Evolution's Brick Wall

Status
Not open for further replies.

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
What a load of nonsense.

Researchers in Italy have reconstructed one of the earliest evolutionary steps yet: generating long chains of RNA from individual subunits using nothing but warm water.

How Was RNA Polymerization Started?
A key step missing in the reconstruction of the origin of living systems is an abiotically plausible synthesis of RNA. To fill this gap, for the robust synthesis and the simultaneous presence of all the necessary nucleic acid precursors (which is possible in principle (22)), an abiotic procedure for their activation and a thermodynamically sound polymerization mechanism are needed.

Using this logic we have analyzed nucleotide oligomerization in the conceivably simplest solvent and environment: water at temperatures between 40 and 90 °C. Despite the limits set in principle by the standard-state Gibbs free energy change problem (3, 4), we observed that the process does actually take place in water and report the nonenzymatic formation of RNA chains in water from 3′,5′-cyclic nucleotides.

We describe three mechanisms for nonenzymatic RNA generation: RNA polymerization from monomers, RNA ligation, RNA extension by polymerization on pre-existing oligomers, and ligation. RNA ligation was recently reported in a model study performed on Poly(A) oligomers (10).

We observe that 3′,5′-cGMP polymerized into RNA chains at least 25 nucleotides long (Fig. 1), the predominant oligomer being the 8-mer. At the optimal 1 mm concentration, synthesis was fast, a Navg of 11.8 being reached within 1 min, followed by slow stepwise further growth. Canonical 3′,5′-phosphodiester bonds were formed, as determined by RNase sensitivity. 3′,5′-cAMP polymerized more slowly to oligomers that reached an Navg of 5.32 within 1 h. These oligomers expanded their size by inter-fragments ligation for a period of at least 200 h, yielding molecules >100 nucleotides long.


"Proto-RNA Bases" Assemble in Water, Hint at Origins of Life

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology are exploring an alternate theory for the origin of RNA: they think the RNA bases may have evolved from a pair of molecules distinct from the bases we have today. This theory looks increasingly attractive, as the Georgia Tech group was able to achieve efficient, highly ordered self-assembly in water with small molecules that are similar to the bases of RNA. These “proto-RNA bases” spontaneously assemble into gene-length linear stacks, suggesting that the genes of life could have gotten started from these or similar molecules. The research is published online in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
Oh yes, propose completely unsimular things to avoid your problems. Which just creates more problems as now everything is dissimilar not similar.....

“The oligomers shown are the products of synthetic reactions lasting 1 h.”

After that 1 h? Dissolved.......

“which did not grow further.”

Funny how you left those parts out....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I know, because everything in your theory is imaginary.....

1. it's not "my" theory

2. if everything in evolution theory is "imaginary", then it wouldn't pass a single peer review nore would it be accepted by consensus in the scientific community. And most definatly not stand tall after some 200 years of rigorous scientific scrutiny

3. pathetic case of projection
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Oh yes, propose completely unsimular things to avoid your problems. Which just creates more problems as now everything is dissimilar not similar.....

“The oligomers shown are the products of synthetic reactions lasting 1 h.”

After that 1 h? Dissolved.......

“which did not grow further.”

Funny how you left those parts out....

Now it's your turn, to show your research of gods creating living things.

Ow, oeps, I forgot.... you are exempt from having to come up with evidence and actually support your claims, right? Yes, yes, you got "da bible" instead.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
And before they fool you, let’s understand they started with what was needed....

“Concentrated solutions of the appropriate nucleotide (2′-AMP, 3′-AMP, 5′-AMP, 2′,3′-cAMP, 3′,5′-cAMP, 3′,5′-cGMP, 3′,5′-cUMP, and 3′,5′-cCMP) were diluted in water to the desired final concentration. ”

So nothing was formed from scratch, but instead they started with the required nucleotides....

Then couldn’t get them to reassemble back to what would be needed for life or for any long periods.....

Don’t let their fantasies fool you people....
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
And before they fool you, let’s understand they started with what was needed....

“Concentrated solutions of the appropriate nucleotide (2′-AMP, 3′-AMP, 5′-AMP, 2′,3′-cAMP, 3′,5′-cAMP, 3′,5′-cGMP, 3′,5′-cUMP, and 3′,5′-cCMP) were diluted in water to the desired final concentration. ”

So nothing was formed from scratch, but instead they started with the required nucleotides....

Then couldn’t get them to reassemble back to what would be needed for life or for any long periods.....

Don’t let their fantasies fool you people....

Nobody is claiming that the puzzle of abiogenesis has been solved.
At least scientists working in that field are trying to come up with demonstrable answers, instead of just believing whatever some bronze age book happens to claim (which they only believe by geographic accident) and which they then throw at intellectually honest people with rather undetestable levels of arrogance, condescension and in some cases even by threat of eternal torture.

Give me a break!

Have some honor and dignity one of these days.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
And now JimmyD, let’s hear your own words.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

“You're talking to someone who thinks man-made objects and living organisms are the same things - it is utterly pointless to try to reason with him, he's been posting that same thing for years.”

And yet here you are, trying to assert that man-made objects and living organisms are the same things...

It is utterly pointless to try to reason with you....
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I notice when people want to use laboratory experiments by man to create sediments in hours or oil in minutes, it’s no good. Seems they are only good when it comes to backing your beliefs and not going against it....
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And yet here you are, trying to assert that man-made objects and living organisms are the same things..

What on Earth are you going on about now? I didn't assert any such thing, would you like me to remind you of the exchange, it only happened today you know.

Justa:
Water is a universal solvent. RNA, DNA, peptides, sugars, amino acids, all the building blocks of life dissolve in water, not form


Me:
What a load of nonsense.

Generating long chains of RNA from individual subunits using nothing but warm water.


"Proto-RNA Bases" Assemble in Water, Hint at Origins of Life

...........................................................

I never made any claims about living organisms, just posted a tiny fraction of the scientific evidence that demonstrates that your assertion was wrong.

You should be happy to learn new things, not dredging up unrelated posts in attempt to obfuscate or score points.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I notice when people want to use laboratory experiments by man to create sediments in hours or oil in minutes, it’s no good. Seems they are only good when it comes to backing your beliefs and not going against it....

It's not that difficult to understand Justa.

If an experiment shows sedimentary rock can form in hours under particular conditions it doesn't necessarily mean that all sedimentary rock was formed in hours under those same conditions.

If someone says "Water is a universal solvent. RNA, DNA, peptides, sugars, amino acids, all the building blocks of life dissolve in water, not form" and experiments show that RNA can form in water then that statement is obviously not true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
It's not that difficult to understand Justa.

If an experiment shows sedimentary rock can form in hours under particular conditions it doesn't necessarily mean that all sedimentary rock was formed in hours under those same conditions.

If someone says "Water is a universal solvent. RNA, DNA, peptides, sugars, amino acids, all the building blocks of life dissolve in water, not form" and experiments show that RNA can form in water then that statement is obviously not true.

Except it didn't. They took nucleotides from the start (cheated by starting with what they claim they made), dissolved them in water, then added energy which caused molecular bonds to form which then stopped and fell back apart........

So its obviously not true that RNA was formed because they started with those very nucleotides.....

Because you can take nucleotides, momentarily have them assemble less basic strings than you started with then fall apart, does not mean RNA can form this way since you started with them anyways......
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Let's see what they started with:

"Adenine, adenosine, adenosine 2′-monophosphate (2′-AMP), adenosine 3′-monophosphate (3′-AMP), adenosine 5′-monophosphate (5′-AMP), adenosine 2′,3′-cyclic monophosphate (2′,3′-cAMP), adenosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (3′,5′-cAMP), adenosine 5′-diphosphate (ADP), adenosine 5′-triphosphate (ATP), guanosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (3′,5′-cGMP), cytosine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (3′,5′-cCMP), uridine 3′,5′-cyclic monophosphate (3′,5′-cUMP) were from Sigma-Aldrich and were analytical grade.

Oligonucleotides
The oligonucleotides 5′A243′, 5′C243′, 5′A12C123′, 5′A12U123′, 5′U243′, and 5′G243′ were purchased from Dharmacon and were provided unphosphorylated, at both the 5′ and 3′ extremities."

Who you trying to fool that RNA was formed from scratch? Yourself????
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What will convince you?

Proof, not the speculation you call evidence.

The honest person: "evidence".
The dishonest person: "nothing".

Is it honest to take assumed evidence when it has not been proven as evidence one way or another, and call it actual factual evidence and then draw conclusion from it? No...it's not, it's very dishonest, yet you call someone who is satisfied that non evidence is actual evidence, honest?

Think, man, can't an ape seem like a transition to a human when in reality, it's just an ape like we have to day? Just as we have apes, humans, monkeys and whatever, your "evidence" could just be several different animals that existed at one time or another or all at the same time. You still just have theory, or speculation...nothing more

Hams immovable belief in a much much more likely scenario, a scenario that actually explains a beginning, is very honest. He has all the evidence he needs...the Bible and what he sees in the physical world.

Here is another along those same lines, something that happens here often:

"What about the beginning to evolution?"

Evolutionist- "It doesn't matter"....very dishonest. Of course it matters, but all you have is, nothing, it just happened by it self...something that right off the bat is preposterous. It's like looking at the most complicated of electronic devices and saying it just got their by itself, but no, it was created. People would think one were nuts if they said a computer for instance evolved from nothing and life is so much more complicated.

So, again, the start is very important because it shows, it's ridiculous to even consider the next steps of how evolution took place. If it had no reason or way to start, so it couldn't have taken place at all.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Proof, not the speculation you call evidence.



Is it honest to take assumed evidence when it has not been proven as evidence one way or another, and call it actual factual evidence and then draw conclusion from it? No...it's not, it's very dishonest, yet you call someone who is satisfied that non evidence is actual evidence, honest?

Think, man, can't an ape seem like a transition to a human when in reality, it's just an ape like we have to day? Just as we have apes, humans, monkeys and whatever, your "evidence" could just be several different animals that existed at one time or another or all at the same time. You still just have theory, or speculation...nothing more

Hams immovable belief in a much much more likely scenario, a scenario that actually explains a beginning, is very honest. He has all the evidence he needs...the Bible and what he sees in the physical world.

Here is another along those same lines, something that happens here often:

"What about the beginning to evolution?"

Evolutionist- "It doesn't matter"....very dishonest. Of course it matters, but all you have is, nothing, it just happened by it self...something that right off the bat is preposterous. It's like looking at the most complicated of electronic devices and saying it just got their by itself, but no, it was created. People would think one were nuts if they said a computer for instance evolved from nothing and life is so much more complicated.

So, again, the start is very important because it shows, it's ridiculous to even consider the next steps of how evolution took place. If it had no reason or way to start, so it couldn't have taken place at all.

You can't be logical with illogical people. just because logic demands that in order for life to evolve there must first be life.... why the start doesn't matter to evolution, even if it is claimed to be "the ORIGIN of species".

Then talk as if getting a few chains to form for a few hours before dissolving, somehow proves their theory......

That cutting DNA apart and finding any similarity in any part means similarity. yet when comparing two human genomes for relatedness, they would redily admit that doing just that, snipping it apart and comparing any part with any other would never be able to prove if they were related or not.... In fact such a process would be rejected as scientific in any court.....

Logic went out the window long, long ago....
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And before they fool you, let’s understand they started with what was needed....

“Concentrated solutions of the appropriate nucleotide (2′-AMP, 3′-AMP, 5′-AMP, 2′,3′-cAMP, 3′,5′-cAMP, 3′,5′-cGMP, 3′,5′-cUMP, and 3′,5′-cCMP) were diluted in water to the desired final concentration. ”

So nothing was formed from scratch, but instead they started with the required nucleotides....

Then couldn’t get them to reassemble back to what would be needed for life or for any long periods.....

Don’t let their fantasies fool you people....


It's all highly speculative, nobody has ever denied that, at the end of the day we may never know.

I'd prefer to see science taking steps to explore possible pathways to the start of life than just giving up and exclaiming "it's impossible", wouldn't you?

How do you think life started?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.