RNA) forms of nucleotides. Ribose is slightly more reactive/unstable and more susceptible to degradation under basic conditions (opposite of acidic). That makes RNA better as an enzyme catalyst, but worse as a storage medium. DNA would have made a poorer enzyme, but a more long-lived place to keep successful genes. Once dUTPase evolved (and we know it evolved very, very early in evolutionary history), DNA and RNA became forever separated into distinct functions. It's a key event in the history of life on Earth, just as much as the formation of a cell membrane or the emergence of peptide enzymes.

My dissertation was on the significance of dUTPase in viral evolution, particularly in the non-primate lentiviruses (FIV, EIAV, CAEV).

The simplified answer:
Early enzymes and ribozymes likely lacked any specificity to DNA and RNA, and occasionally produced mixed RNA/DNA hybrids. These hybrids would have been slightly unfavored, leading to increased specificity of enzymes. RNA is a more reactive, efficient enzyme with stability problems, while DNA is a more stable molecule but can't be used for many of the metabolic processes occupied by RNA. Over time, DNA became the sequence template, and RNA the functional molecule that plays the role of actor. I think it might be more accurate to say that today they make each other in an endless cycle, with RNA emerging first by virtue of its advantage as an active agent of metabolism (as in tRNA, primases, mRNA). In the case of the "chicken and the egg" question with RNA and DNA, there is no doubt that the RNA came first. No-one in this field thinks otherwise, to my knowledge.

Further reading from a proponent of the Follman/FeS Origin Hypothesis comes this paper, which incorporates elements of the RNA World and DNA transition, which restates what I just said.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284482/
"Let us now consider the origin of DNA in detail. The conversion of ribonucleotides into deoxyribonucleotides by a radical mechanism may have occurred very early, perhaps soon after the appearance of ribonucleotides. It has been suggested that the required thiyl radicals were formed pre-enzymatically with FeS/H2S [119] (Follmann theorem). The deoxyribonucleotides would then have infiltrated an already existent process for the formation of oligoribonucleotides to generate mixed oligo-ribo/deoxyribo-nucleotides. Whenever a position vulnerable to self-cleavage by 2’-OH would have come to be occupied by a deoxyribonucleotide a possibility for self-cleavage would have been eliminated and the resulting co-oligomer would have acquired a correspondingly extended half-life. In this manner a natural dichotomy would have arisen between more and more stable co-oligomers with more and more deoxynucleotide units and oligoribonucleotides. Eventually this dichotomy would gravitate towards the DNA/RNA dichotomy, which is from the start a dichotomy between essentially transient catalytic RNA with half-life on a short-term metabolic time scale and hereditary DNA with half-life on an increasingly long-term geologic time scale.

Another distinctive feature of DNA, the use of 5-methyl-uracil or thymine (T) instead of its functional equivalent uracil (U), is also related to the thermo-stability problem. The base cytosine (C) undergoes facile deamination at a rate that increases with increasing temperature and increasing deviation of pH from neutrality [120]. In DNA such deamination is readily corrected by a base excision repair mechanism that distinguishes non-native U from native T and replaces U by C. RNA never had to acquire such repair mechanism, because it serves as transient catalyst with a high rate of turnover. Moreover, in RNA such deamination replaces the base pair GC by the base pair GU, which is weaker than GC but still operational for stabilizing RNA folding structures. For repairing the deamination of adenine (A) and guanine (G) the base excision repair mechanism is immediately applicable, because the deamination products hypoxanthine (H) and xanthine (X) do not occur in DNA and are readily recognizable as alien bases.

In extant metabolisms two different thymidylate synthases (ThyA, ThyX) convert 2’-deoxyuridine-5’-monophosphate (dUMP) into 2’-deoxythymidine-5’-monophosphate (dTMP) [121,122] (followed by double phosphorylation). Both enzymes use CH2=H4folate as CH3-source for U → T conversion. For methylations of other bases, e.g., cytosine, the CH3-source is S-adenosyl-methionine (AdoMet). These two methyl sources are located at the two extreme ends of a C1-reduction cascade: CH2=H4folate → CH3-H4folate → CH3-Co (Methylcobalamin) → Methionine → Ado-Met. By the rule of Florkin and Granick [57,58,59] we conclude that methylation with CH2=H4folate has greater antiquity than methylation with AdoMet and that it goes back to a time long before LUCA. Methylation with CH2=H4folate requires a reducing agent. ThyX utilizes an electron transport from NADPH to the flavin shuttle (FAD → FADH2) and from there by hydride transfer to U, thereby converting U to a U-carbanion intermediate. ThyA generates the required U-carbanion through nucleophilic attack by a Cys-S− group, where after it utilizes CH2=H4folate as CH3-source and as reducing agent, thereby generating H2folate. In view of its sulfur catalysis and the obviation of a reducing chain ThyA is considered to be older than ThyX. We may even surmise that the conversion U → T emerged before the advent of AdoMet.

Early DNA must have had U as a canonical base and to this day there are viruses with uracil-DNA [123]. How could the sophisticated U → T-conversion/U-excision system have come about? A pre-existent enzyme for the excision of xanthine or hypoxanthine may have been recruited for the removal of U by discriminating faulty U-G base pairs from proper U-A base pairs. Poor U-G/U-A selectivity may have been the driving force for the U → T conversion by ThyA or by a simpler precursor thereof, which led to the more facile discrimination of faulty U-G base pairs from proper T-A base pairs. For a while there may have been competitive incorporation of U and T by dUTP and dTTP. This competition was irreversibly eliminated when the enzyme dUTPase emerged and started to purge the cell of any dUTP [123]."

“ But if we were to ask whether he ever said that "RNA builds DNA" or words to that effect, we can determine that from other sources. Since we were talking about abiogenesis at that time, I was referring to the "RNA-first" or "RNA world" hypothesis, which is based on the fact that some of the most primitive quasi-living cells have only RNA while others may have both RNA and DNA. So referencing the Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries, I can cite peer-reviewed literature saying that: "DNA can be considered as a modified form of RNA, since the “normal” ribose sugar in RNA is reduced into deoxyribose in DNA, whereas the “simple” base uracil is methylated into thymidine. In modern cells, the DNA precursors (the four deoxyribonucleoties, dNTPs) are produced by reduction of ribonucleotides di- or triphosphate by ribonucleotide reductases (fig. 1). The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution".

You said that the phrase was regularly said in your class and implied it was accepted biological canon. You have failed to prove this remotely in any meaningful way.

Because I never said any such thing. I said it was "commonly" phrased that way when students were talking about the various ways that RNA participates both in the replication of DNA strands and in the construct of the building blocks of DNA.

Building blocks are not fully formed DNA. To amend the original statement or to try and qualify it is to admit it is wrong. If DNA is a modified form of RNA then you might get away with “DNA is built OF RNA” but it still does not in any way verify the idea that “RNA builds DNA”

Again, when I said that, we were talking about the RNA-world hypothesis, and I was making reference not only to the different roles of RNA primer, mRNA and tRNA in DNA replication but also the synthesis of DNA from building blocks leading out of an exclusively RNA world.

“Note that the word "synthesis" means "to compose or build". So here we have a handful of professional biologists, (Patrick Forterre, Jonathan Filée, and Hannu Myllykallio) saying that RNA builds DNA. This isn't just in the hypothetical RNA-world but right now today. I've already explained that in the biology lesson that I shared with you, and you've already explained it too.”

So here we have a handful of scientists saying that RNA can compose the building blocks of DNA. That’s a long way from consensus which you state openly is extant. I can make bricks… that doesn’t mean I made a building. There is a serious logical step missing from you even proving this incredibly direct and simple claim and if you can’t see that you are being disingenuous...

The issue here is not what I'm not seeing...

“Remember, I thought you knew this. It took me a while to figure out what your conceptual problem was. Now I think I've figured out that you thought I was saying that RNA builds DNA out of nothing out of base components in the absence of existing DNA. No, as I already explained in my video (why else would I show it to you?) I'm obviously aware that at this time we begin with DNA. Otherwise why would I have explained that in my videos? But different forms of RNA play a number of roles in building DNA back especially from the "building blocks". This is another reason so many scientists suspect that RNA came before DNA and that the origin of DNA was that it was constructed by RNA--because it still is to some degree.”

Where in nature, right now, is DNA constructed by RNA? Directly. Not with the use of enzymes but directly from DNA.

OK you want me to show you what I was talking about, but not what I was talking about. Right. Except that RNA primers were part of that.

Show me ONE kind of RNA which builds DNA in the way that say, an enzyme like polymerase does. We are not talking about obscure language. The word BUILD is not a hard one.

Professor P.Z. Myers PhD is a geneticist and developmental biologist who has shared a stage with me many times. He responded to my email thus:

I might point them to this short review of ribozymes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3770912/
RNAs have enzymatic activity on their own that DNA lacks, so as you mentioned RNA is an essential component in many cellular processes. I might also have mentioned 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.

As for the RNA makes DNA argument, specifically: 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.

Or show them 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.


RNA is pretty impressive stuff.

“When I accidentally cited a computer programmer saying "RNA builds DNA", yes he was talking about a program they designed... to be consistent with nature. Why else would they design it that way?”

So your saying that the designers of the program used the RNA command to build DNA models because that’s how it’s done in nature?

If the model has no correlation to reality, why make a model at all?

Convenience would be the easiest answer considering that you have still failed to prove that RNA BUILDS DNA. I am not being obtuse. Your claim is basic and you can dance around it all you want but there is nowhere stated clearly and in plain language in anything I have found the statement you made. Not anything remotely close to it in accepted scientific canon. You have posted papers and what seems to be a chapter from a larger manuscript with supposition and hypothesis and big words. You haven’t come close to showing a method by which RNA physically builds DNA in nature. You just made a circular argument which rounded back upon your previously unsupported claim.

It's not a circular argument. Yes I did present evidence and now have again. How many more times, or how many more examples do you need? And don't ask for "clear language". As we've already seen, not every reference to a golem has the description "this is a golem" written into it. The word "synthesize" may not be "clear language" to you but others can make sense of it--even when it's obviously not as simple as you're trying to imagine it.

If this is really that difficult for you, I might be able to arrange to have PZ Myers and/or C0nc0rdance both come onto a Google hangout to explain this to you, but I trust their descriptions above should already be enough.

Excrementum! All these words and this is just for one little section of your wasted Christmas effort? We have so much more fun ahead of us!

Once again, I will get back to the other matters you brought up in your wall of text. You will get a long and educational conversation from me on this forum, but this week I really do have looming deadlines and will be out of the country for a couple weeks after that. So I can't correct everything else you said all at once, and now I see that you would just falsely accuse me of some other creationist tactic if I did. So I will have to put the rest off until I have time.

 

[Steelmage99]

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused i

Wiki/Gish Gallop

I don't think there is anybody on this board who doesn't know what the Gish Gallop is.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused i

Wiki/Gish Gallop

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but is not the Gish Gallop only a fallacy for live debates? In a written forum, in which people can take days to research and respond, it seems impossible to Gish Gallop. Even the above quote says, "The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop." As I said, what is stopping anyone from actually researching the claim made, than coming back with a proper rebuttal?

This is not to say that I still think focusing on one topic (three tops) is a far better use of everyone's time here.

 

[pzmyers]

If this is really that difficult for you, I might be able to arrange to have PZ Myers and/or C0nc0rdance both come onto a Google hangout to explain this to you, but I trust their descriptions above should already be enough.

I would be sorta happy to do so. Not enthusiastically happy, since this fellow seems like your typical creationist, but willing to help out.

 

[MatthewLee]

To be honest, you need not continue the debated point of RNA building DNA:

I have researched this quite thoroughly. I was forced to pray on this and there is only one answer. The Spirit insists I admit that my pride has put me in a position I cannot defend. I am, in keeping with what the Bible tells me I have to do…. going to be honest here.

I concede that there is copious evidence to support and even encourage the idea that RNA preceded DNA. The route from RNA that could result in DNA is a complex and difficult thing to prove full of information so esoteric that I have trouble following it as I didn’t study biology… I did study Chemistry and Physics, however, and what evidence it helped me follow I cannot with integrity refute. It also universally appears to be proposed and endorsed by legitimate scientific authority in appropriate publications with credibility. In all of this I see scientists doing what they do.. disagreeing and asking for more data but overall showing general consensus.

I would be reductive to the point of absurdity, and guilty of dishonesty, if I were to say that it cannot be proven conclusively that RNA (given the breadth of definitions and types of this substance and its multiple functions) could not be said to “build” DNA in some way. Your statement, although simplistic because the context in which it was presented is meant be simplistic (basic education)… holds. I also admit that I am at a loss to find evidence that contradicts the RNA world hypothesis. The bulk of this evidence is only provided by partisan sources which are specifically modern Creationists of Ken Ham’s ilk using objections I cannot support and because they show grossly unscientific bias. A wealth of papers I have read in looking for contradictions to your assertion during this debate soundly disprove the bulk of their objections. I found this one especially convincing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/

Your presented evidence and the information it has led me to have demonstrated to my satisfaction that RNA world is plausible as a hypothesis. It is the best working hypothesis I am aware of for a path to prebiotic synthesis of DNA from simpler components. I sincerely apologize for calling you a liar on this matter. I retract all of my former criticisms of this point as irrelevant to the evidence I have discovered and which you have presented. They are incorrect and answered fully by information easily discoverable. I was wrong to be dismissive, insulting and confrontational. I will delete my comments on youtube.

I still have significant disagreement on the wealth of other subjects we have discussed about the Bible and its interpretation. A lot of your assertions about the Bible still trouble me. That is a subject on which I have more knowledge than biology and therefore can disagree on much more substantive grounds and with much more authoritative sources, however, I agree to proceed with more respect (which you have earned) from this point on because you have shown to be competent in the subject of science which you purport to teach.

You are not a fraud, and you are not a liar. You are just someone I disagree with on other matters and my pride led to me behavior my Savior would be ashamed of. I ask your forgiveness in keeping with Matthew 5:24 and if you care to continue the debate on Biblical matters I will do so with proper decorum.

I would specifically like to continue the debate on the point of the epic of Atra Hasis and it’s proposed connection to Genesis. I do not believe you are lying about it, anymore, because I do not believe that you are intentionally misleading people… perhaps we just disagree and can debate like civilized people. I do not surrender my sword but rather am forced to salute you with it. I understand if you don't wish to continue.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused i

Wiki/Gish Gallop

I think we all know what it is, I just don't think your contention that AronRa's employing it is valid. The point being, of course, is that he is responding to your arguments, so if the accusation of Gish Gallop were true, it'd be pointed at you... no?

 

[AronRa]

To be honest, you need not continue the debated point of RNA building DNA:

I have researched this quite thoroughly. I was forced to pray on this and there is only one answer. The Spirit insists I admit that my pride has put me in a position I cannot defend. I am, in keeping with what the Bible tells me I have to do…. going to be honest here.

I concede that there is copious evidence to support and even encourage the idea that RNA preceded DNA. The route from RNA that could result in DNA is a complex and difficult thing to prove full of information so esoteric that I have trouble following it as I didn’t study biology… I did study Chemistry and Physics, however, and what evidence it helped me follow I cannot with integrity refute. It also universally appears to be proposed and endorsed by legitimate scientific authority in appropriate publications with credibility. In all of this I see scientists doing what they do.. disagreeing and asking for more data but overall showing general consensus.

I would be reductive to the point of absurdity, and guilty of dishonesty, if I were to say that it cannot be proven conclusively that RNA (given the breadth of definitions and types of this substance and its multiple functions) could not be said to “build” DNA in some way. Your statement, although simplistic because the context in which it was presented is meant be simplistic (basic education)… holds. I also admit that I am at a loss to find evidence that contradicts the RNA world hypothesis. The bulk of this evidence is only provided by partisan sources which are specifically modern Creationists of Ken Ham’s ilk using objections I cannot support and because they show grossly unscientific bias. A wealth of papers I have read in looking for contradictions to your assertion during this debate soundly disprove the bulk of their objections. I found this one especially convincing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/

Your presented evidence and the information it has led me to have demonstrated to my satisfaction that RNA world is plausible as a hypothesis. It is the best working hypothesis I am aware of for a path to prebiotic synthesis of DNA from simpler components. I sincerely apologize for calling you a liar on this matter. I retract all of my former criticisms of this point as irrelevant to the evidence I have discovered and which you have presented. They are incorrect and answered fully by information easily discoverable. I was wrong to be dismissive, insulting and confrontational. I will delete my comments on youtube.

I still have significant disagreement on the wealth of other subjects we have discussed about the Bible and its interpretation. A lot of your assertions about the Bible still trouble me. That is a subject on which I have more knowledge than biology and therefore can disagree on much more substantive grounds and with much more authoritative sources, however, I agree to proceed with more respect (which you have earned) from this point on because you have shown to be competent in the subject of science which you purport to teach.

You are not a fraud, and you are not a liar. You are just someone I disagree with on other matters and my pride led to me behavior my Savior would be ashamed of. I ask your forgiveness in keeping with Matthew 5:24 and if you care to continue the debate on Biblical matters I will do so with proper decorum.

I would specifically like to continue the debate on the point of the epic of Atra Hasis and it’s proposed connection to Genesis. I do not believe you are lying about it, anymore, because I do not believe that you are intentionally misleading people… perhaps we just disagree and can debate like civilized people. I do not surrender my sword but rather am forced to salute you with it. I understand if you don't wish to continue.

Sincerely appreciated sir. Thank you. Once I'm back in the US, we will continue our conversation on these other topics.

 

[Sparhafoc]

/applause

Good job, Matthew - that's how to make a retraction!

 

[MatthewLee]

Thank you. I look forward to it when you have time.

 

[Steelmage99]

@MatthewLee

Well done, sir. You are a gentleman.

 

[Collecemall]

I'm mainly a lurker here. One of the least qualified to address most issues that are discussed. One thing I am sure of though is that of all the creationist/theists we've had drop by during the last 3 or so years almost all either couldn't or wouldn't retract anything. Being unwilling to admit they might be wrong. Even in the face of data that clearly showed them wrong. So full marks to you on that front. It's refreshing to see.

The other thing I'll add about the peanut gallery here is that many of these folks are extremely well versed in either one or many areas of science. Some of them I'd go so far as to call "experts". They won't let false statements about an area they specialize in fly. Even when it's a non theist making the statement. It's one of the main reasons I frequent here. I wish there were more theists who visited here that were willing to evaluate their position and adjust. But it rarely happens (I'm looking at you Leroy/Dandan). And no that wasn't an invitation for you to derail yet another discussion. So please refrain.

Again, thanks for your participation and attempt to be honest and self aware. You keep this up you just might join us one day

 

[Deleted member 619]

Good work, Matthew. Not often I'm impressed, but having the intellectual honesty and the fortitude to admit over-reach is sufficiently rare to be noteworthy.

Kudos.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I agree with the other members comments above - well done, Matthew.

I hope leroy sees your post, and learns from it.

I look forward to the discussion on biblical interpretations.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MatthewLee]

Thank you all very much for your gracious comments. I sincerely hope I get the chance to interact with you and look forward to learning much from this and adding to it beneficially if I can.