The Genetic Code

[Kylie]

Though you didn't claim it, there *have* been self-replicating amino acid/polypeptide systems found in the lab.

I'd love to see a link on this!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'd love to see a link on this!

I just did a search for "self-replication amino acids" or something like that and got a bunch of links. Most were research papers and I didn't see a general link right off. I didn't want to turn this into a discussion of the particulars of one paper that no one discussing it actual understands.

 

[SelfSim]

I am not an atheist but accept the scientific view that abiogenesis resulted in life.

The justifiable scientific view there is more like: how life might have evolved from simpler (inorganic) chemistry, is currently unknown, but is objectively testable.

G-d can do anything, but He created a universe that operates according to certain scientific laws. If He ignores His own laws then reality would not exist.

The scientific Laws are our (ie: human) empirically devised physical principles.

Your 'G-d' is also a human devised principle, except the way 'G-d' was devised there, demonstrably, did not follow the scientific method.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd love to see a link on this!

I just did a search for "self-replication amino acids" or something like that and got a bunch of links. Most were research papers and I didn't see a general link right off. I didn't want to turn this into a discussion of the particulars of one paper that no one discussing it actual understands.

Just as an fyi and for reference purposes, and not necessarily a response to 'self replicating amino acids' (whatever that is supposed to mean), strong evidence has recently been published, (April 2022), which shows the detection of nucleobases in three carbonaceous meteorites. This is yet another empirically evidenced 'precursor' building block 'rung' up the ladder leading to self-replication, and thus also supports the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Feasible pathways for generation of these via photochemical reactions prevailing in the interstellar medium and later incorporated into asteroids during solar system formation, have now thus been established.
This study demonstrates that a diversity of meteoritic nucleobases can serve as building blocks of DNA and RNA on the early Earth.

PS: For readers: nucleobases are one of the structural components of nucleic acids forming the basis of all known life.

 

[Kylie]

Just as an fyi and for reference purposes, and not necessarily a response to lab based self replicating amino acid/polypeptide systems, strong evidence has recently been published, (April 2022), which shows the detection of nucleobases in three carbonaceous meteorites. This is yet another empirically evidenced 'precursor' building block 'rung' up the ladder leading to self-replication, and thus also supports the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Feasible pathways for generation of these via photochemical reactions prevailing in the interstellar medium and later incorporated into asteroids during solar system formation, have now thus been established.
This study demonstrates that a diversity of meteoritic nucleobases can serve as building blocks of DNA and RNA on the early Earth.

That's awesome!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just as an fyi and for reference purposes, and not necessarily a response to 'self replicating amino acids' (whatever that is supposed to mean),

It was just a clumsy internet search that turned up some recent research on self-replicating polypeptides. Self-replication in RNA structures has been around longer scientifically. From a few recent dives into the origin-of-life area from a complete lay perspective, it seems like of the components needed for a proto-cell (encapsulation, self-replication, a proto-instruction code) the biggest missing element is a production mechanism for the fatty acids that can make a simple cell capsule.

I should probably print and read that NASA astrobiology document I downloaded. Last time I started to skim it on my screen I got caught up in some of the simplifications of the origin of elements.

 

[Astrid]

Big Bang is science fiction, that’s my belief.

Then dont claim your zero - evidence beliefs are
facts.
Any fact-based reason to dismiss the cumulative
results of our best minds in physics?
Or just your chosen belief about which reading of
an old book is infallible?

 

[SelfSim]

That's awesome!

Yep.
Its a pity @Mountainmike will completely ignore it and attempt to steam-roller over it, however.

Displays of intellectual dishonesty, by way of woefully poor impersonations of being a scientist, (just because he's put together a spreadsheet or two), is astounding.

The actual evidence behind the Abiogenesis hypothesis far outweights his misconceived beliefs about what he thinks science up to on the precursor chemical evolution topic. Better to discuss the facts than his twisted views on them, IMO.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It was just a clumsy internet search that turned up some recent research on self-replicating polypeptides. Self-replication in RNA structures has been around longer scientifically. From a few recent dives into the origin-of-life area from a complete lay perspective, it seems like of the components needed for a proto-cell (encapsulation, self-replication, a proto-instruction code) the biggest missing element is a production mechanism for the fatty acids that can make a simple cell capsule.

I should probably print and read that NASA astrobiology document I downloaded. Last time I started to skim it on my screen I got caught up in some of the simplifications of the origin of elements.

Here was a Scientific American article on a self-replicating protein world:

Life’s First Molecule Was Protein, Not RNA, New Model Suggests

and the astrobiology primer:

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/epdf/10.1089/ast.2015.1460

 

[SelfSim]

It was just a clumsy internet search that turned up some recent research on self-replicating polypeptides. Self-replication in RNA structures has been around longer scientifically. From a few recent dives into the origin-of-life area from a complete lay perspective, it seems like of the components needed for a proto-cell (encapsulation, self-replication, a proto-instruction code) the biggest missing element is a production mechanism for the fatty acids that can make a simple cell capsule.

I should probably print and read that NASA astrobiology document I downloaded. Last time I started to skim it on my screen I got caught up in some of the simplifications of the origin of elements.

Apologies for my post words there. I edited them out when I had the chance to re-read how the 'self-replicating amino' thing came up and you caught me in the act. (The edit was done out of respect for your posts, however). Cheers.
PS: Seems the board software won't allow my edits to that post(?) I guess that's because you quoted my original text(?) Apologies for the (slight) confusion here .. interesting.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Apologies for my post words there. I edited them out when I had the chance to re-read how the 'self-replicating amino' thing came up and you caught me in the act. (The edit was done out of respect for your posts, however). Cheers.
PS: Seems the board software won't allow my edits to that post(?) I guess that's because you quoted my original text(?) Apologies for the (slight) confusion here .. interesting.

Nah, that's OK. As I said it was just a clumsy internet search. It's interesting how somewhat fuzzy searches actually work. (Then again, I got my start searching online with searches to library catalogs running on old IBM mainframes using terminals with weird "bonus" characters and "gopher". I don't think I've ever entered a sentence into a search bar.)

 

[AV1611VET]

God created everything, no big bang happened.

Citation required.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

That's a claim, not evidence.

That's a citation.

 

[SelfSim]

That's a citation.

.. and an irrelevant one. It refers to the demise of the Earth .. not the Universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

.. and an irrelevant one. It refers to the demise of the Earth .. not the Universe.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

Four things are here asserted: 1. That Jesus Christ is the Creator of the universe; of all things visible and invisible; of all things that had a beginning, whether they exist in time or in eternity. 2. That whatsoever was created was created FOR himself; that he was the sole end of his own work. 3. That he was prior to all creation, to all beings, whether in the visible or invisible world. 4. That he is the preserver and governor of all things; for by him all things consist.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

Four things are here asserted: 1. That Jesus Christ is the Creator of the universe; of all things visible and invisible; of all things that had a beginning, whether they exist in time or in eternity. 2. That whatsoever was created was created FOR himself; that he was the sole end of his own work. 3. That he was prior to all creation, to all beings, whether in the visible or invisible world. 4. That he is the preserver and governor of all things; for by him all things consist.

Whether it is about the Earth or the Universe, it is not evidence to the claim "god created the universe" just more claims of the same. The creation of the Universe is also very much off topic to this thread about the genetic "code".

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether it is about the Earth or the Universe, it is not evidence to the claim "god created the universe" just more claims of the same. The creation of the Universe is also very much off topic to this thread about the genetic "code".

She asked for a citation.

I now have given two.

If you want a third, let me know.

HOWEVER, I feel compelled to ask this first:

Would you recognize one, if it was posted?

 

[Hans Blaster]

She asked for a citation.

I now have given two.

If you want a third, let me know.

HOWEVER, I feel compelled to ask this first:

Would you recognize one, if it was posted?

The bible is irrelevant to the discussion. I know citations. I use them all the time. I've been cited hundreds of times in the scientific literature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you recognize one, if it was posted?

The bible is irrelevant to the discussion. I know citations. I use them all the time. I've been cited hundreds of times in the scientific literature.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[renniks]

There are some geneticist's that hold to that conclusion, yes. But the rest hold to other ideas on the formation. They conclude that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a natural result of chemical interactions.

There is nothing gradual about abiogenesis. If it is true, it had to, in a single step, go from random molecules to a very specific and complex combination of them that:

1. Could draw energy from around it to fuel its processes
2. Was able to reproduce
3. Had some sort of genetic code that could mutate to sometimes accidently produce improvements that could be naturally selected.

Without the assistance of cellular machinery, how can this happen?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[renniks]

Your guesses on origin of life are just as much a faith, as anyone else. The entire field of abiogenesis is assumptions repeated so often they have gained the status of fact with not a shred of evidence any of it ever happened.

And then they have the audacity to call it science.
I guess atheists need something to believe in too.