Reply With Quote
Do you say "not possible" so quickly simply becuase it didn't jibe exactly with your beliefs, or because you don't want to admit that maybe somebody had discovered something new and that maybe you should do some research?
How were the amino acids themselves formed? We can't even manage to make them unless we control all conditions; which in and of itself is instrusive to the subjectmatter at hand...
Step at a time. Step at a time....
Good articles by the way.
I'll try some of those experiments next time I go to my cousins genetics lab in Mexico, or back to a lab at MIT.
Do you say "not possible" so quickly simply becuase it didn't jibe exactly with your beliefs, or because you don't want to admit that maybe somebody had discovered something new and that maybe you should do some research?
Read up above.
Edit: Notice that the amino acids didn't do anything by themselves.... they were aided by a calcite catalytic substrate. Ergo, stating that the amino-acid polymers were self-catalyzing is still misleading. The first step is catalyzed by the calcite.
Hmmm I wonder what all that free ammonia was doing at the time. It essentially forms weak buffer links with the amino acids and allows them to form peptide bonds with each other... despite their chirality. But if they didn't include free ammonia in their experiment (i.e ammonium ions) how are the amino acids going to 'swim around' in the first place? Unless buffered, or in high concentrations, amino acids will revert to smaller cons uent species, faster than what it took you to read this phrase. Hmm all interesting questions.
Last edited by hegamboa; 08-26-2006 at 12:58 PM.
No. You pointed out that something OBVIOUSLY was wrong, instead of reading the whole thing, or considering the science.
Did you even read what I questioned? Everytime someone publishes an article doesn't mean it is error free you know.
RG needs sleep and is grumpier than he normally would be.
That and the near-death experience of some dumbass in an SUV that ran a stop-sign and almost killed him.
Sigh.
Pardon my snippiness.
Well at least you made it out alive and not having to spend your night in jail or in a hospital.
I'm going to bed as well.
No I don't see a problem. Lets take your number to start with. 3.87x10^-121
-121+63=-58. (one mole =63)
Now we take -58 and add (okay, multiply) out the number of moles of water on ONE planet, Earth. Based on the calculation of just the amount of ice in the greenland icesheets (2.5M km3 multiplied by the number of moles of water contained, multiplied by an arbitrary 10000 to get a very rough estimate as to the amount of water on earth) given in another thread, there are at least 2.5x10^19 moles of water on the earth.
-58+19=-39
You failed to address the tens of billions of planets worth of water in just our galaxy.
Muliply tens of billions of planets by tens of billions of galaxies and you get yeat another very big number, here goes another 20 zeroes...
-39+20=-19
add in the number of seconds by your own admission
-19+16=-3
Halve the complexity (logorythmically) of the protein from 121 to 60 and you start getting positive numbers with 50+ zeros behind them. Even assuming fewer planets, fewer stars, fewer galaxies, and a younger universe, you still get billions of billions of self replicating proteins.
Since your argument was based on just the earth, and a somewhat complex protein, where does your argument go when the whole universe and a slightly smaller, self-replicating protein is considered?
A universe's worth of molecules on liquid water planets bumping up against each other for a long time, can easily produce the statistical certainty that sooner or later a self replicating protein can be created.
Source: Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
Date: August 2, 2006
Genetic Research Reinforces Theory Of Evolution
Scientists led by a Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh geneticist have found new evidence that a category of genes known as pseudogenes serve no function, an important finding that bolsters the theory of evolution.
There are approximately 20,000 pseudogenes in the human and other mammalian genomes. In recent years, there has been growing discussion about the nature of these pseudogenes. The issue centers on whether pseudogenes are functional or merely evolutionary relics with no function. It was long believed by geneticists that they were relics, until basic science research published in 2003 found a mouse pseudogene located within the Makorin family of genes that did have a function, namely to cause polycystic kidney disease and a bone disease known as osteogenesis imperfecta.
This finding, discovered in a mouse model, was hailed by proponents of “Intelligent Design” (ID). According to the Intelligent Design Network, the premise of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a disagreement with the core scientific basis of evolutionary theory.
However, researchers at Children’s and the Wadsworth Center in New York, including first author Todd A. Gray, PhD, have found scientific evidence that contradicts this finding. The pseudogene in question – Mkrn1-p1 – indeed is not the cause of those diseases, according to senior author Robert D. Nicholls, DPhil, director of the Birth Defects Laboratories at Children’s. Instead, according to Dr. Nicholls, it merely is an inactive copy of a gene, an evolutionary relic as previously believed.
Results of this study are published in the Aug. 8 print issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Discussion over evolution and Intelligent Design really has centered on whether pseudogenes, sometimes called ‘junk DNA,’ have a function or not. The suggestion is that an Intelligent Designer would not make junk DNA, so if a pseudogene does have a function, this is claimed to support the idea of an Intelligent Designer,” Dr. Nicholls said. “But there is no evidence that any of the 20,000 pseudogenes are functional. Our research proves this Makorin pseudogene does not have a function. It has continued to mutate over its short life of a few million years, a fact that supports evolution, and eventually will be discarded from the mouse genome.”
But the most important implication of this research from a patient perspective is that scientists now must go back to the beginning in terms of discovering the genetic mechanism that causes polycystic kidney disease and osteogenesis imperfecta in the mouse model, according to Dr. Nicholls.
But now that you have read all that and started trying to break down the assumptions to make that probability more remote, here is the nuke in the tea cup:
Quantum physics predicts an infinite number of universes existing simultaneously.
Out of all those universes, NOW what is the statistical probability that, by simple random chance, a self replicating protein will occur by a few molecules randomly bumping up against each other?
(takes JS off ignore)
Guilty as charged.
Trick question. Infinite.
bingo.
finite*infinite=infinite
even if you assume that self replicating proteins have an infinitesmally small chance of occuring:
(1/infinite)*infininte=1=100% chance of occurance.
So the second you acknowledge even a 3.45 in 10^-123, or for that matter 1 in 10^-10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Chance, you still end up with an infinite chance of life occuring without God specifically assembling anything.
Nice thought experiment, but the assertion I quoted above is not scientific, any more so than asserting "quantum physics predicts an intelligent creator" would be.
Nice try... but that would be tantamount to you having placed your faith in a multi-universe model. Good luck with that.
Even without a multi-universe model, the odds for self-replicating proteins coming into being without God's help are greater than you have admitted so far.
One interesting thing about the prions from what I have read is that their coding is almost entirely composed of 2 out of 4 of the nucleotides.
I would think that this would imply their structure is a bit more simple than you let on, also making the odds of random generation a bit higher.
Quantum physics is not scientific?
Huh?
Not really... cause at some point the code incorporates all 4. And those of prions today have been reverse-coded from transcriptase... A protein which in turn was coded with by ribonucleic genetic material... not prions or proteins.
Did you even realize that prions borrow many proteins from the DNA/RNA pathway to even subsist? If you were to stick them in a solution of water they would sit there and do nothing. They only replicate only after interacting with cells/tissues/nuclei of DNA/RNA-based organisms -- because they have to borrow what they can't produce. They are in bent parasites.
Which beckons the question? Is it even logical to believe that protein based organisms like prions existed before DNA/RNA based organisms did? I don't believe so.
Which further beckons the question whether the first self replicating proteins were prions. Something simpler and more likely to be randomly thrown together in a tidal pool?
You say prions are so complicated that they couldn't be randomly generated. Ok.
I am no bio-chemist, but how complicated does a protein, or whatever, need to be in order for self-replication?
Quantum physics is scientific. But it does not "predict" an infinite number of universes. That is one hypothesis which attempts to explain some of the incongruities in the quantum model. It is scientifically unfalsifiable, unless and until somebody comes up with a way to detect multiple universes.
I have placed my faith in replicatable science, yes.
I have faith that the scientific method will describe observable phenomena in ways that offer more valid and probable explanations than "God did it this way, because the bible said so.
The same science that debunked christian doctrine about the earth being the center of the universe, that describes the laws of physics that the bible, or any holy book for that matter, somehow neglect to mention.
Quantum physics describes the universe and the things in it better than the theories that come before it. In that I have faith, because it is reproducible and capable of being validated independently.
As much as you might like to ignore logic and turn any debate towards the one thing that no one can disprove, as you just did, that does not make the empiric method go away.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-05-2006 at 11:46 AM.
Correct.
The implications that hypothesis has on this argument are still relevant.
IF the there are an infinite number of universes, then there is an infinite amount of life, and putting a massively small number on the probability of self-replicating proteins arising is irrelevant.
If there aren't, I think the numbers still point to a MUCH stronger possibility than hemagoal (sp?) has admitted so far.
For one, the Bible was never meant to convey scientific information. Those references you 'rebuked' are contained in a book of 'poetry' -- hardly a book of scientific merit.
And yes I believe in supernatural phenomena that can't be measured or explained by any naturalistic processes. But that conviction is supported by several of my life's experiences and from having placed my faith in GOD... I'm not ashamed to admit it. That is what I believe.
Now, the scientist in me does want answers. But should I throw away all of my belief system if GOD does not reveal the mysteries of the universe to me? No. The world doesn't always work in absolutes. You should know that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions