RNA synthesised in a lab (1 Viewer)

[Konotay]

We could get into it on your Jonathan Wells tract, but what would be the point? The general scientific point - that small changes occur in populations due to selective pressure - isn't even at issue for the most devout creationist.

Though maybe you could follow this up and accuse Miller and Urey of fraud.

Evolution use the fossil record and DNA sequencing as proof of morphological changes. This is good science because it shows it happened somehow. However, IMO evolutionist have not explained the cause of this morphological change. They have theories and hypothesis but no proof. For example, small incremental steps are not a viable mechanism for large morphological changes. Evolutionist have new theories that explain how large changes can happen all at once. For example,1. Mutation of a switch: The switch mutation affects the way whole groups of genes are affected by one mutation. (Evo-devo)

2. That there is part of our DNA that we thought wasn’t used. Rather, some believe it is used and is like an empty hard drive. It builds up information until it becomes useful.

3. Gene or DNA duplication: This is similar, because this duplicated DNA can build up useful mutations and has some starting point. This has been discussed some above.

4. Early mutations. A mutation early in an embryo’s development process has a better chance of causing morphological changes rather than mutations latter in the embryonic process.

According to scenarios 2-3, non-coding sections of the genome, or duplicated sections of coding regions, can experience a protracted period of “neutral evolution” during which alterations in nucleotide sequences have no discernible effect on the function of the organism. Eventually, however, a new gene sequence will arise that can code for a novel protein. At that point, natural selection can favor the new gene and its functional protein product, thus securing the preservation and heritability of both.

Stephen Myer quote from this article link

This scenario has the advantage of allowing the genome to vary through many generations, as mutations “search” the space of possible base sequences. The scenario has an overriding problem, however: the size of the combinatorial space (i.e., the number of possible amino acid sequences) and the extreme rarity and isolation of the functional sequences within that space of possibilities. Since natural selection can do nothing to help generate new functional sequences, but rather can only preserve such sequences once they have arisen, chance alone--random variation--must do the work of information generation--that is, of finding the exceedingly rare functional sequences within the set of combinatorial possibilities. Yet the probability of randomly assembling (or “finding,” in the previous sense) a functional sequence is extremely small.

One problem with the isolated DNA strands, items 2 and 3, it that it relies on random mutation alone. There is no survival of the fittest mechanism. We have to wait until the whole process is finished by completely random events. In this way, the process resembles abiogenesis rather than a typical evolutionary process. They do the mathematics which shows absurd improbabilities. Dawkins has noted that scientific theories can rely on only so much “luck” before they cease to be credible.Stephen Myer quote from this article

Thus, although this second neo-Darwinian scenario has the advantage of starting with functional genes and proteins, it also has a lethal disadvantage: any process of random mutation or rearrangement in the genome would in all probability generate nonfunctional intermediate sequences before fundamentally new functional genes or proteins would arise. Clearly, nonfunctional intermediate sequences confer no survival advantage on their host organisms. Natural selection favors only functional advantage. It cannot select or favor nucleotide sequences or polypeptide chains that do not yet perform biological functions, and still less will it favor sequences that efface or destroy preexisting function.

Evolving genes and proteins will range through a series of nonfunctional intermediate sequences that natural selection will not favor or preserve but will, in all probability, eliminate (Blanco et al. 1999, Axe 2000). When this happens, selection-driven evolution will cease. At this point, neutral evolution of the genome (unhinged from selective pressure) may ensue, but, as we have seen, such a process must overcome immense probabilistic hurdles, even granting cosmic time.

In my own words, negative mutations add up and are cumulative in any isolated stand of DNA. The mutations end up destroying the genes functionality and its specific folding that made it functional. Also, the new protein has to fit into a new system or creating a new system by pure random events. Again, we do not have a survival of the fittest mechanism in isolated DNA. This adds a significant hurtle to the isolated DNA scenarios.

 

[Konotay]

Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

2. The changes are the result of Mendelian changes. In other words the Pepper Moth has the DNA and both the black and white varieties. No morphological changes occurred to the moth at all. It is similar to the variations we see dogs. We have a lot of latitude because of Mendelian variation, and not evolution, and still have a dog.

Good point, golddigger. Allow me to respond. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

I love the game you play of marginalizing those who disagree with you rather than discuss the science.Second evolution is a building process. Since the DNA did not change there was no building and thus no evolution.

 

[Konotay]

# in 1953 the famous Miller/Urey experiment proved that in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane, and energy can combine to form some amino acids which are required for life. Yet the highly praised Miller/ Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced 85 percent tar, 13 percent carbolic acid, 1.05 percent glycine, 0.85 percent alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals. Although the amino acids glycine and alanine are required for life, the tar and carbolic acids would be toxic to any proteins if they ever formed. Every subsequent experiment of this kind has produced similar results. Some experiments have produced slightly higher percentages of the usable product, but the majority of the material that is produced by these experiments is toxic to life.[11]# In fact, the Encyclopedia Britannica has affirmed in one article that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation theories supported by the famous Miller/ Urey experiment.[12] Moreover, many scientists now believe that the earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible in the Miller/Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” has never existed, although the experiment assumes one.[13] It is also now realized that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. And there are many other specific criticisms of the Miller/Urey experiment as well that show its fundamental assumptions about the primordial atmosphere to be false.[14]# Despite the accumulating evidence that stacks up against the Miller/Urey experiment, it is nonetheless still used in educational institutes worldwide to support the idea that life was spontaneously produced from non-life.# The evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner George Wald demonstrates this inconsistency very clearly: “Spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we [human beings] are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”

 

[shining path]

Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

2. The changes are the result of Mendelian changes. In other words the Pepper Moth has the DNA and both the black and white varieties. No morphological changes occurred to the moth at all. It is similar to the variations we see dogs. We have a lot of latitude because of Mendelian variation, and not evolution, and still have a dog.

Good point, golddigger. Allow me to respond. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

I love the game you play of marginalizing those who disagree with you rather than discuss the science.Second evolution is a building process. Since the DNA did not change there was no building and thus no evolution.

Sorry for marginalizing you. Allow me to respond more politely. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution. This isn't even discussing the science. It's a point of semantics.And you know what? It's more than a little brazen of you to complain about being marginalized, considering that you accused Miller and Urey of *fraud* for conducting studies whose implications you don't like for religious reasons.

 

[Konotay]

Wired Science article

Science marches on and the God of the gaps gets a little smaller. This is a pretty big discovery if I'm reading it right.

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn't explain how these ingredients might have formed.

"It's like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior," said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients " a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases " ribonucleotides just wouldn't form.

Sutherland's team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a "synthetic tour de force" in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland's team added phosphate. "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pon" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone"

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing "a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis."

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

"Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry," said Sutherland. "They're doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as complicated"”

Sometime it still amazes me how right Darwin got things.

Interesting article but it doesn't have much meat to it.Debunking RNA theory The article also play havoc with Miller/Urey as well.

Interesting quotes from the article:

To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth. Such a sequence would start usually with compounds of carbon that had been produced in spark discharge experiments or found in meteorites. The observation of a specific organic chemical in any quantity (even as part of a complex mixture) in one of the above sources would justify its classification as "prebiotic," a substance that supposedly had been proved to be present on the early Earth. Once awarded this distinction, the chemical could then be used in pure form, in any quantity, in another prebiotic reaction. The products of such a reaction would also be considered "prebiotic" and employed in the next step in the sequence.

I will cite one example of prebiotic synthesis, published in 1995 by Nature and featured in the New York Times. The RNA base cytosine was prepared in high yield by heating two purified chemicals in a sealed glass tube at 100 degrees Celsius for about a day. One of the reagents, cyanoacetaldehyde, is a reactive substance capable of combining with a number of common chemicals that may have been present on the early Earth. These competitors were excluded. An extremely high concentration was needed to coax the other participant, urea, to react at a sufficient rate for the reaction to succeed. The product, cytosine, can self-destruct by simple reaction with water. When the urea concentration was lowered, or the reaction allowed to continue too long, any cytosine that was produced was subsequently destroyed. This destructive reaction had been discovered in my laboratory, as part of my continuing research on environmental damage to DNA. Our own cells deal with it by maintaining a suite of enzymes that specialize in DNA repair.

...

The drying lagoon claim is not unique. In a similar spirit, other prebiotic chemists have invoked freezing glacial lakes, mountainside freshwater ponds, flowing streams, beaches, dry deserts, volcanic aquifers and the entire global ocean (frozen or warm as needed) to support their requirement that the "nucleotide soup" necessary for RNA synthesis would somehow have come into existence on the early Earth.

The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.

 

[shining path]

Wired Science article

Science marches on and the God of the gaps gets a little smaller. This is a pretty big discovery if I'm reading it right.

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn't explain how these ingredients might have formed.

"It's like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior," said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients " a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases " ribonucleotides just wouldn't form.

Sutherland's team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a "synthetic tour de force" in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland's team added phosphate. "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pon" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone"

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing "a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis."

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

"Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry," said Sutherland. "They're doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as complicated"”

Sometime it still amazes me how right Darwin got things.

Interesting article but it doesn't have much meat to it.Debunking RNA theory The article also play havoc with Miller/Urey as well.

Interesting quotes from the article:

To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth. Such a sequence would start usually with compounds of carbon that had been produced in spark discharge experiments or found in meteorites. The observation of a specific organic chemical in any quantity (even as part of a complex mixture) in one of the above sources would justify its classification as "prebiotic," a substance that supposedly had been proved to be present on the early Earth. Once awarded this distinction, the chemical could then be used in pure form, in any quantity, in another prebiotic reaction. The products of such a reaction would also be considered "prebiotic" and employed in the next step in the sequence.

I will cite one example of prebiotic synthesis, published in 1995 by Nature and featured in the New York Times. The RNA base cytosine was prepared in high yield by heating two purified chemicals in a sealed glass tube at 100 degrees Celsius for about a day. One of the reagents, cyanoacetaldehyde, is a reactive substance capable of combining with a number of common chemicals that may have been present on the early Earth. These competitors were excluded. An extremely high concentration was needed to coax the other participant, urea, to react at a sufficient rate for the reaction to succeed. The product, cytosine, can self-destruct by simple reaction with water. When the urea concentration was lowered, or the reaction allowed to continue too long, any cytosine that was produced was subsequently destroyed. This destructive reaction had been discovered in my laboratory, as part of my continuing research on environmental damage to DNA. Our own cells deal with it by maintaining a suite of enzymes that specialize in DNA repair.

...

The drying lagoon claim is not unique. In a similar spirit, other prebiotic chemists have invoked freezing glacial lakes, mountainside freshwater ponds, flowing streams, beaches, dry deserts, volcanic aquifers and the entire global ocean (frozen or warm as needed) to support their requirement that the "nucleotide soup" necessary for RNA synthesis would somehow have come into existence on the early Earth.

The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.

(not a trap question) Do you recognize the author of the SciAm article?

 

[Konotay]

Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

2. The changes are the result of Mendelian changes. In other words the Pepper Moth has the DNA and both the black and white varieties. No morphological changes occurred to the moth at all. It is similar to the variations we see dogs. We have a lot of latitude because of Mendelian variation, and not evolution, and still have a dog.

Good point, golddigger. Allow me to respond. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

I love the game you play of marginalizing those who disagree with you rather than discuss the science.Second evolution is a building process. Since the DNA did not change there was no building and thus no evolution.

Sorry for marginalizing you. Allow me to respond more politely. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution. This isn't even discussing the science. It's a point of semantics.And you know what? It's more than a little brazen of you to complain about being marginalized, considering that you accused Miller and Urey of *fraud* for conducting studies whose implications you don't like for religious reasons.

I disagree; evolution has to explain change through small incremental steps. Even if the about analogy of the Pepper Moth were true the moths would revert back to the white moth once they fixed the pollution problem and the tree trunks became white again. Again, the moth has the DNA of both the white and black traits-nothing has changed. Evolution IMO has to describe how we obtain different species: Mendelian in variation does not account for morphological changes. Darwin’s theory has to be sifted carefully, because it isn’t just a single concept- it actually is a mixture of several unrelated, entirely separate ideas: Random mutation, natural selection and common descent. Because the theory is separate ideas, evidence for each facet of Darwin’s theory has to be evaluated independently. Some may be truer than the others. But it should be noted that one idea does not prove the other because they are independent. Just look at the Scientific American article I posted earlier, Robert Shapiro, put huge holes into Miller Urey.

 

[Konotay]

Wired Science article

Science marches on and the God of the gaps gets a little smaller. This is a pretty big discovery if I'm reading it right.

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn't explain how these ingredients might have formed.

"It's like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior," said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients " a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases " ribonucleotides just wouldn't form.

Sutherland's team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a "synthetic tour de force" in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides," said Sutherland. "The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland's team added phosphate. "Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!" said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating "warm little pon" hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond "evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone"

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing "a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis."

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

"Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry," said Sutherland. "They're doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as complicated"”

Sometime it still amazes me how right Darwin got things.

Interesting article but it doesn't have much meat to it.Debunking RNA theory The article also play havoc with Miller/Urey as well.

Interesting quotes from the article:

To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth. Such a sequence would start usually with compounds of carbon that had been produced in spark discharge experiments or found in meteorites. The observation of a specific organic chemical in any quantity (even as part of a complex mixture) in one of the above sources would justify its classification as "prebiotic," a substance that supposedly had been proved to be present on the early Earth. Once awarded this distinction, the chemical could then be used in pure form, in any quantity, in another prebiotic reaction. The products of such a reaction would also be considered "prebiotic" and employed in the next step in the sequence.

I will cite one example of prebiotic synthesis, published in 1995 by Nature and featured in the New York Times. The RNA base cytosine was prepared in high yield by heating two purified chemicals in a sealed glass tube at 100 degrees Celsius for about a day. One of the reagents, cyanoacetaldehyde, is a reactive substance capable of combining with a number of common chemicals that may have been present on the early Earth. These competitors were excluded. An extremely high concentration was needed to coax the other participant, urea, to react at a sufficient rate for the reaction to succeed. The product, cytosine, can self-destruct by simple reaction with water. When the urea concentration was lowered, or the reaction allowed to continue too long, any cytosine that was produced was subsequently destroyed. This destructive reaction had been discovered in my laboratory, as part of my continuing research on environmental damage to DNA. Our own cells deal with it by maintaining a suite of enzymes that specialize in DNA repair.

...

The drying lagoon claim is not unique. In a similar spirit, other prebiotic chemists have invoked freezing glacial lakes, mountainside freshwater ponds, flowing streams, beaches, dry deserts, volcanic aquifers and the entire global ocean (frozen or warm as needed) to support their requirement that the "nucleotide soup" necessary for RNA synthesis would somehow have come into existence on the early Earth.

The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.

(not a trap question) Do you recognize the author of the SciAm article?

Robert Shapiro.

 

[shining path]

Robert Shapiro.

Right, remember that big fight we got into last year? Shapiro was the principal target of the Leslie Orgel article containing the much-discussed "when pigs fly" line. Shapiro is one of the big guns on the "metabolism first" abiogenesis camp. Orgel is on the "information first" camp, whose main idea right now is the RNA world. Obviously if you're a non-abiogenesis person you're free to use the arguments from both sides against each other.

 

[FatMax]

.

 

[shining path]

.

No, no. It's not going to get like that.

 

[FatMax]

.

No, no. It's not going to get like that.

I hear Ray Stevens is ready for a gangbang. Just a rumor though. I can't vouch for it.

 

[shining path]

.

No, no. It's not going to get like that.

I hear Ray Stevens is ready for a gangbang. Just a rumor though. I can't vouch for it.

Ray is *always* ready for a gangbang.

 

[shining path]

Good point, golddigger. Allow me to respond. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

I love the game you play of marginalizing those who disagree with you rather than discuss the science.Second evolution is a building process. Since the DNA did not change there was no building and thus no evolution.

Sorry for marginalizing you. Allow me to respond more politely. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution. This isn't even discussing the science. It's a point of semantics.And you know what? It's more than a little brazen of you to complain about being marginalized, considering that you accused Miller and Urey of *fraud* for conducting studies whose implications you don't like for religious reasons.

I disagree; evolution has to explain change through small incremental steps. Even if the about analogy of the Pepper Moth were true the moths would revert back to the white moth once they fixed the pollution problem and the tree trunks became white again. Again, the moth has the DNA of both the white and black traits-nothing has changed. Evolution IMO has to describe how we obtain different species: Mandolin variation does not account for morphological changes.

That's what I mean when I say it's semantics. Biological evolution means many things, one of which is a change in allele frequencies in a population. So the moth story, even if it's just an increase in white moths vs. black moths without any new mutation, is evolution according to a perfectly legitimate definition of the term.

Darwin’s theory has to be sifted carefully, because it isn’t just a single concept- it actually is a mixture of several unrelated, entirely separate ideas: Random mutation, natural selection and common descent. Because the theory is separate ideas, evidence for each facet of Darwin’s theory has to be evaluated independently. Some may be truer than the others. But it should be noted that one idea does not prove the other because they are independent. Just look at the Scientific American article I posted earlier, Robert Shapiro, put huge holes into Miller Urey.

As to your other point - the Shapiro article has nothing at all to do with Darwin's idea. It has to do with abiogenesis, which is distinctly non-Darwinian.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

As to your other point - the Shapiro article has nothing at all to do with Darwin's idea. It has to do with abiogenesis, which is distinctly non-Darwinian.

golddigger has been getting the two confused since he first started posting on this site.

 

[Philo]

Not that I believe in Creationism or anything, but, this experiment does nothing to disprove it, so I'm not sure why it's in the thread subtitle.

 

[Gigantomachia]

absolutes are never an answer.

Uh . . . Never mind.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Not that I believe in Creationism or anything, but, this experiment does nothing to disprove it, so I'm not sure why it's in the thread subtitle.

Creationism is neither provable nor disprovable, hence, it has nothing to do with reason and/or science.Keep it in the bedroom.

 

[Kirby]

So were able to create RNA and that disproves creationism?

 

[Gigantomachia]

So were able to create RNA and that disproves creationism?

Something from nothing waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down.

We all need to go back and read the Scholastics. Most of this was covered in great detail in the thirteenth century.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...We all need to go back and read the Scholastics. ...

Books for elementry school kids?

 

[The Commish]

Remember...you started the thread GB

 

[Balance]

Keep hoping you can explain away God.

We don't have to explain God away. God is irrelevant to what can be observed, tested for and repeated because you can't do any of those things with God.

 

[trogg78]

Not that I believe in Creationism or anything, but, this experiment does nothing to disprove it, so I'm not sure why it's in the thread subtitle.

 

[Jayrok]

Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

2. The changes are the result of Mendelian changes. In other words the Pepper Moth has the DNA and both the black and white varieties. No morphological changes occurred to the moth at all. It is similar to the variations we see dogs. We have a lot of latitude because of Mendelian variation, and not evolution, and still have a dog.

Good point, golddigger. Allow me to respond. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution.

I love the game you play of marginalizing those who disagree with you rather than discuss the science.Second evolution is a building process. Since the DNA did not change there was no building and thus no evolution.

Sorry for marginalizing you. Allow me to respond more politely. Evolution is defined as changes in gene frequencies in a population of individuals. Since the genes for dark color increased in frequency in the moth population, it represents evolution. Not the amoeba-to-man evolution that causes all the trouble on message boards, but it is, strictly speaking, evolution. This isn't even discussing the science. It's a point of semantics.And you know what? It's more than a little brazen of you to complain about being marginalized, considering that you accused Miller and Urey of *fraud* for conducting studies whose implications you don't like for religious reasons.

You will conform, friend... one way or another. And you will one day come to love Big Brother.

 

[Jayrok]

Hondas have been created in this same lab.

Won't believe it unless you produce a link that contains the word "ribonucleotides"

On page 3 nowAnd this is not a novel idea. I believe that Richard Dawkins wrote about how RNA was the first replicator in the primordial soup and how this could be produced in a laboratory. The Selfish Gene was published in the mid 70's.

"ribonucleotides" I said.ETA: Not a novel idea at all. Darwin proposed it. However, now it has been produced in a lab.

No worries there, brother. My attempt at posting an article on RNA garnered a whopping 0 responses. Although in my defense, I stated up front that I'm no NCCommish.

 

[Gigantomachia]

...We all need to go back and read the Scholastics. ...

Books for elementry school kids?

That's almost sad.And yet, oddly similar as well.

 

[Running with scissors]

I see this thread has been golddiggered up. I wish I had time to play today to try to get some of these unsupported assertions backed up. Although I'm pretty sure he'd just ignore me or go off on some cut/paste tangent.

 

[Konotay]

I disagree; evolution has to explain change through small incremental steps. Even if the about analogy of the Pepper Moth were true the moths would revert back to the white moth once they fixed the pollution problem and the tree trunks became white again. Again, the moth has the DNA of both the white and black traits-nothing has changed. Evolution IMO has to describe how we obtain different species: Mandolin variation does not account for morphological changes.

That's what I mean when I say it's semantics. Biological evolution means many things, one of which is a change in allele frequencies in a population. So the moth story, even if it's just an increase in white moths vs. black moths without any new mutation, is evolution according to a perfectly legitimate definition of the term.

Darwin’s theory has to be sifted carefully, because it isn’t just a single concept- it actually is a mixture of several unrelated, entirely separate ideas: Random mutation, natural selection and common descent. Because the theory is separate ideas, evidence for each facet of Darwin’s theory has to be evaluated independently. Some may be truer than the others. But it should be noted that one idea does not prove the other because they are independent. Just look at the Scientific American article I posted earlier, Robert Shapiro, put huge holes into Miller Urey.

As to your other point - the Shapiro article has nothing at all to do with Darwin's idea. It has to do with abiogenesis, which is distinctly non-Darwinian.

The subject at hand is abiogenesis and RNA. It is so convenient that you have allowed evolution definition to be changed by semantics and yet you leave out abiogenesis. Abiogeneses is step one and you can not get to step 2 without step one.

 

[Konotay]

Robert Shapiro.

Right, remember that big fight we got into last year? Shapiro was the principal target of the Leslie Orgel article containing the much-discussed "when pigs fly" line. Shapiro is one of the big guns on the "metabolism first" abiogenesis camp. Orgel is on the "information first" camp, whose main idea right now is the RNA world. Obviously if you're a non-abiogenesis person you're free to use the arguments from both sides against each other.

Is that bad science -really. Neither theory has a leg to stand on so why not enjoy them blasting each other theories up. It was rather fun to read.

 

[Konotay]

As to your other point - the Shapiro article has nothing at all to do with Darwin's idea. It has to do with abiogenesis, which is distinctly non-Darwinian.

golddigger has been getting the two confused since he first started posting on this site.

This is just who you are. If you can't say something rude don't say anything at all.

 

[Follows Closely]

Being able to recreate RNA does not necessarily shoot down Creationism. But I'm sure about 14 pages from now this thread will have gotten no where on either front....

1) Pretty sure 14 pages would be my longest thread ever. Hell, 14 posts...2) It's pretty much impossible to shoot creationism {Darwin’s theory} down because it's not based on anything observable, testable or repeatable (see: science). However it removes allows us to debunk one more inane argument from their repertoire of fallacies, quote mines and hand waving.

 

[Konotay]

Not that I believe in Creationism or anything, but, this experiment does nothing to disprove it, so I'm not sure why it's in the thread subtitle.

Creationism is neither provable nor disprovable, hence, it has nothing to do with reason and/or science.Keep it in the bedroom.

Neither Creation, Intelligent design or Evolution is a predictive science. For example, Theory of Gravity can be measured, quantified and can be used to make accurate predictions: Evolution or Intelligent design can not.

 

[Running with scissors]

They have theories and hypothesis but no proof.

What the hell....Considering that science is largely based disproving testable and falsifiable hypotheses, or providing better hypotheses that are both falsifiable and better fit the evidence, can you help me with these questions:

1) What would you classify as proof?

2) What criteria would you use to falsify the current theory or evolution? (Don't cut/paste a bunch of "evidence" about some sticking point you have - just the criteria: I'll give you an easy example - a fossil of a Precambrian rabbit would falsify the current theory of evolution based on the fossil record)

3) What falsifiable and testable hypothesis better fits the evidence?

 

[shining path]

I disagree; evolution has to explain change through small incremental steps. Even if the about analogy of the Pepper Moth were true the moths would revert back to the white moth once they fixed the pollution problem and the tree trunks became white again. Again, the moth has the DNA of both the white and black traits-nothing has changed. Evolution IMO has to describe how we obtain different species: Mandolin variation does not account for morphological changes.

That's what I mean when I say it's semantics. Biological evolution means many things, one of which is a change in allele frequencies in a population. So the moth story, even if it's just an increase in white moths vs. black moths without any new mutation, is evolution according to a perfectly legitimate definition of the term.

Darwin’s theory has to be sifted carefully, because it isn’t just a single concept- it actually is a mixture of several unrelated, entirely separate ideas: Random mutation, natural selection and common descent. Because the theory is separate ideas, evidence for each facet of Darwin’s theory has to be evaluated independently. Some may be truer than the others. But it should be noted that one idea does not prove the other because they are independent. Just look at the Scientific American article I posted earlier, Robert Shapiro, put huge holes into Miller Urey.

As to your other point - the Shapiro article has nothing at all to do with Darwin's idea. It has to do with abiogenesis, which is distinctly non-Darwinian.

The subject at hand is abiogenesis and RNA. It is so convenient that you have allowed evolution definition to be changed by semantics and yet you leave out abiogenesis. Abiogeneses is step one and you can not get to step 2 without step one.

Nobody's "allowing" anything. Those are actual definitions of the word. And it's perfectly reasonable to talk about step 2 in the absence of step 1. We simply state "Step one happened some way some how, maybe by natural events, maybe by martians, maybe by a god", and then go our merry ways studying step 2.Step 1 is a tough nut to crack, certainly. You either have to invoke the nearly-impossible, like abiotic synthesis of complex biological structures, or you have to get super crazy and attribute it up to UFOs or Zeus or whatever.

 

[Running with scissors]

Abiogeneses is step one and you can not get to step 2 without step one.

Absolutely 100% wrong. In science abiogenesis and evolution are two completely separate concepts that do not rely on each other in any way.How did life start? and How do organisms change? do not need to be conflated and it just creates the typical creationist misdirection when you try.

 

[Konotay]

I see this thread has been golddiggered up. I wish I had time to play today to try to get some of these unsupported assertions backed up. Although I'm pretty sure he'd just ignore me or go off on some cut/paste tangent.

Really. Link

 

[Running with scissors]

Being able to recreate RNA does not necessarily shoot down Creationism. But I'm sure about 14 pages from now this thread will have gotten no where on either front....

1) Pretty sure 14 pages would be my longest thread ever. Hell, 14 posts...2) It's pretty much impossible to shoot creationism {Darwin’s theory} down because it's not based on anything observable, testable or repeatable (see: science). However it removes allows us to debunk one more inane argument from their repertoire of fallacies, quote mines and hand waving.

Please explain how evolution isn't observable, testable or repeatable.

 

[Konotay]

They have theories and hypothesis but no proof.

What the hell....Considering that science is largely based disproving testable and falsifiable hypotheses, or providing better hypotheses that are both falsifiable and better fit the evidence, can you help me with these questions:

1) What would you classify as proof?

2) What criteria would you use to falsify the current theory or evolution? (Don't cut/paste a bunch of "evidence" about some sticking point you have - just the criteria: I'll give you an easy example - a fossil of a Precambrian rabbit would falsify the current theory of evolution based on the fossil record)

3) What falsifiable and testable hypothesis better fits the evidence?

The Cambrian explosions is your rabbit.

 

[shining path]

They have theories and hypothesis but no proof.

What the hell....Considering that science is largely based disproving testable and falsifiable hypotheses, or providing better hypotheses that are both falsifiable and better fit the evidence, can you help me with these questions:

1) What would you classify as proof?

2) What criteria would you use to falsify the current theory or evolution? (Don't cut/paste a bunch of "evidence" about some sticking point you have - just the criteria: I'll give you an easy example - a fossil of a Precambrian rabbit would falsify the current theory of evolution based on the fossil record)

3) What falsifiable and testable hypothesis better fits the evidence?

The Cambrian explosions is your rabbit.

How so?

 

[Running with scissors]

They have theories and hypothesis but no proof.

What the hell....Considering that science is largely based disproving testable and falsifiable hypotheses, or providing better hypotheses that are both falsifiable and better fit the evidence, can you help me with these questions:

1) What would you classify as proof?

2) What criteria would you use to falsify the current theory or evolution? (Don't cut/paste a bunch of "evidence" about some sticking point you have - just the criteria: I'll give you an easy example - a fossil of a Precambrian rabbit would falsify the current theory of evolution based on the fossil record)

3) What falsifiable and testable hypothesis better fits the evidence?

The Cambrian explosions is your rabbit.

You'll need more than that. What criteria are you using to falsify the hypothesis? What falsifiable hypothesis better fits the evidence?

 

[Konotay]

I disagree; evolution has to explain change through small incremental steps. Even if the about analogy of the Pepper Moth were true the moths would revert back to the white moth once they fixed the pollution problem and the tree trunks became white again. Again, the moth has the DNA of both the white and black traits-nothing has changed. Evolution IMO has to describe how we obtain different species: Mandolin variation does not account for morphological changes.

That's what I mean when I say it's semantics. Biological evolution means many things, one of which is a change in allele frequencies in a population. So the moth story, even if it's just an increase in white moths vs. black moths without any new mutation, is evolution according to a perfectly legitimate definition of the term.

Darwin’s theory has to be sifted carefully, because it isn’t just a single concept- it actually is a mixture of several unrelated, entirely separate ideas: Random mutation, natural selection and common descent. Because the theory is separate ideas, evidence for each facet of Darwin’s theory has to be evaluated independently. Some may be truer than the others. But it should be noted that one idea does not prove the other because they are independent. Just look at the Scientific American article I posted earlier, Robert Shapiro, put huge holes into Miller Urey.

As to your other point - the Shapiro article has nothing at all to do with Darwin's idea. It has to do with abiogenesis, which is distinctly non-Darwinian.

The subject at hand is abiogenesis and RNA. It is so convenient that you have allowed evolution definition to be changed by semantics and yet you leave out abiogenesis. Abiogeneses is step one and you can not get to step 2 without step one.

Nobody's "allowing" anything. Those are actual definitions of the word. And it's perfectly reasonable to talk about step 2 in the absence of step 1. We simply state "Step one happened some way some how, maybe by natural events, maybe by martians, maybe by a god", and then go our merry ways studying step 2.Step 1 is a tough nut to crack, certainly. You either have to invoke the nearly-impossible, like abiotic synthesis of complex biological structures, or you have to get super crazy and attribute it up to UFOs or Zeus or whatever.

You find when you study TOE (Theory of Evolution) that is not really Darwin's theory at all. Rather is naturalism: Life was created by naturalist means without a creator. The definition of evolution is so loose and fungible that you can not pin it down. That is how it explains everything and anything yet nothing at all. That is why it is so hard to disprove. If science wants to prove that life does not need a creator it has explain abiogenesis and the big bang.

 

[Konotay]

Abiogeneses is step one and you can not get to step 2 without step one.

Absolutely 100% wrong. In science abiogenesis and evolution are two completely separate concepts that do not rely on each other in any way.How did life start? and How do organisms change? do not need to be conflated and it just creates the typical creationist misdirection when you try.

Yet you RWS use science to disprove God and prove atheism. If science can not explain how life came from non-life and can not explain away God.

 

[shining path]

You find when you study TOE (Theory of Evolution) that is not really Darwin's theory at all. Rather is materialism: Life was created by naturalist means without a creator. The definition of evolution is so loose and fungible that you can not pin it down. That is how it explains everything and anything yet nothing at all. That is why it is so hard to disprove.

If science wants to prove that life does not need a creator it has explain abiogenesis and the big bang.

Darwinism actually makes several very specific predictions. It's difficult to disprove now, simply because those predictions have been, by-and-large, borne out. But at the beginning it wasn't so clear which "creation" idea would be the winner. Lamark had a pretty well-respected evolutionary theory at the time. Biblical creation was overwhelmingly supported by the society Darwin lived in, and by most of its most powerful institutions. Darwin's theory won because the physical world cooperated so nicely with it by showing itself to be best explained by evolution by natural selection, rather than Biblical creationism or Lamarkism.

 

[Balance]

Abiogeneses is step one and you can not get to step 2 without step one.

Absolutely 100% wrong. In science abiogenesis and evolution are two completely separate concepts that do not rely on each other in any way.How did life start? and How do organisms change? do not need to be conflated and it just creates the typical creationist misdirection when you try.

Yet you RWS use science to disprove God and prove atheism. If science can not explain how life came from non-life and can not explain away God.

Link to one single post ever where he has said science disproves god? I don't think you are paying attention.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Cool.

 

[Balance]

Oh crap this is golddigger?

Sweeeet. I missed you man.

 

[Running with scissors]

Abiogeneses is step one and you can not get to step 2 without step one.

Absolutely 100% wrong. In science abiogenesis and evolution are two completely separate concepts that do not rely on each other in any way.How did life start? and How do organisms change? do not need to be conflated and it just creates the typical creationist misdirection when you try.

Yet you RWS use science to disprove God and prove atheism. If science can not explain how life came from non-life and can not explain away God.

Totally wrong and attributing all kinds of things to me that I never said. Unless you care to try to back it up, I insist that you retract that statement.Anyone that has an understanding of science has said that we do not understand exactly how life on this planet had started. Shining Path said it in this very thread. We're quite happy not knowing and still searching for how it might have started. We have hypotheses, many of them in fact. Some have some evidence that seem to point that they're not totally wrong. With this experiment, there is another small piece of evidence that says the primordial soup hypothesis might be a little more right than we thought last week.

The concept that you use for God is unexplainable, cannot be tested for, is not observable and by definition not repeatable. How on earth would it be possible to disprove it based on those criteria? Your assertion on "using science to disprove God and prove atheism" is pure nonsense as there is nothing to prove or disprove. The concept of god or gods is a fun philosophical discussion, but has absolutely zero place in science as science can't do anything with it.

 

[Running with scissors]

Cool.

No kidding, it's a really neat experiment. Understanding one more step in our fundamental building blocks of life brings us a lot closer to understanding more about our entire universe.

 

[Running with scissors]

The Cambrian explosions is your rabbit.

You'll need more than that. What criteria are you using to falsify the hypothesis? What falsifiable hypothesis better fits the evidence?

I'd really like you to answer these questions.