Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

[shagdrum]

sure you know what you are talking about? can't even keep your assertions of predictions straight.

Theorizing is making assertions. You statement here makes no sense. It is simply inarticulate condescension.

i see, that's your explanation for how id works. if it's improbable, by one mans mathematical probability filter, or LOOKS designed, then it's id at work. that's not much of an explanation.

That is an oversimplified mischaracterization of what Dembski argues which has been spelled out already in this threat.

You cannot make an argument through honest means, apparently.

so, how does this designing take effect in the world? random mutation? how does that work. it's well understood how it works under the evolutionary theory.

Again, you are going beyond the scope of ID and making an arbitrary standard. That standard is nothing but a false premise, as has been spelled out a number of times. First, Darwinism cannot meet that standard; it can only provide speculation. Second, ID doesn't attempt to prove a specific mechanism. A scientific theory in this field doesn't have to prove a specific mechanism and none has. Your standard is disingenuous and arbitrary and, if accepted, disproves Darwinism as well.

All you are doing is creating a "cloud of doubt" to then be able to claim ID is unscientific.

and as usual, there goes your goalpost rhetoric. a little old shag. fossten falls for it, but i don't.

It is not simply rhetoric, it is fact. You are trying to inject arbitrary standards (false premises) into the debate that are not appropriate and only cloud the issue by allow you to claim ID is not a science. You have yet to provide any justification for your standards. All you are doing is repeating them over and over as fact. It seems you are learning from foxpaws.

behe and dembski's system's ARE NOT TEST"S OF PROOF. i'm not moving any goalposts, just asking you to prove YOUR assertion that id IS TESTABLE.
i haven't heard anything from you on it.
dembski and behe say they think they can tell id, NOT PROVE IT OR TEST FOR IT.

I never said that ID could be tested for proof! I said it could as much as Darwinian evolution could. Since Darwinian evolution cannot be tested for proof, my point stands. the only way you can logically disprove my point is to prove that Darwinian evolution can and has been empirically verified. Since you can't do that, you are resorting to mischaracterization and moving the goalposts.

ID simply applies the same scientific methods of design detection used in other sciences to the field of speciation.

and evolution is beyond speculation.it's mechanism has been proven within genetic drift and as you call, adaptation.

No, it has not been proven. You are asserting a lie and you know it. While the claim has been made that genetic drift, adaptation or whatever else "proves" Darwinian evolution, the fact of the matter is that when the facts are looked at, that evidence hardly proves Darwinian evolution unless you start making assumptions and huge logical leaps. So scientifically, Darwinian evolution has not been proven. You know this, but I wouldn't expect you to question your Atheist dogma.

And, all we are left to go in when it comes to this "proof" of Darwinian evolution is your work. Considering the amount of blatant mischaracterization in this post alone, anyone would be a fool to take you at your word here.

it's true, full speciation could be said to be unverified. but try mating a great dane with a chihuahua. without outside intervention, it's physically impossible. and there are many other examples where speciation of a form have occured.

WTH does that prove? Bot a great dane and a chihuahua are the same species. Any mating (natural or otherwise) wouldn't prove speciation. And the fact that they would need "outside intervention" would, if anything, prove ID over Darwinism. What is your point?

You seem to be simply repeating those Atheist/Darwinist talking points that sound good to you but you don't fully understand.

really? do you truly understand what gibberish you just posted?
asserts unproveable? wtf?

Sorry, I got a little ahead of myself in typing that. I was originally going to say "makes assertions", then I shortened it to "asserts" but forgot to remove the "makes". Let me correct it; Basically you are asserting that because one theory asserts unprovable, unscientific speculation as fact in an area where the other doesn't, it is scientific and the other isn't.

 

[hrmwrm]

No, it has not been proven. You are asserting a lie and you know it.

you're trying to tell me adaptation has not been proven? who's shoveling it here. natural selection is the basis of evolution.

WTH does that prove? Bot a great dane and a chihuahua are the same species. Any mating (natural or otherwise) wouldn't prove speciation. And the fact that they would need "outside intervention" would, if anything, prove ID over Darwinism. What is your point?

that is a form of speciation. they are no longer capable of breeding within the same line.
dog's have been bred for characteristics for a few thousand years. they change without outside intervention. and you say it's proof of id?
better stop bogarting that and pass it around.

I never said that ID could be tested for proof!

then you lied. you said it can be tested. just adding some more words doesn't change the intent.

Basically you are asserting that because one theory asserts unprovable, unscientific speculation as fact in an area where the other doesn't, it is scientific and the other isn't.

no, i'm not asserting that.

 

[hrmwrm]

You have to have a theory of evolution first. "Assume a [fill in the blank]. Then apply the theory of evolution." It's not based on observation, it's based on a preconceived model. Example: The Cambrian Explosion was invented to account for massive amounts of missing links that evolutionists couldn't explain. But they had to adhere to their theory, so they just made up the CE to account for it, without any scientific basis whatever. Never mind that the CE is more easily explained as 'Creation.'

tell you what fossten. when you can show observeable creation and not just basing your thoughts on a creation model, get back to me.

 

[fossten]

tell you what fossten. when you can show observeable creation and not just basing your thoughts on a creation model, get back to me.

Awwww, can't defend your precious theory, can you?

Tell you what wormy, ditto what you said, except insert evolution in there.

 

[hrmwrm]

i've posted lot's up of mine.
i knew you couldn't defend yours at all.
as for the "cambrian explosion". i guess it'll have to wait until no more new fossil species can be found to make a determination.
but overall evolution stands strong.
there's nothing with evidence to compete with it.

 

[fossten]

i've posted lot's up of mine.
i knew you couldn't defend yours at all.
as for the "cambrian explosion". i guess it'll have to wait until no more new fossil species can be found to make a determination.
but overall evolution stands strong.
there's nothing with evidence to compete with it.

Nothing that you'd bother looking at, you mean. Denial is a strong emotion for the fragile in belief.

 

[hrmwrm]

post it up, i'll have a look.
and no, i do mean nothing with evidence.

Denial is a strong emotion for the fragile in belief.

i'm not fragile in belief. i have no belief. so i'm also not denying anything.
it's those of belief who always deny until the truth can't be ignored any more.
ever look at astronomy before the 16th century?

 

[fossten]

post it up, i'll have a look.
and no, i do mean nothing with evidence.


i'm not fragile in belief. i have no belief. so i'm also not denying anything.
it's those of belief who always deny until the truth can't be ignored any more.
ever look at astronomy before the 16th century?

Incorrect. You ignore evidence that goes contrary to your belief in evolution.

 

[shagdrum]

you're trying to tell me adaptation has not been proven? who's shoveling it here. natural selection is the basis of evolution.

Straw man fallacy:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.​

that is a form of speciation. they are no longer capable of breeding within the same line.
dog's have been bred for characteristics for a few thousand years. they change without outside intervention. and you say it's proof of id?
better stop bogarting that and pass it around.

So now you are redefining speciation?! There is no new species created, so it is not speciation. What you are doing here is called equivocation, a tactic that is typical for Darwinists to use.

then you lied. you said it can be tested. just adding some more words doesn't change the intent.

BS! You are quoting me out of context and you know it.

It is abundantly clear that you are not interested in an honest conversation here. As with mrs. Fox, any debate here with you is an exercise in frustration.:Bang

 

[hrmwrm]

Incorrect. You ignore evidence that goes contrary to your belief in evolution.

any evidence you've posted is not contrary, merely another view and opinion. post up something with some relatively concrete basis and i'll give it a gander.

 

[hrmwrm]

once again, shag's infamous strawman/fallacy arguement. always something to duck behind instead of debating. still trying to baffle with bs.

So now you are redefining speciation?!

no, just allowing for it's definition.

BS! You are quoting me out of context and you know it.

some more distraction.
you were not quoted out of context. i merely caught you saying one thing, then explaining another.

my question to you still stands. how does id work?
you can't just look at something and say it's intelligently designed and leave it at that. what are the marks of id? what's the operation of it's mechanism?
how do you prove something is intelligently designed and NOT chance?
what predictions does it make?
if it's a scientific theory, it should make predictions.
example. evolution makes predictions of transitional fossils. some have been found. whether you believe these are transitional fossils or not is irrelevent right now. this is merely an example.
so what are id's predictions that should be found if it's design?
in case you forget, dembski also says there is regularity and chance as well.
how do you make this distinction? as shown in my dismissal of him, he has no way to test his theorem. no predictions. no inkling. same with behe.

and you say you want honest discussion. why don't you stop dodging and honestly answer the questions? probably because you can't.

 

[04SCTLS]

Scientists Create a Form of Pre-Life

• By Brandon Keim
• June 11, 2009 |

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/tpna/

A self-assembling molecule synthesized in a laboratory may resemble the earliest form of information-carrying biological material, a transitional stage between lifeless chemicals and the complex genetic architectures of life.
Called tPNA, short for thioester peptide nucleic acids, the molecules spontaneously mimic the shape of DNA and RNA when mixed together. Left on their own, they gather in shape-shifting strands that morph into stable configurations.
The molecules haven’t yet achieved self-replication, the ultimate benchmark of life, but they hint at it. Best of all, their activities require no enzymes — molecules that facilitate chemical reactions, but didn’t yet exist in the primordial world modeled by scientists seeking insight into life’s murky origins.
“There have been many test tube experiments of evolving chemical sequences, but there hasn’t been a system that on its own can form under enzyme-free conditions,” said Reza Ghadiri, a Scripps Research Institute biochemist. “We satisfy some of the requirements of the long-term goal of having a purely chemical system that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.”

Among the co-authors of the paper describing tPNA, published Thursday in Science, is the late Leslie Orgel, a pioneering biochemist who hypothesized that DNA evolved from RNA, a simple information-carrying molecule that today forms the genomes of viruses and facilitates protein manufacture in organismal cells.
The so-called RNA world hypothesis is widely accepted among scientists, but requires several critical steps that have been satisfactorily explained in a laboratory only recently, if at all. One such step is the formation of RNA’s chemical precursors. Another step involves their accumulation into RNA, which despite its relative simplicity, has resisted the attempts of scientists to synthesize it in primordial conditions.
A experiment published several weeks ago in Nature, in which a cycle of evaporation and condensation distilled a mix of primordial chemicals into several key RNA ingredients, has provided a plausible early answer to the problem of precursor formation. And the tPNA molecule in the current study may illuminate, at least in principle, how RNA might have emerged from these ingredients: in multiple stages, through a process of evolution.
“It’s the pre-RNA world. There’s a hypothesis that says RNA is so complicated, it couldn’t have arisen de novo” — from scratch — “on early Earth,” said study co-author Luke Leman, also a Scripps Research Institute biochemist. “So you need some more primitive genetic system that nature fiddled around with and finally decided to evolve into RNA.”
Other researchers have tried to manufacture a similarly proto-genetic material, but their efforts have proved inefficient and relied on the chemical reaction-enhancing presence of enzymes which probably did not exist in Earth’s early conditions. But according to the researchers, these experiments assumed that RNA — which resembles one-half the spiraling ladder form made famous by DNA — would assemble block by block, with each segment containing a fully-formed rung-and-backbone piece.
Instead, the researchers searched for a complete chemical spine to which the rungs, or nucleobases — A, T, C and G in the genetic code — could then attach. Rather than using the sugar-and-phosphate backbone found in RNA and DNA, they identified a peptide, or a small molecule composed of primordially present amino acids, that also functioned as a backbone.
“In terms of prebiotic chemistry, this is a conceptually different way of forming that genetic polymer,” said Leman.
The nucleobases automatically adhered to the peptide in a loose fashion, detaching and attaching themselves until stable. When mixed with single strands of DNA or RNA in water at room temperature, the tPNA molecules arranged themselves in complementary strands, perhaps echoing the eventual ability of those genetic materials to duplicate themselves.
Ghadiri cautioned that tPNA shouldn’t be seen as a direct analog of early life, but as demonstrating the plausibility of a similar system. “If you’re thinking that at some point these types of molecules are going to hand off to the RNA world, they should have cross-pairing interactions, and be capable of interacting with RNA,” he said. “We show both.”
Antonio Lazcano, a National Autonomous University of Mexico biologist and expert in early Earth chemistry who was not involved in the study, called the work a synthetic biology breakthrough, but repeated Ghadiri’s caveat that chemical bridges between the pre-RNA and RNA worlds are “completely unknown and can only be surmised.”
According to University of Manchester organic chemist John Sutherland, who co-authored the Nature study showing how RNA’s ingredients could have formed, the new research is less important in providing primordial insight than in furthering the eventual creation of life in a laboratory.
“Ghadiri’s important and highly innovative new work potentially relates to the origin of life as we don’t yet know it,” said Sutherland. Life’s emergence took billions of years, a process now being compressed into the passage of a few human generations. “The possibility that humans could come up with an alternative biology that outdoes that which produced us is a mind-freeing and mind-bending concept,” he said.
The researchers are now searching for different types of peptide backbones that could support more complex and stable genetic structures.
“The next phase is to see whether these molecules are capable of self-replication,” said Ghadiri. “That’s another two or three years of work.”
Asked how long it would take before fully synthetic life could be coaxed from an inert chemical mixture, Ghadiri said, “Soon. If not in our lifetime, then the next. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be longer than that.”

 

[hrmwrm]

i found similar as well.

Published Online June 11, 2009
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1174577
Science Express Index

Reports
Submitted on April 6, 2009
Accepted on May 26, 2009



Self-Assembling Sequence-Adaptive Peptide Nucleic Acids Yasuyuki Ura 1, John M. Beierle 1, Luke J. Leman 1, Leslie E. Orgel 2, M. Reza Ghadiri 1*
1 Department of Chemistry and The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
2 The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, PO Box 85800, San Diego, CA 92186, USA.


* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
M. Reza Ghadiri , E-mail: ghadiri@scripps.edu



Several classes of nucleic acid analogs have been reported, but no synthetic informational polymer has yet proven responsive to selection pressures under enzyme free conditions. Here, we introduce an oligomer family that efficiently self-assembles via reversible covalent anchoring of nucleobase recognition units onto simple oligo-dipeptide backbones [thioester peptide nucleic acids (tPNA)] and undergoes dynamic sequence modification in response to changing templates in solution. The oligomers specifically self-pair with complementary tPNA strands and cross-pair with RNA and DNA in Watson-Crick fashion. Thus, tPNA combines base-pairing interactions with the side chain functionalities of typical peptides and proteins. These characteristics might prove advantageous for the design or selection of catalytic constructs or biomaterials that are capable of dynamic sequence repair and adaptation.

or more layman

DNA-like Molecule Replicates Without HelpBy Robert F. Service
ScienceNOW Daily News
11 June 2009

Researchers pondering the origin of life have long struggled to crack the ultimate chicken-and-egg paradox. How did nucleic acids like DNA and RNA--which encode proteins--first form, when proteins are needed for their synthesis? Now, scientists report that they've cooked up molecular hybrids of proteins and nucleic acids that skirt the dreaded paradox. Although it's unknown whether such molecules existed prior to the emergence of life, they offer insight into a chemical pathway that might have helped life arise.
DNA and RNA sport a backbone of sugar and phosphate groups linked to the nucleotide bases that spell out the genetic code. Certain proteins help copy nucleic acids by fashioning complementary strands that carry matching nucleotides. But how could nucleic acids originate without proteins, and vice versa? Proponents of the "RNA World" hypothesis argue that RNA itself was the key because of its dual abilities: It not only carries genetic information but also can catalyze chemical reactions. That view received a big boost earlier this year, when researchers at The Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California, showed that small RNA fragments can catalyze their own reproduction. "The question remains, how those first RNA molecules appeared," says Luke Leman, a chemist at Scripps who was not part of the study. Other researchers have synthesized DNA and RNA analogs with simpler sugar backbones that may have done the job. Yet those are still complex, lessening the chance that they were the primordial replicating molecules, Leman says.

In hopes of finding something simpler, Leman and colleagues did away with the sugar-phosphate backbones altogether. Instead, they turned to amino acids, protein building blocks that have been shown to assemble under prebiotic conditions. The researchers report online today in Science Express that when they combined just two amino acids, a backbone readily assembled without the need for additional enzymes. They then found that DNA bases could bind to a sulfur group in one of the amino acids, cysteine, creating a protein-DNA hybrid strand. But because the nucleic acid bases attach weakly to the cysteines--think Velcro instead of glue--the bases can jump on and off in solution. As a result, when the researchers placed their hybrids in solution with single strands of DNA and RNA, the hybrids were able to rearrange their nucleic acid makeup to form complementary strands that would bind to the DNAs and RNAs. The researchers discovered that the hybrids could also form strands that would bind to other complementary hybrids, which shows that such molecules have the potential to copy themselves.

"This is very interesting and creative," says Eric Kool, a chemist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, who studies nucleic acid analogs. These particular hybrids change so rapidly in solution, it's unclear if they would remain stable long enough to propagate genetic information over several generations. However, Kool says, "It's an idea worth considering."

 

[shagdrum]

A self-assembling molecule synthesized in a laboratory

a molecule synthesized in a lab is going to empirically show Darwinian evolution; that life and the creations of new species is the result of random chance?

 

[shagdrum]

This message is hidden because hrmwrm is on your ignore list.

This forum have gotten much more bearable as of late.

 

[04SCTLS]

a molecule synthesized in a lab is going to empirically show Darwinian evolution; that life and the creations of new species is the result of random chance?

That's what they're trying to make happen.
Kind of like spontaneous combustion if conditions are right.

 

[fossten]

That's what they're trying to make happen.
Kind of like spontaneous combustion if conditions are right.

I guess the tone of Shag's post went right over your head.

 

[04SCTLS]

I guess the tone of Shag's post went right over your head.

No his incredulousness shone through.
Hopefully all this stuff will amount to more than "could" or "if" or "may"
Modern science has only been here for the blink of an eye in celestial terms.
A little new knowledge can be a dangerous thing to some...

 

[fossten]

No his incredulousness shone through.
Hopefully all this stuff will amount to more than "could" or "if" or "may"
Modern science has only been here for the blink of an eye in celestial terms.
A little new knowledge can be a dangerous thing to some...

Why do you say 'hopefully?' Isn't evolution a done deal already?

 

[hrmwrm]

Why do you say 'hopefully?' Isn't evolution a done deal already?

well, they used to think creation WAS a done deal. now they know better.

 

[hrmwrm]

This forum have gotten much more bearable as of late.

have gotten? still can't argue, still can't spell.
no wonder you're still in school.

 

[04SCTLS]

Why do you say 'hopefully?' Isn't evolution a done deal already?

Thought you would pick up on that when I wrote it.:shifty:

For all their scientific effort I hope they come up with something, is different from "I have faith they will come up with something"
It's not a done deal and is still called the "theory" of evolution.
ID is more a concept than a theory in comparison.

How about
Some intelligent entity created all the stuff in the universe that on it's own would form into into things through random natural selection.

 

[fossten]

How about
Some intelligent entity created all the stuff in the universe that on it's own would form into into things through random natural selection.

Not good enough. How do you explain new information being created? It's a virtual mathematical impossibility for so many combinations of new information to randomly appear out of nowhere. ID at least accepts the mathematical impossibility and attempts to account for it. Evolution seeks to ignore it and shut down any dissenting mention of it.

 

[MAC1]

Actually, we are. They invented this machine called the the "Large Hadron Collider". Maybe you've heard of it? It's going to be used to study the big bang. Interesting stuff.

Dumbass.

Study the Big Bang?!

What meaningless dribble! So Joker, you believe the "LARGE" Hadron Collider will prove the Big Bang. LMAO! There is already enough to disprove the Big Bang regardless of the Collider and what it may demonstrate.

Dumbass!

 

[hrmwrm]

It's a virtual mathematical impossibility for so many combinations of new information to randomly appear out of nowhere.

virtual? not actual? i've already debunked dembsky and his mathematical claims.