RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   
  Topic: Otangelo's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,21:39   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,18:11)
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....31.long

Even at ca 3.2 Ga, thick and widespread kerogenous shales are consistent with aerobic photoautrophic marine plankton, and U–Pb data from ca 3.8 Ga metasediments suggest that this metabolism could have arisen by the start of the geological record. Hence, the hypothesis that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before the atmosphere became permanently oxygenated seems well supported.

I realize that you have no understanding of what you claim to have read.

In this case, "When did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve?" by Roger Buick, is entirely consistent with the materials I have posted. Buick's interest was in the onset of photosynthetic oxygen, not the origin of life. And, as he concluded,
Quote
Thus, these lines of evidence all imply that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before abundant molecular oxygen appeared in the environment. In this case, hypothesis (i) in which atmospheric oxygenation is retarded for many hundreds of millions of years after the advent of oxygenic photosynthesis due to the necessity of first filling all near-surface oxygen sinks, is most probably correct.


Why were there oxygen sinks that took hundreds of millions of years to convert? Because they were strongly reduced.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,22:07   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 18 2015,21:39)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,18:11)
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....31.long

Even at ca 3.2 Ga, thick and widespread kerogenous shales are consistent with aerobic photoautrophic marine plankton, and U–Pb data from ca 3.8 Ga metasediments suggest that this metabolism could have arisen by the start of the geological record. Hence, the hypothesis that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before the atmosphere became permanently oxygenated seems well supported.

I realize that you have no understanding of what you claim to have read.

In this case, "When did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve?" by Roger Buick, is entirely consistent with the materials I have posted. Buick's interest was in the onset of photosynthetic oxygen, not the origin of life. And, as he concluded,  
Quote
Thus, these lines of evidence all imply that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before abundant molecular oxygen appeared in the environment. In this case, hypothesis (i) in which atmospheric oxygenation is retarded for many hundreds of millions of years after the advent of oxygenic photosynthesis due to the necessity of first filling all near-surface oxygen sinks, is most probably correct.


Why were there oxygen sinks that took hundreds of millions of years to convert? Because they were strongly reduced.

you are correct. After i posted it, i realised your observation, and wanted to delete the post. I dont know how imho at this forum

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,23:53   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,13:46)

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,13:54)
  Why is abiogenesis impossible?

more reasons :

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2221-t....-design


Speaking of hardware, peptidyltransferase is a _.

All that blather and you don't have a clue as to this highly relevant fact.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,00:27   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,16:12)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,17:09)
The Abrahamic god is not a sufficient answer.

It might not be to you. But it is certainly to me, and many others...

You wouldn't be here spewing your shallow copypasta if it were.

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,06:10   

Quote
According to the most generous mathematical criteria for evolution, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes.


Yeah no, if you talk to a mathematician you might want to rephrase shit because I spot instantly your flaw. You assume a lot of things that is simply not true to create your mathematical model which is why your conclusion is so flawed.

I notice however that you did not gave areason why you are NOT publishing your work in peer review, why is that?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,06:42   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,21:04)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,18:44)
 
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,19:33)
   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,17:25)
you accept atemporal  processes and atemporal causation, both manifestly

please cite me where i make that admittance.

It's implied by your remarks regarding Genesis 1:1, above.  The first post on this page.
Either god created time, which commits you to atemporal causes and atemporal processes, or god did not create the five Spencerian ontological categories you are so impressed by.

But again, this is beside the point.
Why is abiogenesis impossible?
Nothing about life violates the laws of physics and chemistry.  Purely natural processes control the transition of tobacco mosaic virus from non-living crystal to life -- and back.

We can return to the more recently raised issues of your ontological confusions and absurdities after we've cleared that up.

What i said, does not imply that God created outside of time. That is impossible.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices....on.html

the cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally{1}) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].{2} Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation;

Non of the alternatives make sense to me :

5 Easy Steps to refute Atheism

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-5....sm#3144

What does or does not make sense to you is of little relevance.

What matters here are not the contents of your repeated attempts to shift the grounds of the argument but rather two key points:  that are, in fact, continually shifting your argument and that you appear to be doing so to avoid grappling with the manifold flaws of your initial arguments as noted by the various commentators here.

Yet again:
Why is abiogenesis impossible?
Nothing about life violates the laws of physics and chemistry.  Purely natural processes control the transition of tobacco mosaic virus from non-living crystal to life -- and back.

Atheism is an irrelevancy.  There are theistic and atheistic evolutionists.
There are, in at least generous readings of the terms, theistic and atheistic creationists.

What matters is that you've made absolute claims and have failed entirely to defend or support them.

Why is abiogenesis impossible?
Nothing about life violates the laws of physics and chemistry.  Purely natural processes control the transition of tobacco mosaic virus from non-living crystal to life -- and back.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,06:49   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,21:20)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,18:44)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

ah, want more proof. Here we go....

DNA is irreducible complex

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2093-d....complex

Individual bases : take away the sugar in the DNA backbone = no function
Take away the phosphate in the backbone = no function
Take away the nucleic acid bases = no function
Evolution is not a driving force at this stage, since replication of the cell depends on DNA.
So the individual DNA molecules are irreducible complex
DNA in general ( the double helix )
Unless the two types, purines, and pyrimidines are present, and so the individual four bases = no function, and no hability of information storage
The enzymes and proteins for assembly and synthesis of the DNA structure must also be present, otherwise, no DNA double helix......

Origin of the DNA deoxyribonucleic acid  double helix

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2028-o....e-helix

Self-organizing biochemical cycles 1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC18793

How were ribonucleotides first formed on the primitive earth? This is a very difficult problem. Stanley Miller's synthesis of the amino acids by sparking a reducing atmosphere (2) was the paradigm for prebiotic synthesis for many years, so at first, it was natural to suppose that similar methods would meet with equal success in the nucleotide field. However, nucleotides are intrinsically more complicated than amino acids, and it is by no means obvious that they can be obtained in a few simple steps under prebiotic conditions. A remarkable synthesis of adenine (3) and more or less plausible syntheses of the pyrimidine nucleoside bases (4) have been reported, but the synthesis of ribose and the regiospecific combination of the bases, ribose, and phosphate to give β-nucleotides remain problematical.

1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC18793

That's a particularly ridiculous set of assertions from someone who has yet to address the issue I originally raised early in this thread.
DNA is not a 'self-replicating' molecule in and of itself.
It requires a substantial set of complex chemical subsystems with which it interacts.
Take away any of those and it fails to perform as you so simplistically assert that it does.
If you are allowed to ignore the machinery and reduce complex cases to prejudicial overly-simplified sketches, and get away with it, the so am I.  So are we.

Behe's ridiculous 'irreducibly complex' notions have been obliterated, here and elsewhere.
It is an argument from ignorance and incredulity.
'Irreducibly complex' things can evolve.
Consider the arch.
Or perhaps more to the point, and again to raise an evidentiary example you refuse to address, consider the tobacco mosaic virus.

Irreducible complexity is a snare and a delusion.

BTW, nowhere is it granted that abiogenesis nor replication must begin with cells as we know them nor DNA.
You are so out of touch with the last 25, if not 50, years of research as to be unqualified to be making the absolute dicta you are so fond of.

Once again I will suggest you acquaint yourself with Erwin Schrodinger's little masterpiece from the 30's.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,06:50   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 18 2015,21:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2015,20:28)
Isn't it fascinating how he links to his own ramblings and to peer-reviewed research he's never read as if he is making some kind of point.

It's almost cute.

Did you ever actually read that Nature article I asked you about (that YOU posted)? The one that actually has a completely different conclusion than the one that was given to you... I mean, that you developed.

He's also copied to his "library" a number of papers from Science and Nature in their entirety, in direct violation of their clearly spelled out copyright policy.

I wonder if we should drop a dime on him?   :p

Apparently his morality is as cherry-picked as his standards for argumentation and evidence.

A salad-bar Christian.  What a surprise.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,07:04   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,18:20)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,18:44)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

ah, want more proof. Here we go....

DNA is irreducible complex

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2093-d....complex

Individual bases : take away the sugar in the DNA backbone = no function
Take away the phosphate in the backbone = no function
Take away the nucleic acid bases = no function
Evolution is not a driving force at this stage, since replication of the cell depends on DNA.
So the individual DNA molecules are irreducible complex
DNA in general ( the double helix )
Unless the two types, purines, and pyrimidines are present, and so the individual four bases = no function, and no hability of information storage
The enzymes and proteins for assembly and synthesis of the DNA structure must also be present, otherwise, no DNA double helix......

Origin of the DNA deoxyribonucleic acid  double helix

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2028-o....e-helix

Self-organizing biochemical cycles 1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC18793

How were ribonucleotides first formed on the primitive earth? This is a very difficult problem. Stanley Miller's synthesis of the amino acids by sparking a reducing atmosphere (2) was the paradigm for prebiotic synthesis for many years, so at first, it was natural to suppose that similar methods would meet with equal success in the nucleotide field. However, nucleotides are intrinsically more complicated than amino acids, and it is by no means obvious that they can be obtained in a few simple steps under prebiotic conditions. A remarkable synthesis of adenine (3) and more or less plausible syntheses of the pyrimidine nucleoside bases (4) have been reported, but the synthesis of ribose and the regiospecific combination of the bases, ribose, and phosphate to give β-nucleotides remain problematical.

1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC18793

The words "Take away" caught my attention. I don't see how taking away a part of something to show that something then becomes non-functional or less functional is evidence against evolution and for 'intelligent design' by a chosen, so-called 'God'. For example, if my legs were taken away I would not be as functional as I am with legs, but that would not support 'intelligent design' of me and/or my legs and it absolutely, positively would not support the alleged existence and actions of any so-called 'God'.  

You could assert that legs aren't a necessary part of a 'biological system', but here are some things that you should think about: What if the DNA, proteins, enzymes, 'code', 'information', or whatever contributes to producing legs in every spider on Earth could be taken away at the same time? If that could be done, every spider on Earth would be non-functional and quickly dead (extinct), but that wouldn't provide any support for claims of non-evolution, and 'intelligent design' (aka creation by an imaginary sky daddy), of spider legs. It would only show that the animals we call spiders, that have what it takes to produce legs, aren't 'functional' without legs.

P.S. If my legs were taken away and if I were still 'functional' at all it would be due to modern medical care/technology, not due to an imaginary 'God'.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,07:22   

Otangelo, please take note of this argument, which shows rather well that the theism/atheism debate is orthogonal to the debate over whether or not abiogenesis is possible
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,17:22)
Shorter response to Otangelo's drivel:

The deity of the Abrahamic religions does not and cannot solve the problem of abiogenesis.
The god (or "God" if you prefer) of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not biologically alive.
Therefore, the problem remains untouched.
If abiogenesis is impossible, than god can't do it either, not being biologically alive.
If God is claimed to be biologically alive, then he rose from abiogenesis, or abiogenesis is possible and there is some prior 'process' which led to his life.
If God is not biologically alive (and he possesses none of the hallmarks of biologically living things), and he 'created' life, then we still have the problem of how.
Asserting it sans positive evidence does not solve the problem of how abiogenesis occurred.
Unless everything, literally, is alive, the problem remains how did life arise?
"Poof" is not an answer.


I will  add that "poof" is not an answer because it is not a mechanism of any sort.  It has no explanatory power, and, as such, does not address the question of how life occurred.
Just as 'Larry did it' does not answer the question of how Moe was killed.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,07:32   

Otangelo preached:

"In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence."

So? In Horton Hears a Who! it says that Horton Hears a Who. Does that mean that Horton is real and that Horton actually hears a Who?

"God is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information.  Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't. Mystery to us is not mystery to God, but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ."

Otangelo, here's a different version of your sermon:

Gumby is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information.  Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean Gumby does not understand or can't. Mystery to us is not mystery to Gumby, but we do know that Gumby is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Pokey.

It makes as much sense as your version.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,08:08   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,16:35)
...
In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence.

So?  In Gone With the Wind it says Scarlett O'Hara wore a dress made of curtains.  Does this warrant belief that Scarlett O'Hara existed in the natural world?  That she crafted a dress out of curtains?
If not, why accept the claims in genesis, the first entry in that  massive, and massively edited as well as internally contradictory, anthology called 'The Bible'?
 
Quote
God is a potent cause with power ( energy )

How do you know?  Cause is material, God typically is taken to be immaterial.  Cause is natural, God is typically taken to be 'outside nature', whatever that means.
The only eternal immaterial 'things' we know of have no causal power.  Integers, the laws of logic, etc.
 
Quote
and his spoken word indicates information.

That's tautological.  Any 'spoken word' indicates 'information'.  It is also highly problematic, for none, absolutely none, of the conditions taken to be necessary for all, absolutely all, occurrences of the spoken word, obtain in the case of some immaterial entity 'speaking' some material entity into existence.
 
Quote
Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't.

Nor does it mean that we can know that he does.
Worse, if he does and we don't, it is logically impermissible for us to have recourse to his alleged but unevidenced understanding as any part of an explanation.  That's not how explanation works.
 
Quote
Mystery to us is not mystery to God,

How do you know?  What justifies the truth claim uttered here?
 
Quote
  but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm,

How do we know this?  Your subsequent remark does not do the job.  What justifies this truth claim?  Quite literally everything we know about cause places it firmly in the non-spiritual realm, i.e., nature.
Quote
  as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ.

Unsubstantiated.  Existing documentation, such as it is, is unsupported and internally contradictory.
Rejected as spurious until and unless you can justify the truth claim.

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,08:16   

Easy steps to refute ahteism....wrong on step one. Talk about failure.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,09:29   

Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 19 2015,06:10)
I notice however that you did not gave areason why you are NOT publishing your work in peer review, why is that?

Why should i ? the case is totally obvious to any person of average intelligence and even shallow understanding of the requirements for life to start, your demand is futile.

What i will describe below, applies to the origin of life as well.

Chlorophyll biosynthesis is a complex pathway with 17 highly specific steps, of which eight last steps are used by specific enzymes uniquely in this pathway.

Even if we find in the sequence space the right steps to make the enzymes required to permit the synthesis of the products of these intermediate steps, so what ? the intermediate products would have no function, and no survival advantage of the organism would be provided. Natural selection could not operate to favor a system with anything less than all seventeen enzymes being present, functioning and processing all intermediate products to get the final product. What evolutionary process could possibly produce complex sophisticated enzymes that generate nothing useful until the whole process is complete? And even if everything were in place correctly, and chlorophyll were synthesized correctly, so what ? Unless chlorophyll AND all other proteins and protein complexes were fully in place, fully evolved and functional, correctly interlocked and working in a interdependent manner, photosynthesis would not happen. But even if photosynthesis would happen, so what ? Why would the organism chose such a extremely complex mechanism, if it was surviving just fine previously ? Furthermore, you do not just need the right enzymes. For the assembly of a biological system of multiple parts, following steps must be explained : the origin of the genome information to produce all subunits and assembly cofactors. Parts availability, synchronization, manufacturing and assembly coordination through genetic information, and interface compatibility. The individual parts must precisely fit together. All these steps are better explained through a super intelligent and powerful designer, rather than mindless natural processes by chance, or / and evolution, since we observe all the time minds capabilities producing machines and factories, producing machines and end products.

everything *has* to be in place at once or else an organism has no survival advantage. The thing is, there’s no driver for any of the pieces to evolve individually because single parts confer no advantage in and of themselves. The necessity for the parts of the system to be in place all at once is simply evidence of creation. Photosynthesis missing one piece (like chlorophylls) is like a car missing just one piece of the drive train (such as a differential); it’s not that it doesn’t function as well – it doesn’t function at all!

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,09:34   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,06:42)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

I'll give you another example.

Topoisomerase II enzymes, amazing evidence of design

Complete and equal transmission of DNA to daughter cells is  crucial during mitosis. During cell division, each daughter cell inherits one copy of every chromosome. The metaphase-to-anaphase transition is the critical point in the cell cycle where the cell commits to separation of sister chromatids . Once spindle attachment is complete, cohesion must be eliminated to enable the physical separation of sister chromatids. This requires cleavage of the protein complex cohesin by separase and, in some instances, completion of chromosome decatenation. Catenation is the process by which two circular DNA strands are linked together like chain links. This occurs after DNA replication, where two single strands are catenated and can still replicate but cannot separate into the two daughter cells.

II Topoisomerase enzymes  is a ubiquitous enzyme that is essential for the survival of all eukaryotic organisms and plays critical roles in virtually every aspect of DNA metabolism. It performs the amazing feat of breaking a DNA double helix, passing another helix through the gap, and resealing the double helix behind it.  They are essential in the separation of entangled daughter strands during replication. This function is believed to be performed by topoisomerase II in eukaryotes and by topoisomerase IV in prokaryotes. Failure to separate these strands leads to cell death. As genetic material DNA is wonderful, but as a macromolecule it is unruly, voluminous and fragile. Without the action of DNA replicases, topoisomerases, helicases, translocases and recombinases, the genome would collapse into a topologically entangled random coil that would be useless to the cell.  The topoisomerase is thought to be a highly dynamic structure, with several gates for entry of DNA into the two DNA-sized holes. Loss of topoisomerase activity in metaphase leads to delayed exit and extensive anaphase chromosome bridging, often resulting in cytokinesis failure, although maintenance of limited catenation until anaphase may be important for sister chromatid structural organization 9 Accurate transmission of chromosomes requires that the sister DNA molecules created during DNA replication are disentangled and then pulled to opposite poles of the cell before division. Defects in chromosome segregation produce cells that are aneuploid (containing an abnormal number of chromosomes)-a situation that can have dire consequences.

Like many other enzymes, topoisomerase II are essential for cell function, and had to be present in the first living cell to exercise their function right in the beginning, when life began.

Within each chromosome, two dimensions of organization are at play: condensation along the axes ensures the entire chromatid, end-to-end, is kept together 8 , while the tight association of sister chromatids until anaphase, termed sister chromatid cohesion (SCC), ensures that each daughter cell receives only one copy . Two mechanisms are known to play a role in SCC: DNA catenation, which physically interlocks (catenates) DNA across the sister chromatids ; and protein linkages through the cohesin complex, which physically tether the sister chromatids to one another.

Topoisomerase II forms a covalent linkage to both strands of the DNA helix at the same time, making a transient double-strand break in the helix. These enzymes are activated by sites on chromosomes where two double helices cross over each other such as those generated by supercoiling in front of a replication fork

Once a topoisomerase II molecule binds to such a crossing site, the protein uses ATP hydrolysis to perform the following set of reactions efficiently:

(1) it breaks one double helix reversibly to create a DNA “gate”;
(2) it causes the second, nearby double helix to pass through this opening; and
(3) it then reseals the break and dissociates from the DNA. At crossover points generated by supercoiling, passage of the double helix through the gate occurs in the direction that will reduce supercoiling. In this way, type II topoisomerases can relieve the overwinding tension generated in front of a replication fork. Their reaction mechanism also allows type II DNA topoisomerases to efficiently separate two interlocked DNA circles. Topoisomerase II also prevents the severe DNA tangling problems that would otherwise arise during DNA replication. The enormous usefulness of topoisomerase II for untangling chromosomes can readily be appreciated by anyone who has struggled to remove a tangle from a fishing line without the aid of scissors.


These molecular machines are far beyond what unguided processes involving chance and necessity can produce. Indeed, machinery of the complexity and sophistication of Topoisomerase enzymes are, based on our experience, usually atributed to intelligent agents.

Type IIA topoisomerases consist of several key motifs: an

N-terminal GHKL ATPase domain

Toprim domain

central DNA-binding core

C-terminal domain

Each of these key motifs are essential for the proper function of the enzyme. No part can be reduced, and neither is it possible any of the subparts to emerge by natural means. Not only had the enzyme to emerge prior to the first cell being formed, and so could not be the result of evolution, but the sub parts by themself, and the enzyme by itself even fully formed,  would have no use, unless the DNA double helix molecules were already existing as well, and so the whole process of cell division, mitosis, and catenation, which happens through DNA replication. The enzyme is however essential for life, so if Topo II is removed, life could not exist. So we have here one of inumerous essential seemingly tiny and aparently unimportant parts, which by closer looking reveal to be life essential. This provides another big question mark in regard of naturalistic explanations, provides on the other part ones more a powerful argument for design.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2111-t....gn#3754

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,09:35   

That doesn't explain why it is impossible.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,09:36   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,09:29)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 19 2015,06:10)
I notice however that you did not gave areason why you are NOT publishing your work in peer review, why is that?

Why should i ? the case is totally obvious to any person of average intelligence and even shallow understanding of the requirements for life to start, your demand is futile.

Well, that settles it then.  "Design" is obvious to a scientifically illiterate YEC internet blowhard so no scientific evidence is necessary.

I bet you think the Sun orbits a flat, stationary Earth too, right?  After all that's what your "Bible science textbook"  teaches.   :D

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,09:37   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,06:49)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,21:20)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,18:44)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

ah, want more proof. Here we go....

DNA is irreducible complex

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2093-d....complex

Individual bases : take away the sugar in the DNA backbone = no function
Take away the phosphate in the backbone = no function
Take away the nucleic acid bases = no function
Evolution is not a driving force at this stage, since replication of the cell depends on DNA.
So the individual DNA molecules are irreducible complex
DNA in general ( the double helix )
Unless the two types, purines, and pyrimidines are present, and so the individual four bases = no function, and no hability of information storage
The enzymes and proteins for assembly and synthesis of the DNA structure must also be present, otherwise, no DNA double helix......

Origin of the DNA deoxyribonucleic acid  double helix

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2028-o....e-helix

Self-organizing biochemical cycles 1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC18793

How were ribonucleotides first formed on the primitive earth? This is a very difficult problem. Stanley Miller's synthesis of the amino acids by sparking a reducing atmosphere (2) was the paradigm for prebiotic synthesis for many years, so at first, it was natural to suppose that similar methods would meet with equal success in the nucleotide field. However, nucleotides are intrinsically more complicated than amino acids, and it is by no means obvious that they can be obtained in a few simple steps under prebiotic conditions. A remarkable synthesis of adenine (3) and more or less plausible syntheses of the pyrimidine nucleoside bases (4) have been reported, but the synthesis of ribose and the regiospecific combination of the bases, ribose, and phosphate to give β-nucleotides remain problematical.

1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC18793

That's a particularly ridiculous set of assertions from someone who has yet to address the issue I originally raised early in this thread.
DNA is not a 'self-replicating' molecule in and of itself.
It requires a substantial set of complex chemical subsystems with which it interacts.
Take away any of those and it fails to perform as you so simplistically assert that it does.
If you are allowed to ignore the machinery and reduce complex cases to prejudicial overly-simplified sketches, and get away with it, the so am I.  So are we.

Behe's ridiculous 'irreducibly complex' notions have been obliterated, here and elsewhere.
It is an argument from ignorance and incredulity.
'Irreducibly complex' things can evolve.
Consider the arch.
Or perhaps more to the point, and again to raise an evidentiary example you refuse to address, consider the tobacco mosaic virus.

Irreducible complexity is a snare and a delusion.

BTW, nowhere is it granted that abiogenesis nor replication must begin with cells as we know them nor DNA.
You are so out of touch with the last 25, if not 50, years of research as to be unqualified to be making the absolute dicta you are so fond of.

Once again I will suggest you acquaint yourself with Erwin Schrodinger's little masterpiece from the 30's.

You have  simply  ignored everything, and NOT addressed anything of what i said. Nice red herring imho ... congrats.

So, my assertion stands. DNA cannot arise by natural mechanisms alone. The molecule is IC.

Big fail so far to refute my claim.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,09:40   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,09:34)
These molecular machines are far beyond what unguided processes involving chance and necessity can produce.

So you keep asserting but can't provide a single piece of evidence to back up.

Are you omnipotent?  How do you know what unguided evolutionary processes can and cannot do?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,09:40   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,07:22)
I will  add that "poof" is not an answer because it is not a mechanism of any sort.

I agree.

Did i make that argument ? No.

So stop misrepresenting my claims and arguments.

And if you want to make a compelling case for naturalism, you need to provide positive explanations why you think natural mechanisms are enough to explain the origin and existence of the universe, and all in it.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,09:42   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 19 2015,07:32)
It makes as much sense as your version.

Ahm . Well. Hummm. You are right. I changed my mind.

0 x 0 = everything.

:O

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,09:43   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,09:37)
You have  simply  ignored everything, and NOT addressed anything of what i said. Nice red herring imho ... congrats.

So, my assertion stands. DNA cannot arise by natural mechanisms alone. The molecule is IC.

Big fail so far to refute my claim.

We've addressed all your C&Ped plagiarized idiocy.  It's a scientific fact IC structures can evolve so claiming "DNA is IC" doesn't support your IDiot claims.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,10:00   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,09:37)
The molecule is IC.

Being IC is no bar to arising naturally through natural mechanisms.  Have a look at Behe and Snoke (2004) "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" -- yes, it is that Behe.  Professor Behe testified under oath that this 2004 paper showed that simple IC systems could evolve in around 20,000 years.  Lenski (2003) also shows the same thing, that IC systems can evolve.  Behe was correct in that they do not evolve by direct routes, but there are alternative, indirect, routes which can be followed to reach an IC system.

Your ID sources are lying to you.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,10:28   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 19 2015,10:00)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,09:37)
The molecule is IC.

Being IC is no bar to arising naturally through natural mechanisms.  Have a look at Behe and Snoke (2004) "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" -- yes, it is that Behe.  Professor Behe testified under oath that this 2004 paper showed that simple IC systems could evolve in around 20,000 years.  Lenski (2003) also shows the same thing, that IC systems can evolve.  Behe was correct in that they do not evolve by direct routes, but there are alternative, indirect, routes which can be followed to reach an IC system.

Your ID sources are lying to you.

Rossum

feel free to address my post no.69.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,11:08   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,07:34)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,06:42)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

I'll give you another example.

Topoisomerase II enzymes, amazing evidence of design

Complete and equal transmission of DNA to daughter cells is  crucial during mitosis. During cell division, each daughter cell inherits one copy of every chromosome. The metaphase-to-anaphase transition is the critical point in the cell cycle where the cell commits to separation of sister chromatids . Once spindle attachment is complete, cohesion must be eliminated to enable the physical separation of sister chromatids. This requires cleavage of the protein complex cohesin by separase and, in some instances, completion of chromosome decatenation. Catenation is the process by which two circular DNA strands are linked together like chain links. This occurs after DNA replication, where two single strands are catenated and can still replicate but cannot separate into the two daughter cells.

II Topoisomerase enzymes  is a ubiquitous enzyme that is essential for the survival of all eukaryotic organisms and plays critical roles in virtually every aspect of DNA metabolism. It performs the amazing feat of breaking a DNA double helix, passing another helix through the gap, and resealing the double helix behind it.  They are essential in the separation of entangled daughter strands during replication. This function is believed to be performed by topoisomerase II in eukaryotes and by topoisomerase IV in prokaryotes. Failure to separate these strands leads to cell death. As genetic material DNA is wonderful, but as a macromolecule it is unruly, voluminous and fragile. Without the action of DNA replicases, topoisomerases, helicases, translocases and recombinases, the genome would collapse into a topologically entangled random coil that would be useless to the cell.  The topoisomerase is thought to be a highly dynamic structure, with several gates for entry of DNA into the two DNA-sized holes. Loss of topoisomerase activity in metaphase leads to delayed exit and extensive anaphase chromosome bridging, often resulting in cytokinesis failure, although maintenance of limited catenation until anaphase may be important for sister chromatid structural organization 9 Accurate transmission of chromosomes requires that the sister DNA molecules created during DNA replication are disentangled and then pulled to opposite poles of the cell before division. Defects in chromosome segregation produce cells that are aneuploid (containing an abnormal number of chromosomes)-a situation that can have dire consequences.

Like many other enzymes, topoisomerase II are essential for cell function, and had to be present in the first living cell to exercise their function right in the beginning, when life began.

Within each chromosome, two dimensions of organization are at play: condensation along the axes ensures the entire chromatid, end-to-end, is kept together 8 , while the tight association of sister chromatids until anaphase, termed sister chromatid cohesion (SCC), ensures that each daughter cell receives only one copy . Two mechanisms are known to play a role in SCC: DNA catenation, which physically interlocks (catenates) DNA across the sister chromatids ; and protein linkages through the cohesin complex, which physically tether the sister chromatids to one another.

Topoisomerase II forms a covalent linkage to both strands of the DNA helix at the same time, making a transient double-strand break in the helix. These enzymes are activated by sites on chromosomes where two double helices cross over each other such as those generated by supercoiling in front of a replication fork

Once a topoisomerase II molecule binds to such a crossing site, the protein uses ATP hydrolysis to perform the following set of reactions efficiently:

(1) it breaks one double helix reversibly to create a DNA “gate”;
(2) it causes the second, nearby double helix to pass through this opening; and
(3) it then reseals the break and dissociates from the DNA. At crossover points generated by supercoiling, passage of the double helix through the gate occurs in the direction that will reduce supercoiling. In this way, type II topoisomerases can relieve the overwinding tension generated in front of a replication fork. Their reaction mechanism also allows type II DNA topoisomerases to efficiently separate two interlocked DNA circles. Topoisomerase II also prevents the severe DNA tangling problems that would otherwise arise during DNA replication. The enormous usefulness of topoisomerase II for untangling chromosomes can readily be appreciated by anyone who has struggled to remove a tangle from a fishing line without the aid of scissors.


These molecular machines are far beyond what unguided processes involving chance and necessity can produce. Indeed, machinery of the complexity and sophistication of Topoisomerase enzymes are, based on our experience, usually atributed to intelligent agents.

Type IIA topoisomerases consist of several key motifs: an

N-terminal GHKL ATPase domain

Toprim domain

central DNA-binding core

C-terminal domain

Each of these key motifs are essential for the proper function of the enzyme. No part can be reduced, and neither is it possible any of the subparts to emerge by natural means. Not only had the enzyme to emerge prior to the first cell being formed, and so could not be the result of evolution, but the sub parts by themself, and the enzyme by itself even fully formed,  would have no use, unless the DNA double helix molecules were already existing as well, and so the whole process of cell division, mitosis, and catenation, which happens through DNA replication. The enzyme is however essential for life, so if Topo II is removed, life could not exist. So we have here one of inumerous essential seemingly tiny and aparently unimportant parts, which by closer looking reveal to be life essential. This provides another big question mark in regard of naturalistic explanations, provides on the other part ones more a powerful argument for design.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2111-t....gn#3754

Why are you pretending that scientific evidence matters to you? Could there ever be any scientific evidence that would convince you to discard your religious beliefs?

If it were discovered that there is a 'creator' but that it wasn't/isn't your chosen, so called 'God' and is nothing like your chosen, so-called 'God', would you discard your religious beliefs?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,11:17   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 19 2015,11:08)
If it were discovered that there is a 'creator' but that it wasn't/isn't your chosen, so called 'God' and is nothing like your chosen, so-called 'God', would you discard your religious beliefs?

I would want to know that different God.

What would convince you that design explains best our existence ?

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,11:19   

Quote
Why should i ? the case is totally obvious to any person of average intelligence and even shallow understanding of the requirements for life to start, your demand is futile.

You'd save the scientific community lots of work because they apperently disagree with you vastely on just about every point. If you can produce real evidence they would stop wasting time.

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,11:20   

Quote
What would convince you that design explains best our existence ?

Well how about a list?

1: You stop arguement from ignorance
2: You publish your findings in actual scientific peer reviewed journals that are reputable
3: You learn what words and things actually means so you can apply it properly
4: You stop putting the  cart before the horse

A good start

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:01   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,10:40)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,07:22)
I will  add that "poof" is not an answer because it is not a mechanism of any sort.

I agree.

Did i make that argument ? No.

So stop misrepresenting my claims and arguments.

And if you want to make a compelling case for naturalism, you need to provide positive explanations why you think natural mechanisms are enough to explain the origin and existence of the universe, and all in it.

How is your argument anything other than "poof"?
How does 'God did it' a mechanism?

So, I challenge your assertion that I am misrepresenting your argument.  As it stands, I see no other argument being made.

As to 'a compelling case for naturalism', not my job.  You are attempting to make a case for the existence of, indeed, the necessity of, an alternative explanation.
I'm  challenging that, because no satisfactory case for any explanation, any explanatory mechanism, other than naturalism has ever been made.
As such, it is at the very least,  the default position.

If you want me to abandon it, you need to do much better than "I don't accept it".  I, on the other hand, do not.
That's how burden of proof works.
Neither I nor the other participants on this thread showed up at your doorstep, literally or figuratively, and began asserting that your position was wrong.
You, on the other hand, showed up here and began insisting that our position is wrong.
I, and others, have pointed out that your arguments are unsupportable.
You have failed to meet the challenges raised.

So stop misrepresenting what's going on here.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:08   

Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 19 2015,11:19)
Quote
Why should i ? the case is totally obvious to any person of average intelligence and even shallow understanding of the requirements for life to start, your demand is futile.

You'd save the scientific community lots of work because they apperently disagree with you vastely on just about every point. If you can produce real evidence they would stop wasting time.

They disagree based on what evidence, exactly ?

  
  490 replies since Nov. 15 2015,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]