BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Origins of Life
KoolK3n
post Sep 25, 2011, 10:21 AM
Post #1


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Aug 20, 2011
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 33523



My AP Biology teacher said that life originated using RNA. I questioned whether that was conclusive and whether we could look into speculative concepts such as PNA [Peptide nucleic acid]. Of course I lost...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_nucleic_acid

"It has been hypothesized that the earliest life on Earth may have used PNA as a genetic material due to its extreme robustness, simpler formation and possible spontaneous polymerization at 100°C[3] (while water at standard pressure boils at this temperature, water at high pressure—as in deep ocean—boils at higher temperatures). If this is so, life evolved to a DNA/RNA-based system only at a later stage."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Sep 25, 2011, 11:48 AM
Post #2


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



It all really depends on how you define life. I personally believe all things in the Universe are alive and conscious. Two planets are very much aware of each others presence, and hence gravity.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 04, 2012, 05:13 PM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



Dear KoolK3n,

"Science advances one funeral at a time." Max Planck or Niels Bohr or some such giant of science

The point is this: No, wait. Let me quote someone more contemporary first.

"Almost nothing in science is known for certain except for pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan

We know quite a bit with some certainty, in my opinion, but the pretenses of the Anointed Class are much too much pretentious. Take "global warming," please.

But back to the origins of life. Let's quantify some things, all right?

We human beings have 20 amino acids which constitute the building blocks of our polypeptides.
Essentially all of these amino acids are levorotary, or L-forms, as opposed to dextrorotary, or D-forms.

How, exactly, did a witches brew of amino acids separate themselves into the L-form, in that vast primordial sea? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

By some mystical way, it just "happened." We'll allow that. Now RNA consists of how many amino acids in a sequence? Let's say the original life form was VERY simple. Only 1,000 amino acids.

The space of such a structure, meaning how many permutations are possible, is 20 x 20 x 20 x 20... 1000 times.

20 to the 1,000th power is unimaginably, indeed clearly impossibly large. That is to say, to produce the one polypeptide which resulted in the first living cell, was far more impossible than anything Richard Dawkins has defined as "impossible" or "the maximum amount of luck we allow."

Dawkins limits his luck to one chance in around 10 to the 20th power. One chance in 20 to the 1,000th power = 1 chance in 10 to the 1300.

It's simply impossible.

And as for the inane argument that you "have to have a better argument before doing away with Darwinism"?
Please. That's not science at all. No new theory is required to reject one that is hopelessly inadequate, as spontaneous generation of life assuredly is, hopelessly inadequate.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Jun 04, 2012, 06:04 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



Maybe science hasn't taught us but one thing: To be rational.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 05, 2012, 02:31 AM
Post #5


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



QUOTE(code buttons @ Jun 04, 2012, 07:04 PM) *

Maybe science hasn't taught us but one thing: To be rational.


Your confusion is deep and wide, long nurtured by the arrogant godless.

Begin with the very word "science." It originates from "scientia," Greek I believe for "knowledge."

Every human who has ever existed gains knowledge, truth, "scientia," or else they die, and rather quickly.
There is a website dedicated to those who rejected truth and knowledge. It is called The Darwin Awards for the most obvious and amusing of reasons. Funny deaths. Gallows humor.

Baby birds know more than Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, and pre-eminent scientist, who declared "heavier than air flight is impossible." After considerable flapping, baby birds, for the first time, jump out of the safety of their nests, and... fly. Are they not "rational" without having learned "science"?


Now tell me about the "rationality" of the Club of Rome, which famously predicted hundreds of millions of people starving, all over the world... forty years ago, and I will tell you about the Club of Global Warming Fearmonger Hypocrites, who fly and drive and dine all over the world, at public expense, while dictating to the Little People around them to stay at home and eat cold food.

Meanwhile, at a "Climate Conference" in a faraway resort: Plus de pate de fois gras, quelqu'un? D'homard?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Jun 05, 2012, 05:42 PM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



Ok. Thank you for your criticism regarding my understanding of the world around me. I'll try to work on it. But, I see that you equate rationality with arrogance, by-product of atheism (which, you already assume to be my creed of choice). So, I deduce that you would favor irrationality, in the name of theism?
Also, now I'm confused about your statements above. So, you are saying that a "baby bird" is more knowledgeable than a man, because the man is a scientist? But, you or a person with your knowledge of the world would be more knowledgeable than the same baby bird because you are not a scientist? If this is true, what makes you more knowledgeable? But, if this is not true, then a little bird is more knowledgeable than all human beings?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Jun 06, 2012, 12:31 AM
Post #7


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



QUOTE
How, exactly, did a witches brew of amino acids separate themselves into the L-form, in that vast primordial sea? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?


As far as I know it can happen with 'light' and with 'cristalization'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeiffer_Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_isomerism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_resolution

QUOTE
Every human who has ever existed gains knowledge, truth, "scientia," or else they die, and rather quickly.

Do you mean by truth the enlonged human life span achieved by modern medicine developed by scientist?

I don´t quite understand how exactly an atheist is arrogant. By the way you write it seems to be you who is embedded with moral superiority teaching us how stupid we are.

Science is not equal to atheism. Science is seeking the truth whatever it is and what is pissing off people like you is that till the moment there is no confirmation of your previous imposed beliefs.

It does not matter how well educated you are. Your are such a troll!





QUOTE
My AP Biology teacher said that life originated using RNA. I questioned whether that was conclusive and whether we could look into speculative concepts such as PNA [Peptide nucleic acid]. Of course I lost...

Questioning the authority is a really good actitud and those who believe what other said just because they are in a position of power are just like cattle. I give you that.
Having said that I would say calling 'conclusive' to that theory is a bit premature althought looks good.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 06, 2012, 08:32 PM
Post #8


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



QUOTE(Jakare @ Jun 06, 2012, 01:31 AM) *

QUOTE
How, exactly, did a witches brew of amino acids separate themselves into the L-form, in that vast primordial sea? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?


As far as I know it can happen with 'light' and with 'cristalization'. (sic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfeiffer_Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_isomerism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_resolution

RenaissanceMan: Partial resolution is not what produces optically pure precursors. They have to be 100% pure or else there is a worthless mixture. It is much the same thing with enzymes. Close doesn't count. Carbon monoxide is only one atom away from carbon dioxide. The first is extremely toxic. The second is inside your lungs and your blood all the time.

QUOTE
Every human who has ever existed gains knowledge, truth, "scientia," or else they die, and rather quickly.

Do you mean by truth the enlonged human life span achieved by modern medicine developed by scientist?


RenaissanceMan: "elonged" (sic) human life. Such sophistication. No, what I meant was that if you do not learn to avoid dangers, they will kill you. Fire, knives, pain, cars, deep water are but a few examples.

QUOTE
I don´t quite understand how exactly an atheist is arrogant. By the way you write it seems to be you who is embedded with moral superiority teaching us how stupid we are.

Science is not equal to atheism. Science is seeking the truth whatever it is and what is pissing off people like you is that till the moment there is no confirmation of your previous imposed beliefs.

It does not matter how well educated you are. Your (sic) are such a troll!





QUOTE

Jakare: My AP Biology teacher said that life originated using RNA. I questioned whether that was conclusive and whether we could look into speculative concepts such as PNA [Peptide nucleic acid]. Of course I lost...
Questioning the authority is a really good actitud (sic) and those who believe what other said just because they are in a position of power are just like cattle. I give you that.
Having said that I would say calling 'conclusive' to that theory is a bit premature althought (sic) looks good.



RenaissanceMan: You could learn a lot if you would pay attention, my good lad. Begin with learning how to spell. I argued a great deal with college professors in the process of learning. Rejecting what you think to be true is part of the process of learning what is really true.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Jun 07, 2012, 12:04 AM
Post #9


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



QUOTE
RenaissanceMan: You could learn a lot if you would pay attention, my good lad. Begin with learning how to spell. I argued a great deal with college professors in the process of learning. Rejecting what you think to be true is part of the process of learning what is really true.

Actually I can agree with that. I think not to pay attention is in first place disrespectful and is the first prerequisite to a worthy argue.
About my spelling problem I think I am getting better at it. But thanks, your corrections are always welcome and needed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KoolK3n
post Jun 07, 2012, 03:28 PM
Post #10


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Aug 20, 2011
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 33523



Where's Joesus when you need him?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Jun 09, 2012, 02:11 PM
Post #11


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 04, 2012, 08:13 PM) *
Dear KoolK3n,

"...
But back to the origins of life. Let's quantify some things, all right?

We human beings have 20 amino acids which constitute the building blocks of our polypeptides.
Essentially all of these amino acids are levorotary, or L-forms, as opposed to dextrorotary, or D-forms.

How, exactly, did a witches brew of amino acids separate themselves into the L-form, in that vast primordial sea? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

By some mystical way, it just "happened." We'll allow that. Now RNA consists of how many amino acids in a sequence? Let's say the original life form was VERY simple. Only 1,000 amino acids.

The space of such a structure, meaning how many permutations are possible, is 20 x 20 x 20 x 20... 1000 times.

20 to the 1,000th power is unimaginably, indeed clearly impossibly large. That is to say, to produce the one polypeptide which resulted in the first living cell, was far more impossible than anything Richard Dawkins has defined as "impossible" or "the maximum amount of luck we allow."

Dawkins limits his luck to one chance in around 10 to the 20th power. One chance in 20 to the 1,000th power = 1 chance in 10 to the 1300.

It's simply impossible.

Indeed, the alternative of "God did it" certainly fills the void left behind by this locktight logical argument against the idea that biochemistry could somehow bridge the gap from lone chemicals to complex chiral chemical systems such as RNA. If I were a moron, I would also prefer magical thought when presented with large improbability arguments, such as your straw man numbers that "prove" the mind-boggling improbability of randomly assembling a 1,000 - long RNA as if such an event were the required starting point for self-replicating biological structures. In any case, this is beside the point. What really matters, obviously, is the fact that belief in God-magic is actually a scientific position that explains all sorts of stuff such as, well, stuff like how Noah saved all the animals and how Eve came from that bone if you know what I mean. It is really nice to have such a powerful and all-explaining concept like "God did it" (the other label for God-magic) because it always works, unlike those rather ridiculous and tedious "natural selection" arguments that arrogant athiests always refer to but never seem to be able to completely lay out in all the cases demanded by believers. No matter what the problem, "God did it" can come to the rescue! And if anyone disbelieves this self-evident "theory", then that is because they are arrogant and haven't contemplated the number 15^-953 which is the probability that God didn't do it. I find your chosen name "renaissance man" ironic, given your rantings against scientific thought. If you are any example, we truly live in a new "renaissance" where magical thinking is packaged in pseudoscientific cloth as a "cure" for the supposedly glaring failings of scientific arguments to exactly explain how some stuff works or came about. I suppose such ranting mixed with pseudoscientific "expertise" is enough to convince the masses of good god-fearin' folk that God really did it and that atheists really are a hopeless bunch of angry little self-righteous scowling God-haters who just really really hate Mr. God and can't accept the fact of His super magic.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 10, 2012, 04:06 PM
Post #12


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 04, 2012, 08:13 PM) *
Dear KoolK3n,

"...
But back to the origins of life. Let's quantify some things, all right?
///

20 to the 1,000th power is unimaginably, indeed clearly impossibly large. That is to say, to produce the one polypeptide which resulted in the first living cell, was far more impossible than anything Richard Dawkins has defined as "impossible" or "the maximum amount of luck we allow."

Dawkins limits his luck to one chance in around 10 to the 20th power. One chance in 20 to the 1,000th power = 1 chance in 10 to the 1300.

It's simply impossible.


QUOTE
Indeed, the alternative of "God did it" certainly fills the void left behind by this locktight logical argument against the idea that biochemistry could somehow bridge the gap from lone chemicals to complex chiral chemical systems such as RNA. If I were a moron, I would also prefer magical thought when presented with large improbability arguments, such as your straw man numbers that "prove" the mind-boggling improbability of randomly assembling a 1,000 - long RNA as if such an event were the required starting point for self-replicating biological structures. In any case, this is beside the point.


No, it is perfectly TO the point. That is why you choose to ignore biochemistry, and insuperable statistics.

But, since you think yourself the embodiment of all things scientific, then it will be a snap for you to answer these challenges:

1. Provide THE mechanism by which primordial soup synthesized optically pure amino acids as essential precursors to polypeptides. None of the A>B>C>D business that Richard Dawkins loves to spout off. Let's see chemical reactions, quantified no less.

2. Provide THE mechanism by which the mixtures of optically pure amino acids auto-combined in aqueous solutions, in full sunlight, and did not hydrolyze.

Don't just mouthe the word "science." Show the essential equations nobody brought about with nobody's help.

QUOTE
I find your chosen name "renaissance man" ironic, given your rantings against scientific thought.


I posed biochemistry in comprehensible form. I added statistical concepts, both of which are pure science. I embrace them both, and you have the ignorance, the temerity, the dishonesty to claim that I am "ranting against scientific thought"?

Please stop your lying. It is inexcusable. It is worse by far than ignorant. You sound just like Richard Dawkins, with whom I debated these subjects ten or fifteen years ago.

You should be ashamed of your dishonesty but you are not and you never will be. Such is the arrogance of atheism.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Jun 10, 2012, 04:10 PM
Post #13


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 10, 2012, 07:06 PM) *


I posed biochemistry in comprehensible form. I added statistical concepts, both of which are pure science. I embrace them both, and you have the ignorance, the temerity, the dishonesty to claim that I am "ranting against scientific thought"?

Please stop your lying. It is inexcusable. It is worse by far than ignorant. You sound just like Richard Dawkins, with whom I debated these subjects ten or fifteen years ago.

You should be ashamed of your dishonesty but you are not and you never will be. Such is the arrogance of atheism.


Weak counterarguments, dude. Panties in a bunch? wub.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Jun 10, 2012, 07:42 PM
Post #14


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 10, 2012, 07:06 PM) *


QUOTE
Indeed, the alternative of "God did it" certainly fills the void left behind by this locktight logical argument against the idea that biochemistry could somehow bridge the gap from lone chemicals to complex chiral chemical systems such as RNA. If I were a moron, I would also prefer magical thought when presented with large improbability arguments, such as your straw man numbers that "prove" the mind-boggling improbability of randomly assembling a 1,000 - long RNA as if such an event were the required starting point for self-replicating biological structures. In any case, this is beside the point.


No, it is perfectly TO the point. That is why you choose to ignore biochemistry, and insuperable statistics.

The only thing I choose to ignore is your pathetic attempt at setting up a sciencey-sounding straw man to shoot down and them claim victory against the Athiests.


QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 10, 2012, 07:06 PM) *

But, since you think yourself the embodiment of all things scientific, then it will be a snap for you to answer these challenges:

1. Provide THE mechanism by which primordial soup synthesized optically pure amino acids as essential precursors to polypeptides. None of the A>B>C>D business that Richard Dawkins loves to spout off. Let's see chemical reactions, quantified no less.


Here's a nice exercise. Imagine it is the year 1400. Provide THE mechanism by which one can mix together some substances, shove the mixture in a tube, put a rock in front of it, light a match, and watch the rock go flying. Remember, you can't use any knowledge gained after the year 1400. What, no answer? Does this mean that there is no possible Athiest answer because God Did It?

QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 10, 2012, 07:06 PM) *

2. Provide THE mechanism by which the mixtures of optically pure amino acids auto-combined in aqueous solutions, in full sunlight, and did not hydrolyze.

Straw man. or.. God did it?

QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 10, 2012, 07:06 PM) *

Don't just mouthe the word "science."
I suppose it makes more sense to mouth the words "God Did It"? So much more sensible, not like all that magical sciencey thinking.

QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 10, 2012, 07:06 PM) *


I posed biochemistry in comprehensible form. I added statistical concepts, both of which are pure science. I embrace them both, and you have the ignorance, the temerity, the dishonesty to claim that I am "ranting against scientific thought"?

I don't give credit for poorly constructed straw man arguments. Your ranting extends far beyond this conversation, btw. Almost every post you have put on this site includes snide remarks and condescension. Maybe you should take a long look in the mirror before whining about being a victim.

QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 10, 2012, 07:06 PM) *

You sound just like Richard Dawkins, with whom I debated these subjects ten or fifteen years ago.
Then you must be an expert, since Richard Dawkins is so great and you punk'd him back in the day. I bet you brag about your great encounter with the venerable Mr. Dawkins all the time for street cred.

QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 10, 2012, 07:06 PM) *

You should be ashamed of your dishonesty but you are not and you never will be.
Your display of uncontrollable ranting at Brainmeta.com is far more shameful than my baiting you into your frothy state. You show up and start mocking peoples spelling and yelling frantically whenever they don't agree with you. Really? Shame on you, but, like you said about me, you will never feel ashamed because you are blind to the log in your own eye.

QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 10, 2012, 07:06 PM) *
Such is the arrogance of atheism.
Arrogance is your middle name
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RenaissanceMan
post Jun 11, 2012, 08:00 AM
Post #15


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 04, 2012
Member No.: 34301



As one atheist colleague of Richard Dawkins said of Dawkins silly book, "The God Delusion,"
"It makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

Danny doesn't even know how to SPELL the word "atheist." The ignorance.... the ignorance.....

I have no more time for Danny.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Jun 11, 2012, 08:14 AM
Post #16


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE(RenaissanceMan @ Jun 11, 2012, 11:00 AM) *

As one atheist colleague of Richard Dawkins said of Dawkins silly book, "The God Delusion,"
"It makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

Danny doesn't even know how to SPELL the word "atheist." The ignorance.... the ignorance.....

I have no more time for Danny.


Clasic escap. Well playde! Now scurry on, weaker competition abounds!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
turboracetam
post Sep 02, 2012, 05:33 AM
Post #17


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Aug 27, 2012
Member No.: 34473



Lets say that we have been evolved through micro cells RNA or whatever.... I want to ask that why arent the humans evolving into something else???? whats the reason for this evolution process to have stopped suddenly??? anybody???
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SusanRey
post Jul 24, 2015, 10:09 PM
Post #18


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
Member No.: 37797



is the real origin of life from RNA?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tyler Dur
post Sep 15, 2015, 02:03 PM
Post #19


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sep 06, 2015
Member No.: 37886



Life can be seen in many aspects, science and religion being the cherry to the top of the cake.
But, what exactly is life? What's the purpose in being here? Are we just here to gain experience and die off, hoping to leave a legacy or good name behind? I mean, so many questions pop into mind and to have someone state the meaning of life all (could have) started with RNA/PNA really flusters me.

In my eyes, life can be seen through metaphysics and this can either be a long term dream we get awoken to or slumber shortly to feel in the period it is we close our eyes.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Chloe Mica
post Dec 16, 2015, 11:16 PM
Post #20


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Jul 26, 2015
Member No.: 37799



In my view, life is the evolution process of nature.

Creative Peptides
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kennyS
post Feb 29, 2016, 03:21 AM
Post #21


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Member No.: 38100



Rationalism is killed by ability to choose and pick without instinct influence. Life is evolution and only, the more we discover the harder it gets.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th June 2017 - 07:45 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles