0
   

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

 
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:25 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon referred to a 'replicating molecule'.

He referred to a replicating molecule of unknown type. He was quite specific. His statement was consistent with Shapiro's article.


Yes, he was quite specific about giving no specifics. Laughing

Brandon9000 wrote:
Who's talking about DNA left out in the open??? I'm not. I'm talking about a self-replicating molecule of unknown type, formed in the ocean, which developed over the eons into a single celled organism.......

That looks pretty specific to me.

You chided Brandon that DNA could not survive "in the ocean", but Brandon never claimed DNA did. And then he even clarified his position, after which you switched to arguing about "in the ocean" instead of DNA. So you put words in his mouth (what a surprise). Then when cornered, you ran to a different argument. You bad boy.


Yeah, VEEEEEEERRRRY specific.

'I'm talking about a self-replicating molecule of unknown type' Laughing

I mentioned DNA because it is a replicating molecule used by living organisms on Earth.

When he objected to DNA, I said I would gladly talk about RNA under the same circumstances.

The reason he gave no specifics is because his argument is hollow.

If he or you want to imagine that some other replicating molecule is the basis of life on Earth, then have fun.

But it isn't.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:30 am
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon referred to a 'replicating molecule'.

He referred to a replicating molecule of unknown type. He was quite specific. His statement was consistent with Shapiro's article.


Yes, he was quite specific about giving no specifics. Laughing
You should sue him for patent infringement.
Quote:

Anybody could say:

'well you can't prove a negative, how can you say that a molecule of the specific kind that I am imagining (but won't tell anybody the details of because it's a secret) won't survive? of course it will because I have imagined it with all the properties necessary for it's survival !'

The fact is though that life on Earth utilizes DNA and RNA, (not some 'unknown type' that someone imagines MIGHTA, yeah COULDA existed at some unspecified point in time), so that is the reality we must deal with.


From Shapiro...
Quote:
An understanding of the initial steps leading to life would not reveal the specific events that led to the familiar DNA-RNA-protein-based organisms of today. However, because we know that evolution does not anticipate future events, we can presume that nucleotides first appeared in metabolism to serve some other purpose, perhaps as catalysts or as containers for the storage of chemical energy (the nucleotide ATP still serves this function today). Some chance event or circumstance may have led to the connection of nucleotides to form RNA. The most obvious function of RNA today is to serve as a structural element that assists in the formation of bonds between amino acids in the synthesis of proteins. The first RNAs may have served the same purpose, but without any preference for specific amino acids. Many further steps in evolution would be needed to "invent" the elaborate mechanisms for replication and specific protein synthesis that we observe in life today.


But than anyone can say what Shapiro said. Interesting isn't it how closely Brandon's general statement seems to mirror Shapiro. And even more interesting is how Shapiro's statement is in direct contradiction to what you said real life.

Blow some more smoke out your ***.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:36 am
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon referred to a 'replicating molecule'.

He referred to a replicating molecule of unknown type. He was quite specific. His statement was consistent with Shapiro's article.


Yes, he was quite specific about giving no specifics. Laughing
You should sue him for patent infringement.
Quote:

Anybody could say:

'well you can't prove a negative, how can you say that a molecule of the specific kind that I am imagining (but won't tell anybody the details of because it's a secret) won't survive? of course it will because I have imagined it with all the properties necessary for it's survival !'

The fact is though that life on Earth utilizes DNA and RNA, (not some 'unknown type' that someone imagines MIGHTA, yeah COULDA existed at some unspecified point in time), so that is the reality we must deal with.


From Shapiro...
Quote:
An understanding of the initial steps leading to life would not reveal the specific events that led to the familiar DNA-RNA-protein-based organisms of today. However, because we know that evolution does not anticipate future events, we can presume that nucleotides first appeared in metabolism to serve some other purpose, perhaps as catalysts or as containers for the storage of chemical energy (the nucleotide ATP still serves this function today). Some chance event or circumstance may have led to the connection of nucleotides to form RNA. The most obvious function of RNA today is to serve as a structural element that assists in the formation of bonds between amino acids in the synthesis of proteins. The first RNAs may have served the same purpose, but without any preference for specific amino acids. Many further steps in evolution would be needed to "invent" the elaborate mechanisms for replication and specific protein synthesis that we observe in life today.


But than anyone can say what Shapiro said. Interesting isn't it how closely Brandon's general statement seems to mirror Shapiro. And even more interesting is how Shapiro's statement is in direct contradiction to what you said real life.



Actually, they are talking about two different things.

Shapiros article is not very technical, so please try to understand it.

Shapiro is discussing RNA that evolves in an ALREADY LIVING organism.

Brandon is referring to a replicator that assembles itself and eventually builds a living organism around itself.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:42 am
real life wrote:


Actually, they are talking about two different things.

Shapiros article is not very technical, so please try to understand it.

Shapiro is discussing RNA that evolves in an ALREADY LIVING organism.

Brandon is referring to a replicator that assembles itself and eventually builds a living organism around itself.

It's so nice that you can interpret Brandon's words to mean things he never said.

To use your tactics.

Post a quote that shows where he said that. (I am betting you will NEVER post any quote for Brandon that says anything close to what you just claimed.)

You really do have no integrity, do you real life? Your standard for yourself is so low that you are willing to do just about anything.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:44 am
The member "real life" is asserting that replicating molecules could not have formed in the oceans. (And as usual, on no external authority, simply making a statement from authority, which is an authority we have no reason to assume he possesses.) However, it has long been known that certain clays, many of which form on the floors of oceans, both in inshore areas, and on continental shelf floors and on deep ocean floors, can bind prebiotic amino acids, and form peptide chains. The following is from an article in the Scientific American from April, 1974. Unfortunately, i cannot link it.

Quote:
Recent research has shown that a number of organic substances formed by a combination of two or more molecules can be bonded to the surface of clay minerals. A number of investigators think the adsorptive properties of certain clays may have played a crucial role in the origin of life. The hypothesis arises as a result of the effort to simulate the conditions under which amino acids may form proteins within the human body. Experiment showed simple amino acids formed into the longer chains called peptides on the surface of clay particles. It is thought that clay acts a catalyst for the information of long peptide chains, or proteins.

The hypothesis was tested experimentally in America and abroad. Scientist added one amino acid in solution to various clay minerals. Then they exposed the clay to temperature and moisture variations. The main findings were that more peptides were produces at various temperatures when clay was present than when it was absent, and that production of peptides was a significant advantage in the presence of protein conversion.


The passage below is comprised of the two opening paragraphs and the final paragraph of an article entitled "Synthesis of Glycine Oligomers under Simulated Prebiotic Conditions on the Surface of Layered Silicate Clay Minerals."

Quote:
There are still many unanswered questions regarding the synthesis of the first complex biological molecules needed for the emergence of life. From the simplest organic molecules, amino acids may be formed. Peptides and polypeptides are then constructed from amino acid units. These polypeptides then form the proteins necessary for living entities. The simplest organic molecules were formed by natural means in many different ways. Amino acids, the building blocks of polypeptides, are known to be synthesized from simple components through the action of heat, electrical discharge, UV radiation, and other mechanisms. It is likely that many amino acids were found in abundance on the prebiotic Earth. Amino acids have also been identified in extraterrestrial sources such as comets and meteorites. How did these abundant amino acids come together to form polypeptides or proteins?

In 1951, Bernal proposed that simple clay minerals may have played a role in the prebiotic formation of polypeptides. Many clay minerals are known to adsorb or intercalate organic molecules. Exchangeable metal cations in the inner regions or on the surface of the clays may then act to catalyze the reactions to form peptides and polypeptides from the adsorbed amino acids. Indeed, many groups have shown that clay minerals in the presence of amino acids do produce peptide oligomers.

**********************************************

In conclusion, clay minerals may have indeed played a major role in the prebiotic formation of the first peptides or polypeptides. We have directly observed the condensation of the amino acid glycine into glycine oligomers. These reactions occur at surface step edges and micro-pore sites, where access to interlayer metal cations is made possible. We are currently studying the site specific prebiotic polymerization of nucleosides on clay mineral surfaces, as well as the condensation of amino acids of varying sizes and reactivities at step edges and micro-pores.


The author is Tim Porter, who has a PhD in Surface Physics from Arizona State University, and the page is maintained by the Physics and Astronomy department of Northern Arizona University, where Mr. Porter is a faculty member. The home page of the Phsyics and Astronomy department at Northern Arizona Unversity describes his area of specilization as:

Quote:
Study of inorganic/organic composite materials, the interaction of biological molecules with layered silicate minerals, atomic and molecular structure of surfaces, microsensor design and fabrication.


The article from which those three paragraphs were taken can be read here.

The home page of Northern Arizona University's Physics and Astronomy department can be viewed here.

The properties of silicate and aluminate clays in fixing prebiotic amino acids to form peptide chains has long been known, and has been the subject of careful study for nearly 40 years. I'm not at all surprised that this is completely unknown to the member "real life."
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:46 am
parados wrote:
real life wrote:


Actually, they are talking about two different things.

Shapiros article is not very technical, so please try to understand it.

Shapiro is discussing RNA that evolves in an ALREADY LIVING organism.

Brandon is referring to a replicator that assembles itself and eventually builds a living organism around itself.

It's so nice that you can interpret Brandon's words to mean things he never said.

To use your tactics.

Post a quote that shows where he said that. (I am betting you will NEVER post any quote for Brandon that says anything close to what you just claimed.)




Brandon9000 wrote:
As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:50 am
real life wrote:


Shapiro is discussing RNA that evolves in an ALREADY LIVING organism.

No, he's not.

Shapiro never refers to the replicating molecules as an "organism."
He refers to it as a "system" or a "network."

So... if you could provide a quote from Shapiro using the word "organism" to describe his network where RNA is made we might believe you. Until then your *** is smoking badly.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:53 am
Setanta wrote:
The properties of silicate and aluminate clays in fixing prebiotic amino acids to form peptide chains has long been known, and has been the subject of careful study for nearly 40 years. I'm not at all surprised that this is completely unknown to the member "real life."


Do you also think that Dr Shapiro and other award winning chemists that he cites are unaware of this?

Have you read Shapiro's paper, or are you content to post 34 year old articles as final and authoritative?

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:56 am
For those who do not know what glycine is, the following is the Wikipedia description of glycine:

Quote:
Glycine (abbreviated as Gly or G)[1] is the organic compound with the formula NH2CH2COOH. It is the smallest of the 20 amino acids commonly found in proteins, coded by codons GGU, GGC, GGA and GGG. Because it has specialized structural properties in protein architecture, this compact amino acid is often evolutionarily conserved.


Nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon and oxygen are all present in the atmosphere, were present in the earliest atmosphere of the earth, and always have been present in the earth's atmosphere.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:58 am
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:


Actually, they are talking about two different things.

Shapiros article is not very technical, so please try to understand it.

Shapiro is discussing RNA that evolves in an ALREADY LIVING organism.

Brandon is referring to a replicator that assembles itself and eventually builds a living organism around itself.

It's so nice that you can interpret Brandon's words to mean things he never said.

To use your tactics.

Post a quote that shows where he said that. (I am betting you will NEVER post any quote for Brandon that says anything close to what you just claimed.)




Brandon9000 wrote:
As I understand it, the theory of evolution usually assumes that somehere a simple replicating molecule eventually formed by chance, and that the combined forces of natural selection and mutation began to cause the design to slowly improve and gain complexity, resulting eventually in life as observed today

Yes? And where did Brandon say it assembled itself and where did he say it built a living organism around it?

He said it formed by chance. That is NOT the same as "assembled itself".


He said it evolved into life as we observe today. That in no way means the molecule built an organism around itself. It means the molecule changed. then the resulting molecule changed, then that molecule changed, etc, etc until finally a molecule was created that was similar to life as we know it. That is NOT the same thing as saying that molecule built an organism around itself. It is saying the molecule eventually evolved.

But lets look at Shapiro's statement again..
Quote:
An understanding of the initial steps leading to life would not reveal the specific events that led to the familiar DNA-RNA-protein-based organisms of today. However, because we know that evolution does not anticipate future events, we can presume that nucleotides first appeared in metabolism to serve some other purpose, perhaps as catalysts or as containers for the storage of chemical energy (the nucleotide ATP still serves this function today). Some chance event or circumstance may have led to the connection of nucleotides to form RNA. The most obvious function of RNA today is to serve as a structural element that assists in the formation of bonds between amino acids in the synthesis of proteins. The first RNAs may have served the same purpose, but without any preference for specific amino acids. Many further steps in evolution would be needed to "invent" the elaborate mechanisms for replication and specific protein synthesis that we observe in life today.

Wow.. I guess Shapiro states that a replicator molecule in this case RNA eventually built an organism around itself. He must say that if Brandon's statement means what you said it does.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 09:58 am
parados wrote:
real life wrote:


Shapiro is discussing RNA that evolves in an ALREADY LIVING organism.

No, he's not.

Shapiro never refers to the replicating molecules as an "organism."
He refers to it as a "system" or a "network."

So... if you could provide a quote from Shapiro using the word "organism" to describe his network where RNA is made we might believe you. Until then your *** is smoking badly.



*sigh*

Shapiro discusses nucleotides appearing in the metabolism prior to the formation of RNA.

His whole discussion is a 'metabolism first' approach to first life, as contrasted with a 'replicator first' approach.

Perhaps the article is too difficult for you, but I hadn't thought it was at first. I won't ask you to read it again. It's very embarrassing to see you misquote it so badly.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 10:00 am
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The properties of silicate and aluminate clays in fixing prebiotic amino acids to form peptide chains has long been known, and has been the subject of careful study for nearly 40 years. I'm not at all surprised that this is completely unknown to the member "real life."


Do you also think that Dr Shapiro and other award winning chemists that he cites are unaware of this?

Have you read Shapiro's paper, or are you content to post 34 year old articles as final and authoritative?

Laughing

Blowing smoke out your ass again real life?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 10:00 am
The age of the first article quoted has no bearing on it's accuracy. It was offered to show that this property of clays has been known for a long time. Mr. Porter received his PhD in surface physics in 1988, therefore, the second article quoted was subsequent to that date, and is therefore 20 years or less than 20 years old. Of course, it still remains true that the age of the article does not determine its accuracy. You can, or course, allege that these properties of silicate and aluminate clays has since been falsified. I await your evidence that this is the case.

Liar.

Moron.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 10:09 am
Setanta wrote:
The age of the first article quoted has no bearing on it's accuracy. It was offered to show that this property of clays has been known for a long time. Mr. Porter received his PhD in surface physics in 1988, therefore, the second article quoted was subsequent to that date, and is therefore 20 years or less than 20 years old. Of course, it still remains true that the age of the article does not determine its accuracy. You can, or course, allege that these properties of silicate and aluminate clays has since been falsified. I await your evidence that this is the case.

Liar.

Moron.


Shapiro, as Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University, can be assumed to be aware of both your decades old research as well as the newest developments.

I encourage you to read his piece. It's not too technical and gives a lot of background as to why he's chosen his present direction in research into small molecules. I think you'd find it fascinating.

Shapiro's bio can be found at http://www.robertshapiro.org/
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 10:11 am
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:


Shapiro is discussing RNA that evolves in an ALREADY LIVING organism.

No, he's not.

Shapiro never refers to the replicating molecules as an "organism."
He refers to it as a "system" or a "network."

So... if you could provide a quote from Shapiro using the word "organism" to describe his network where RNA is made we might believe you. Until then your *** is smoking badly.



*sigh*

Shapiro discusses nucleotides appearing in the metabolism prior to the formation of RNA.

His whole discussion is a 'metabolism first' approach to first life, as contrasted with a 'replicator first' approach.

Perhaps the article is too difficult for you, but I hadn't thought it was at first. I won't ask you to read it again. It's very embarrassing to see you misquote it so badly.

I see you can't provide any qoute to support your position. (and you haven't pointed out where I "misquoted" it either.)


Shapori NEVER refers to the process he describes that eventually leads to RNA as an organism.

We have played this game before real life. You claim Shapiro said things but can't ever point to anything specific.

What did you say about vague statements earlier? Maybe you should go back and read it again. Then you can stop being vague about what Shapiro said and point to specifics that you think support you.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 10:12 am
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The age of the first article quoted has no bearing on it's accuracy. It was offered to show that this property of clays has been known for a long time. Mr. Porter received his PhD in surface physics in 1988, therefore, the second article quoted was subsequent to that date, and is therefore 20 years or less than 20 years old. Of course, it still remains true that the age of the article does not determine its accuracy. You can, or course, allege that these properties of silicate and aluminate clays has since been falsified. I await your evidence that this is the case.

Liar.

Moron.


Shapiro, as Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University, can be assumed to be aware of both your decades old research as well as the newest developments.

I encourage you to read his piece. It's not too technical and gives a lot of background as to why he's chosen his present direction in research into small molecules. I think you'd find it fascinating.

Shapiro's bio can be found at http://www.robertshapiro.org/

Posting Shapiro's bio doesn't change the piece he wrote.

I encourage everyone to read it because it doesn't come close to saying half of what real life claims it does when he spouts his garbage.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 10:24 am
parados wrote:
Shapori NEVER refers to the process he describes that eventually leads to RNA as an organism.


True, a 'process' is not an 'organism'.

And I didn't say it was.

The entity (in which Shapiro envisions the evolution of RNA) described in the article has a metabolism. It is a living organism in the scenario Shapiro describes.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 10:25 am
real life wrote:

Yeah, VEEEEEEERRRRY specific.

'I'm talking about a self-replicating molecule of unknown type' Laughing

I mentioned DNA because it is a replicating molecule used by living organisms on Earth.

When he objected to DNA, I said I would gladly talk about RNA under the same circumstances.

The reason he gave no specifics is because his argument is hollow.

If he or you want to imagine that some other replicating molecule is the basis of life on Earth, then have fun.

But it isn't.

So, real life..

If DNA or RNA is required for life on Earth does that mean that what Shapiro was describing before RNA was NOT life? If it wasn't life, would that make it a "dead" organism? Or maybe Shapiro wasn't describing something on earth?

I can't imagine what you were thinking real life. Could you explain it to us?
What is the organism you think Shapiro was talking about but you can't point to any quote by him? Could it be you just imagined something that you can't imagine?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 10:31 am
parados wrote:
If DNA or RNA is required for life on Earth


Hold on there, Buckaroo, are you doubting this?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 11:03 am
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
The age of the first article quoted has no bearing on it's accuracy. It was offered to show that this property of clays has been known for a long time. Mr. Porter received his PhD in surface physics in 1988, therefore, the second article quoted was subsequent to that date, and is therefore 20 years or less than 20 years old. Of course, it still remains true that the age of the article does not determine its accuracy. You can, or course, allege that these properties of silicate and aluminate clays has since been falsified. I await your evidence that this is the case.

Liar.

Moron.


Shapiro, as Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University, can be assumed to be aware of both your decades old research as well as the newest developments.

I encourage you to read his piece. It's not too technical and gives a lot of background as to why he's chosen his present direction in research into small molecules. I think you'd find it fascinating.

Shapiro's bio can be found at http://www.robertshapiro.org/


I have read it. It nowhere objects to the thesis that clay substrates can be and very likely were the environments in which amino acids spontaneously assembled into longer peptide and polypeptide chains. It doesn't mention the thesis at all. If you are asserting that Shapiro has denied that possibility, it were simplicity itself to point out where he has stated that.

(Save yourself some trouble. I just read the article again. Shapiro does not mention clay substrates, to affirm or deny any role of clay substrates in providing an environment in which peptides and polypetides could form.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:16:26