Lucaspa turns down Nobel Prize!

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Don't get confused: you don't see me here arguing that Behe's position is correct - you see me arguing that Miller's "refutations" of Behe are based on misrepresentations of Behe's position, and that they fail.

Lucaspa: Excuse me, but in doing that you also argue for the legitimacy of irreducible complexity.

DNAunion: No excuse for your errors. I mean, come on. I explicitly told you not to get confused, and what do you do? Get confused!

Let me try to use a simple example for you Lucaspa (maybe then you can understand).

1) Billy Bob says that the moon is made of green cheese.

2) Kenneth Miller shows that Billy Bob is wrong - that the moon is not made of ketchup because ketchup is red and the moon is not.

3) I point out that Kenneth Miller has misrepresented Billly Bob's position.

Now, contrary to your silly statement, what I did in (3) does not mean that I hold that the moon is made of green cheese.

Can you grasp the concept now?

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: What data? The stuff that was published is decades old -- you don't see (much) work on proteinoids going on these days, as I showed by doing searched of Science and one or two other science sites.

Lucaspa: So what if the data is decades old? You don't see much work being done on the Krebs cycle anymore, do you?

DNAunion: Extremely poor counter.

The Krebs cycle is discussed in every modern biochemical text, as well as in every modern molecular cell biology text, etc. And the discussions are never about its being largely rejected by modern science.

On the other hand, Fox's proteinoid microspheres are hardly discussed in such texts, and when they are, the discussion is typically very brief, it is not stated that Fox's proteinoid microspheres are actual living cells, and problems with them are frequently mentioned (you know, such as their not being made of proteins, for example). And in other modern books written by contemporary, mainstream scientists, it is stated that Fox's proteinoid microspheres, and his claims about them, are rejected by the majority of contemporary scientists: this cannot be said of the Kreb's cycle.

Talk about comparing apples and oranges!

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: And the statements being made these days about Fox's claims is dismissive, not favorable.

Lucaspa: DNAunion, I've had ample experience of you taking people's quotes out of context.

DNAunion: That is an unfounded and untrue attack on my personal character - forbidden by the forum's rules. I demand an apology, or that you prove your charge.

Lucaspa: Remember you trying to show that Lenninger's 1975 Biochemistry was unfavorable to protocells?

DNAunion: I remember clearly showing that Lehninger DID say that Fox's proteinoid microspheres (or was it just his proteinoids - can't remember off the top of my head) lack genetic continuity.

I also remember clearly showing that Lehninger DROPPED his clause about Fox's proteinoid microspheres budding like yeasts..

I still have both sets of quotes and full references saved - do you want me to prove you wrong?

Lucaspa: Or Lahav's quotes?

DNAunion: Lahav did make a dismissive statement about Fox's proteinoid microspheres (or was it his proteinoids - can't remember off the top of my head).

I still have that material and full reference too. Must I prove you wrong on this one too?

Lucaspa: So I don't trust your quotes.

DNAunion: You reject my quotes because they show problems with your position - not because I have quoted out of context.

 

[webboffin]

I am always getting misquoted:

Webboffin you are such a genius and always correct

It gets embarrassing

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: So why aren't you trying to get that Nobel Prize that is surely waiting for you?

Lucaspa: Already told you, it's not my work. Therefore I'm not entitled to it. Fox was.

DNAunion: And I already told you that scientists can SHARE Nobel Prizes. According to you, Fox was shot down 20 times in a row. Now, you claim to have essentially proof that actual living cells can be fried up on a stove using nothing more than amino acids and water – show the world of science that and YOU will win a Nobel Prize, even if it does end up being shared with Sidney Fox.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Oh, and let’s not forget about…

DNAunion: What you need are papers that show the production of proteinoid microspheres using your recipe alone, with those resulting proteinoid microspheres – all by themselves -- being able to grow (in the true biological sense), metabolize (in the true biological sense), respond to stimuli (in the true biological sense), and reproduce (in the true biological sense). You have not presented any such papers.

Lucaspa: LOL!!

DNAunion: You laugh at the truth? Odd.

Lucaspa: The method is Fox's method moved to a kitchen, so it has been done. And all the rest has been done and I've posted the papers.

DNAunion: No paper that you posted states that actual living cells can be fried up on a kitchen stove using nothing more than amino acids and water. If you believe otherwise, then post that material again, with full references.

Lucaspa: What you call "true biological sense" means "as modern cells do" but that isn't "true biological sense".

DNAunion: Nope. Wrong.

The cyanobacteria-like cells dating back multiple billions of years did those things in the true biological sense. I already pointed that out to you - yet you still try to use that refuted argument????

Lucaspa: Playing semantic games isn't addressing the data.

DNAunion: Uhm, if you know that, then why do you do it?

Lucaspa: Once again, instead of addressing the data, you are looking for some artificial criteria to dismiss the work.

DNAunion: The criteria of biology are artificial criteria?

Lucaspa: Not science, DNAUnion.

DNAunion: Yes science, Lucaspa. You should try it some time (oops, I forgot, you think that the strong nuclear force keeps electrons in orbit about atomic nuclei, and that gravity pulls electrons into the nucleus, and that entropy of an isolated system does not always increase or remain constant unless one takes the surroundings into account also, that glycolysis produces lactic acid, and....)

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: You have to falsify the protocells somehow.

DNAunion: Wrong. You have to demonstrate that actual living cells can be fried up on a kitchen stove using nothing more than amino acids and water.

You are the one who made the extraordinary claim - you are the one with the burden of proof. How many times do I have to explain that to you?

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Oh yeah, and my offer is still open…

DNAunion: Lucaspa, concerning the experiment/recipe you stated -- which I quoted in my thread starting post -- I'll give you $500 if you get that experiment of yours and the necessary accompanying analysis showing the products to be actual living cells, published in the peer-reviewed journals Nature or Science, AND if it then does not get quickly trashed by other scientists. So, just let us all know when we can look for it.

Lucaspa: Again, already been done. I posted the references.

DNAunion: You posted no such thing. I challenge you to back up your claim that you did.

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: You seem to be saying that protocells can't be made in a kitchen.

DNAunion: And you seem to be incapable of understanding a simple statement.

Read my lips Lucaspa. I have not been saying that protocells can’t be made in a kitchen. What I have been saying is that an actual living cell cannot be fried up on a kitchen stove using nothing more than amino acids and water.

Geez, how many times does something have to be told to you before you can grasp it?

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Nope. The experiments that show proteinoid microspheres doing “interesting stuff” don’t start with your recipe and end there: they add nucleic acids, or they use different mixes of amino acids to get different properties (basic amino acids in one batch, others in another). Those extra steps are what invalidates those papers in regards to being used to support your claim of frying up true living cells on your stove using your recipe and process.

Lucaspa: They don't negate anything.

DNAunion: Yes, they do.

Lucaspa: Remember, not only do the protocells have to perform the functions, those functions have to be detectable by our crude assay methods. The basic or acidic proteinoids will be made out of a mixture, but they will be in quantities too small so that their activity can be detected by the rather crude biochemical assays available. Even now, if you want to detect a protein activity, you don't do it from a single cell, you use millions or billions of cells so that there is enough aggregate activity that the assay can detect.

DNAunion: What you overlook is that some amino acids have radical groups that are charged. You also overlook the fact that under normal biological conditions amino acids can exist as zwitterions: a state that occurs once the carboxylic acid portion has lost a proton and the amino group has gained one. And when individual amino acids link together, they do so by a condensation reaction in which a molecule of water is formed. Everyone knows these things (except you, apparently).

Lucaspa: The protocells that grew and divided were the "ordinary" kind.

DNAunion: Too bad that none of the proteinoid microspheres actually grew or reproduced.

 

[webboffin]

Okay we heard enough!

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 06:52 PM DNAunion said this in Post #40


I said I hold to common descent by UNDIRECTED evolution. But Behe holds that an intelligent designer has intervened in life's history by introducing multiple IC biochemical systems that would not have evolved otherwise. You as much as stated this yourself.

Surely you can see the difference?!?!

Behe holds to common ancestry and repeatedly states that only some systems are IC. The rest evolve by "undirected" Darwinian evolution.  Since I have seen you say that some systems are indeed IC, then you must agree with Behe that they are manufactured.  Haven't you argued that the mousetrap is indeed irreducibly complex?

So perhaps you would elaborate on specifically where you agree and disagree with Behe.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 07:08 PM DNAunion said this in Post #42


The Krebs cycle is discussed in every modern biochemical text, as well as in every modern molecular cell biology text, etc. And the discussions are never about its being largely rejected by modern science.

What did you say in the previous post about arguing ketchup when the claim was about green cheese?

Your claim was that the data was suspect only because it is old.  The Krebs cycle does indeed counter that.

Now you are introducing a new claim: protocells are suspect because it is not universally accepted by contemporary scientists.  Well, Priestly's oxygen was not universally accepted and some phlogiston chemists continued to dismiss it.

Besides, molecular cell biology texts are not the place protocells would be discussed anyway, since they deal with proteins and molecular biology is about DNA. 

it is not stated that Fox's proteinoid microspheres are actual living cells, and problems with them are frequently mentioned (you know, such as their not being made of proteins, for example).

In some texts they are stated as living cells. Lehninger so stated before the subject of biochemistry grew so large that he had to withdraw the entire chapter on abiogenesis due to space.  And the claim is that the proteins are not linear proteins, not that they are not proteins.  But since Fox never said they were linear, this isn't a valid objection anyway.  What matters is what they do, not their exact shape.

And in other modern books written by contemporary, mainstream scientists, it is stated that Fox's proteinoid microspheres, and his claims about them, are rejected by the majority of contemporary scientists: 

And you will find modern books by "mainstream scientists" rejecting any particular theory, even non-directed evolution.  So what?  

All this is your continued dodge of refusing to examine and talk about the data.  When you want to talk data, let us know.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 09:38 PM DNAunion said this in Post #50

Lucaspa: Remember, not only do the protocells have to perform the functions, those functions have to be <B>detectable by our crude assay methods</B>. The basic or acidic proteinoids will be made out of a mixture, but they will be in quantities too small so that their activity can be detected by the rather crude biochemical assays available. Even now, if you want to detect a protein activity, you don't do it from a single cell, you use millions or billions of cells so that there is enough aggregate activity that the assay can detect.


DNAunion: What you overlook is that some amino acids have radical groups that are charged. You also overlook the fact that under normal biological conditions amino acids can exist as <B>zwitterions</B>: a state that occurs once the carboxylic acid portion has lost a proton and the amino group has gained one. And when individual amino acids link together, they do so by a <B>condensation reaction</B> in which a molecule of water is formed.

And what does that have to do with what I said?&nbsp; Nothing.&nbsp; Yes, all that is true, but it doesn't address detecting the catalytic activity of proteins.&nbsp; When you want to detect catalytic activity, you have to have billions of proteins in order for the assay to detect the billions or more molecules that are the reaction product.

So, it is the protocells made from a majority of basic amino acids that have more proteins with catalytic activity. All for detection by the assay.&nbsp; Protocells made with a more equimolar mixture of amino acids will, by stochastic considerations, have a few proteinoids that are basic, but not enough to change enough reactant to product for the assay to detect.

This is the same as transfecting a cancer cell with the p53 so the cells will overexpress p53 so we can detect the effect of the protein made by p53.&nbsp; Otherwise, there is too little of that protein present for the assay system to detect.&nbsp; Now, because we did that does it negate that p53 will really do this function?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Similarly, making protocells out&nbsp;of an amino acid mixture skewed toward basic&nbsp;amino acid&nbsp;does not negate that some of those types of protein&nbsp;will be made in an equimolar mixture.

Since you are so good at ferreting out criticisms of Behe, have you found any criticism of this?

DNAunion: Too bad that none of the proteinoid microspheres actually grew or reproduced.

Too bad they did.
&nbsp;Fox, SW, McCauley, RJ, Wood, A&nbsp; A model of primitive heterotrophic proliferation.&nbsp; Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 20: 773-778, 1967.
&nbsp;&nbsp; Fox, SW.&nbsp; Molecular evolution to the first cells. Pure Appld. Chem. 34: 641-669, 1973.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 09:10 PM DNAunion said this in Post #45

DNAunion: And I already told you that scientists can SHARE Nobel Prizes. According to you, Fox was shot down 20 times in a row. Now, you claim to have essentially proof that actual living cells can be fried up on a stove using nothing more than amino acids and water – show the world of science that and YOU will win a Nobel Prize, even if it does end up being shared with Sidney Fox.

Fox was nominated.&nbsp; You choose to look at that as "shot down" while I look at it as a continuous honor and the working of politics.&nbsp; As you demonstrate, anyone acknowledged to have gotten living cells from non-living precursors basically scoops everyone else.&nbsp; That invites hypercriticism like yours and also invites politics.&nbsp; Within the abiogenesis community, the power politics are played by the RNA World people.&nbsp; However, they can't, and didn't, squelch the data but they can influence the award of honos.

Again, what matters is the data.&nbsp;

Now, for everyone else.&nbsp; Stripped of the ad hominen attacks designed to draw attention away from the lack of content in DNAunion's arguments, he seems to have two complaints.

1.&nbsp; The protocells are alive.
2. My conversion of Fox's methodology for making those protocells&nbsp;to a kitchen.

Now, DNAunion tries to conflate those by suggesting that protocells made in a kitchen will have different properties somehow from protocells made anywhere else.&nbsp; But, what are the essentials of the method?
1. Amino acids.
2. Dry heat above 100 degrees centigrade but below 700 degrees centigrade.
3. Water.

Now, a hot plate in a lab is no different from a stove.&nbsp; Same thing, except the hot plate is a bit smaller.&nbsp; Both work by an electrical current passed through a metal conductor generating heat.&nbsp; It's the heat that is important.&nbsp; The heat source doesn't even have to be a stove, since Fox has made protocells on hot lava and in simulated hydrothermal vents.

So, as long as you have heat that's it.&nbsp; Next, the container.&nbsp; A stainless steel laboratory pan is the same as a stainless steel skillet.&nbsp; A Pyrex beaker is the same as a Pyres baking dish.&nbsp; Made of the same material.

Finally, water is water.

The point here is that the kitchen is no different from Fox's lab and the point of science is that experiments are replicable.&nbsp; Now, Fox's protocells have been made in several dozen (at least) labs all over the world.&nbsp; There is no reason to suggest that it won't work in your lab, even if that lab is a kitchen and not one at a university.&nbsp; And all I'm asking you to do is what I would do in my lab: duplicate the experiment.

Now, if DNAunion were to do the experiment in his kitchen and not make protocells, then he can come back here and complain.

As to the protocells being alive, "life" is a functional defintion, not a structural one.&nbsp; If an entity performs all the following functions -- metabolizes (anabolism and catabolism), responds to stimuli, grows, reproduces -- then that entity is alive.&nbsp; Whether it uses structural components or processes exactly like living cells is not part of the definition.&nbsp; As long as all those activities take place, the entity, whatever it is, is alive.

Fox and collaborators performed numerous experiments testing each component and demonstrated that protocells have each component.&nbsp; All published in the peer-reviewed literature.&nbsp; Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that they are alive.

Denial doesn't count, Argument from Incredulity doesn't count, ad hominen doesn't count, difference from contemporary cells doesn't count.&nbsp; All that matters is the data and whether the protocells fit the definition.

"In the late 1950s, Fox and his associates were describing how they synthesized thermal proteins (6) and the conversion of these into protocells (proteinoid microspheres) that exhibited the attributes of life. That these were simulations of natural events was to be suggested. By the 1980s, they were considered to be alive (protocells, the smallest unit of protolife)(7). Only the 1996 discovery of life on Mars would eclipse the findings of Yanagawa and Kabayashi (8) that the thermal protein protocell could be synthesized by simulations of hydrothermal systems!! "&nbsp; http://mccoy.lib.siu.edu/projects/bio315/section2.htm

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: Behe holds to common ancestry and repeatedly states that only some systems are IC. The rest evolve by "undirected" Darwinian evolution.

DNAunion: All you are doing is playing semantics. That Behe holds that SOME things evolved by undirected Darwinian evolution is not the same as my saying that the common descent of all life forms is the result of undirected evolution. You know it, and everyone else here knows it.

Lucaspa: Since I have seen you say that some systems are indeed IC, then you must agree with Behe that they are manufactured.

DNAunion: Wrong again.

An IC system can evolve purely naturally by an indirect route. That means one can state that some systems are indeed IC, and yet NOT be forced to conclude that they were manufactured.

Lucaspa: Haven't you argued that the mousetrap is indeed irreducibly complex?

DNAunion: Are you claiming that mousetraps arose from wood and metal by Darwinian evolution?

Lucaspa: So perhaps you would elaborate on specifically where you agree and disagree with Behe.

DNAunion: Nope. Enough of your sidetracking. This thread is about your failure to get those Nobel Prizes that are surely awaiting you!

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: Fox was nominated. You choose to look at that as "shot down" while I look at it as a continuous honor and the working of politics.

DNAunion: Sure, it was 20 years of scientific politics that kept Fox from winning a Nobel Prize, even though he created life from scratch. Of course, what else could it be! [sarcasm]

Lucaspa: As you demonstrate, anyone acknowledged to have gotten living cells from non-living precursors basically scoops everyone else. That invites hypercriticism like yours and also invites politics.

DNAunion: Gee, wouldn’t most works that won a Nobel Prize be considered a real “scooper”? Why weren’t they the victims of political blackballing?

Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Why aren’t Nobel Prizes just handed out for things making water turn blue when you add food coloring – then no one would be jealous!

Fox was shot down 20 years in a row because his work didn’t deserve the Nobel Prize – it’s that simple.

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: As to the protocells being alive, "life" is a functional defintion, not a structural one. If an entity performs all the following functions -- metabolizes (anabolism and catabolism), responds to stimuli, grows, reproduces -- then that entity is alive.

DNAunion: So a fire is alive?

So a mud puddle is alive?

And what if an entity doesn’t perform all four – is it alive? Mules can’t reproduce – are they not alive?

And an object increasing in size because it is accumulating material on its surface does not count as growth in the biological sense.

And an object simple splitting in two because of simple physical causes does not count as reproduction in the biological sense.

Etc.

Lucaspa: Whether it uses structural components or processes exactly like living cells is not part of the definition. As long as all those activities take place, the entity, whatever it is, is alive.

DNAunion: So you are confirming that a fire and a mud puddle are both living?

Lucaspa: Fox and collaborators performed numerous experiments testing each component and demonstrated that protocells have each component. All published in the peer-reviewed literature. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that they are alive.

DNAunion: Nope. The silly conclusion that FOX reached was that he created life – too bad for you and him that the world of science at large rejects his nonsense for what it really is.

Lucaspa: Denial doesn't count, Argument from Incredulity doesn't count,…

DNAunion: Unsupported statements don’t count, arguments based on hero worship don’t count, arguments that pretend to be biological in nature yet abuse biological terminology don’t count, and so on.

Lucaspa: ad hominen doesn't count,

DNAunion: I’m still waiting for you apology for you ad hom. Or, you could support you assertion.

Lucaspa: difference from contemporary cells doesn't count.

DNAunion: Difference from CELLS does. Contrary to your continual incorrect assertions, my objections to their being actual living cells is NOT based on contemporary cells – it is based on cells in general, even those that existed billions of years ago.

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa:

"In the late 1950s, Fox and his associates were describing how they synthesized thermal proteins (6) and the conversion of these into protocells (proteinoid microspheres) that exhibited the attributes of life. That these were simulations of natural events was to be suggested. By the 1980s, they were considered to be alive (protocells, the smallest unit of protolife)(7). Only the 1996 discovery of life on Mars would eclipse the findings of Yanagawa and Kabayashi (8) that the thermal protein protocell could be synthesized by simulations of hydrothermal systems!! " http://mccoy.lib.siu.edu/projects/bio315/section2.htm

DNAunion: Gee, you think you can give us a link to a page that actually exists?

 

[lucaspa]

It looks like you insist on rehashing all your answered and refuted arguments.&nbsp;

Today at 07:23 PM DNAunion said this in Post #58


DNAunion: So a fire is alive?

So a mud puddle is alive?

&nbsp; A fire doesn't have anabolism.&nbsp; Neither does a mud puddle.

And what if an entity doesn’t perform all four – is it alive? Mules can’t reproduce – are they not alive?

You finally got an interesting example.&nbsp; Mules are sterile hybrids -- offspring of viable parents that can reproduce.

And an object increasing in size because it is accumulating material on its surface does not count as growth in the biological sense.

Protocells also grow by making new biomolecules.&nbsp;However, notice that you are now restricting the functional definition by including "in the biological sense".&nbsp; It is semantics designed to exclude protocells.

And an object simple splitting in two because of simple physical causes does not count as reproduction in the biological sense.

They still reproduce. And the physiochemical processes used by protocells are also present in dividing the cytoplasm and plasma membrane in modern cells.


DNAunion: Nope. The silly conclusion that FOX reached was that he created life – too bad for you and him that the world of science at large rejects his nonsense for what it really is.

Fox and others.&nbsp; A lot of others.&nbsp; But look that again you are not talking about the data.&nbsp;

DNAunion: Unsupported statements don’t count,

All the statements I've made are supported by the data gathered by Fox and others and presented in the peer-reviewed literature.&nbsp; What have you got to oppose that? Have you found any peer-reviewed articles showing that the results aren't valid?&nbsp; I've looked, but haven't found any.&nbsp; I haven't even found any in the symposia presentations I've been able to obtain.&nbsp; What you have are isolated opinions of various people.&nbsp; Where's the data?

DNAunion: Difference from CELLS does. Contrary to your continual incorrect assertions, my objections to their being actual living cells is NOT based on contemporary cells – it is based on cells in general, even those that existed billions of years ago.

In that case, you should note that the first fossils of cells look just like protocells.&nbsp; Not like contemporary cells.&nbsp; That picture is at http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

By 2 billion years ago evolution produced cells very similar to modern cells. The basic biochemical properties haven't changed since then.&nbsp; So your semantics don't help.&nbsp; Your argument is still based on contemporary cells, not on the data or on the definition of life.