The Genetic Code

[AV1611VET]

How about you give evidence to support your claims every once in a while as well?

Science requires evidence.

Miracles don't.

 

[SelfSim]

Science requires evidence.

Miracles don't.

.. and so, they can be dismissed without further thought then.

 

[SelfSim]

Do you even know what "chemical evolution" and "autocatalysis" mean in this context?

In short it means chemicals have to accidentally mix to form life without any of the ideal pre existing conditions.

• When linking amino acids to build a protein .. {etc}

So you confirm your answer as being a rather emphatic: 'No' then, eh?

 

[Kylie]

Science requires evidence.

Miracles don't.

The trouble with "All you need is for someone to say it happened," is that anyone can say anything, and who's to say which anything is more valid than some other anything? That makes it useless as a method for finding the truth.

So you'll forgive me if I consider that the method that can't produce truth hasn't actually provided the truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

.. and so, they can be dismissed without further thought then.

Only if you think scientifically (i.e., inside the box).

 

[AV1611VET]

The trouble with "All you need is for someone to say it happened," is that anyone can say anything,

That's true.

But eventually they'll get caught saying something that is both outside the realm of the Bible and/or science, and get put back in their place.

... and who's to say which anything is more valid than some other anything?

God.

That makes it useless as a method for finding the truth.

No -- that makes SCIENCE useless as a method for finding the truth.

So you'll forgive me if I consider that the method that can't produce truth hasn't actually provided the truth.

My obligation in this line of question ended when I provided you a citation for a claim made by someone else.

Later, I provided a second citation.

So as far as I'm concerned, we're just chasing rabbits here.

 

[SelfSim]

Only if you think scientifically (i.e., inside the box).

With 'outside of the box' being the realm of pure beliefs being demonstrably imagined by human minds.
(.. namely because there is zero evidence for the existence of other than believing minds of type: human).

 

[AV1611VET]

With 'outside of the box' being the realm of pure beliefs being demonstrably imagined by human minds.

With "outside of the box" being the spiritual realm.

You know?

Kingdom of God versus Kingdom of Heaven argument?

Science can't "see" anything it can't sniff, feel, taste, see, or hear.

And the "one" doing all that has sensory deprivation to boot.

 

[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:

So you'll forgive me if I consider that the method that can't produce truth hasn't actually provided the truth.

Question:

Did I waste my time giving you a citation?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Science requires evidence.

Miracles don't.

And that's why I prefer science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In short it means chemicals have to accidentally mix to form life without any of the ideal pre existing conditions.

• When linking amino acids to build a protein, “each amino acid must be activated to overcome an energy barrier that naturally prevents the linking up of adjacent amino acids in solution. The energy for this process comes from ATP. Then, a special enzyme called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS) bonds each amino acid, in two steps, to the correct tRNA.” (Sarfati, 2014b, 33%) Furthermore, the tRNA adaptors must be detachable once the amino acid has been joined to the end of the growing protein. The ribosome moves the mRNA along like a ratchet, and energy for detachment comes from another energy-storage molecule, GTP (guanosine triphosphate), which is in turn produced by a complex and tightly integrated and regulated machine (Truman, 2007).

Where'd you dredge this up?

(I'll take this as "no, I don't know what they are".)

 

[AV1611VET]

And that's why I prefer science.

QV please:

Don't concentrate on the finger, or you'll miss all that Heavenly glory.

Do you understand?

 

[SelfSim]

With "outside of the box" being the spiritual realm.
You know?
Kingdom of God versus Kingdom of Heaven argument?

Yes .. all that's what your mind came up with. Y'know .. like nothing of any real substance there.

Science can't "see" anything it can't sniff, feel, taste, see, or hear.

Neither can you .. other than by way of your imagined beliefs.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't concentrate on the finger, or you'll miss all that Heavenly glory.

Do you understand?

No, I don't understand your finger nonsense. I'm also not interested in your "heaven". It sounds quite awful.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't understand your finger nonsense. I'm also not interested in your "heaven". It sounds quite awful.

Which part don't you like?

No pain? no sorrow? eternal life? streets of gold? living in a mansion? peace?

What exactly?

 

[SelfSim]

No I claimed chemical evolution doesn't lead to abiogenesis. That's the topic.

See, the autocataytic set hypothesis, is based on lab experiments, which show that small protein peptide molecules, in a increasingly complex 'soup', undergo a spontaneous phase transition, which creates self catalysing, auto-catalytic sets. This phase transition is dependent on the ratio of uncatalysed reactions in the soup, to polymers of a given length. At the moment, (2018), this has been demonstrated in a set of 16 ribosymes.

The autocatalytic hypothesis, (emboldenment for @Mountainmike only), then arises by applying this demonstrated phenomenon to the question of the origins of template based replication (ie: life's genetic code).

Evolution then takes over, once some random event changes any given peptide in a peptide autocatytic set (or cluster). Stuart Kauffman (its proposer) tries to simplify this, with his nursery rhyme-style explanation about peptides he names 'Patrick, Gus', (etc) co-existing in a calm lagoon, billions of years ago, on the coast of Western Australia. Those peptide characters then become the first sessile feeder and the first predator.

See his 30 minute, highly condensed (and therefore, not so easy to follow), Youtube:
The Emergence and Evolution of Life: Stuart Kauffman .. all the published references, supporting his hypothesis, are shown in his projected slides (and in his words).

You might not believe his hypothesis .. (that's optional and quite irrelevant). It is however, deeply rooted in empirical lab testing results and well established information theory, and is actively being pursued as part of research into the field of molecular reproduction. Like it or not: they have shown that its possible.

 

[Kylie]

That's true.

But eventually they'll get caught saying something that is both outside the realm of the Bible and/or science, and get put back in their place.

However, much of what you say is extremely wrong according to science, and I know there are many who disagree with you about your views on the Bible, even among the other Christians here. So where does that leave you?

God.

Except you don't have God saying anything, do you? You have what is claimed to be what God inspired people to write.

No -- that makes SCIENCE useless as a method for finding the truth.

How in the world do you reach that illogical conclusion?

My obligation in this line of question ended when I provided you a citation for a claim made by someone else.

Later, I provided a second citation.

So as far as I'm concerned, we're just chasing rabbits here.

Very well, since you want to play games...

God created everything, no big bang happened.

Evidence required.

No excuses now.

 

[Kylie]

Question:

Did I waste my time giving you a citation?

Yes. You knew what my point was, yet you decided to ignore it and play games. I think you wasted my time as well.

 

[Mountainmike]

Since @SelfSim doesnt seem to understand the meaning of abiogenesis or hypothesis.

Let us clarify for those who let their faith in abiogenesis run wildly ahead of any evidence.

Simple logic.
Is a peptide live? Not by the definitions of life of NASA or Harvard.

So is what happens to peptides relevant in a hypothesis for abiogenesis. No.

It has no more relevance than a simpler living cell evolving to a more complex one. That is not abiogenesis either,

So what is relevant?
The step from no life to life. That is what abiogenesis MEANS.

So what is needed for a hypothesis of abiogenesis? A structure for the first replicating , evolving ( and inevitable respiring) cell, and an experiment to test whether it can have happened by random chance from non living constituents.

Only that step matters. Only a hypothesis for that step IS a hypothesis for abiogenesis.

But as yet there is no structure conjectured for hat cell, and certainly no experiment defined for the step of life , how it appeared from non living things. So there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis,


For sure, once such a step is proposed there is then the question as to whether the ingredients could have existed together, but unti, you know what the ingredients are, that is irrelevant.


Someone queried why I sometimes post ahead of the quote.
Answer simple. When the quoted post has nothing of merit to the argument, for reasons given it , it should not be given more exposure.

See, the autocataytic set hypothesis, is based on lab experiments, which show that small protein peptide molecules, in a increasingly complex 'soup', undergo a spontaneous phase transition, which creates self catalysing, auto-catalytic sets. This phase transition is dependent on the ratio of uncatalysed reactions in the soup, to polymers of a given length. At the moment, (2018), this has been demonstrated in a set of 16 ribosymes.

The autocatalytic hypothesis, (emboldenment for @Mountainmike only), then arises by applying this demonstrated phenomenon to the question of the origins of template based replication (ie: life's genetic code).

Evolution then takes over, once some random event changes any given peptide in a peptide autocatytic set (or cluster). Stuart Kauffman (its proposer) tries to simplify this, with his nursery rhyme-style explanation about peptides he names 'Patrick, Gus', (etc) co-existing in a calm lagoon, billions of years ago, on the coast of Western Australia. Those peptide characters then become the first sessile feeder and the first predator.

See his 30 minute, highly condensed (and therefore, not so easy to follow), Youtube:
The Emergence and Evolution of Life: Stuart Kauffman .. all the published references, supporting his hypothesis, are shown in his projected slides (and in his words).

You might not believe his hypothesis .. (that's optional and quite irrelevant). It is however, deeply rooted in empirical lab testing results and well established information theory, and is actively being pursued as part of research into the field of molecular reproduction. Like it or not: they have shown that its possible.

 

[SelfSim]

Let us clarify for those who let their faith in abiogenesis run wildly ahead of any evidence.

Simple logic.
Is a peptide live? Not by the definitions of life of NASA or Harvard.

So is what happens to peptides relevant in a hypothesis for abiogenesis. No.

It has no more relevance than a simpler living cell evolving to a more complex one. That is not abiogenesis either,

Ho hum .. yawn! Do you have anything other than meaningless rhetoric to support your useless attempts at steam-rollering?:
A pathway to peptides in space through the condensation of atomic carbon, (Nature Astronomy, Feb 2022)

Organic molecules are widely present in the dense interstellar medium, and many have been synthesized in the laboratory on Earth under the conditions typical for an interstellar environment. Until now, however, only relatively small molecules of biological interest have been demonstrated to form experimentally under typical space conditions. Here we prove experimentally that the condensation of carbon atoms on the surface of cold solid particles (cosmic dust) leads to the formation of isomeric polyglycine monomers (aminoketene molecules). Following encounters between aminoketene molecules, they polymerize to produce peptides of different lengths. The chemistry involves three of the most abundant species (CO, C and NH3) present in star-forming molecular clouds, and proceeds via a novel pathway that skips the stage of amino acid formation in protein synthesis. The process is efficient, even at low temperatures, without irradiation or the presence of water. The delivery of biopolymers formed by this chemistry to rocky planets in the habitable zone might be an important element in the origins of life.

So what is relevant?

Answered above.

The step from no life to life. That is what abiogenesis MEANS.

Yawn!
More semantic based rhetoric! Boring!

So what is needed for a hypothesis of abiogenesis? A structure for the first replicating , evolving ( and inevitable respiring) cell, and an experiment to test whether it can have happened by random chance from non living constituents.

You mean like this one (from Wiki)?:

Only that step matters. Only a hypothesis for that step IS a hypothesis for abiogenesis.

Thank goodness its already been done then (see above).

But as yet there is no structure conjectured for hat cell, and certainly no experiment defined for the step of life , how it appeared from non living things. So there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis,

This is the repeated (baseless) argument fallacy .. tiring and boring! Many other posters have already pointed you at protocell structures involving self-catalysing short-chain peptides inside proton gradient lipid membranes. Are you so blinded by your beliefs that you can't see what's been presented to you probably about 20-30 times since you started your recent months-long rant about abiogenesis?

For sure, once such a step is proposed there is then the question as to whether the ingredients could have existed together, but unti, you know what the ingredients are, that is irrelevant.

No .. its relevant for objective research. Have you forgotten your diagnosis of being a 'truth seeker' only?
You seek a truth you believe is there awaiting to be discovered. This is not the scientific approach. Its what a believer does.

Someone queried why I sometimes post ahead of the quote.
Answer simple. When the quoted post has nothing of merit to the argument, for reasons given it , it should not be given more exposure.

What a cheap cop out! A total joke! I couldn't care less about that.