The Simplest Protein of Life

Then it is a very poor descriptor.It would seem to me that the important feature of life is replication, not the length of an individual's lifetime. If all life did was live and then die there would be no life on Earth. It is the ability to reproduce which has resulted in the biodiversity we see today. Then use abiotic instead. Inert means that it does not react. Obviously, this matter is reacting, therefore it is not inert.

I said I take a good note that the concept that life may come from non-living matter by an unspecified gradual chemical process is present in people's minds. And I take a good note that there is another concept that life may come about from a supremely intelligent, powerful object called God equally poorly specified.
That is all I can do with these concepts and no more. Take a good note of them, assume the proposals at face-value without reservation and see what may be the logical implications and consequences of each, what the inherent contradictions are and what their strong points seem to be and so on. Not take either of them for a fact of nature.
Life coming from another life is an entirely different kettle of fish as this is a given fact of nature so is the only scenario that may be taken for granted thus far. Sorry.

The interesting part is that people are only doing research on one of those proposals. Why do you think that is?

What else the living are replicating for if not to escape death, silly? Only the bluntly dumb need this to be chewed out for them. That descriptor fully implies the frantic tendency for replication. Love is compensation for death as Schopenhauer and Freud pointed out. That is common to all the living. It captures what exactly the machines aim to do and the intensity of that goal which distinguishes them from other configurations of matter.

What assumptions most people make prior to doing the research is irrelevant. They tend to assume stuff and interpret the results any way they please. I repeat: if life can arise from inanimate matter, then the process is as obligatory to matter as farting to a monkey. If not then no collective assumptions are going to make mother nature comply. Nothing to do with what a crowd of monkeys does or does not reckon.

Where have I cheated?Why do you hate science?

Beginning now I am recusing myself from participation as Percy. Tomorrow, Thursday, October 25, 2012, I will begin participating in my moderator role as Admin. I will be enforcing the Forum Guidelines rule about staying on topic.

So you discount the conclusions before they are even voiced. So much for being open minded.

Reproduction has nothing to do with escaping death. It never has. Reproduction is about passing on your genes. If organisms simply lived and then died there would be no life right now.

Look at your reasoning, Tacky.
1. Making love to be fruitful has got nothing to do with death
2.Death avoiding machines just love to pass genes on.
3. If not for that a single generation of death avoiding machines would have been long dead and there would be no life now.
Do you get how lame is your reasoning, Tacky?
Besides, what is a collection of genes? Memory of how to build a functioning death-avoiding machine, isn't it? And what is death? What puts an end to that functioning, isn't it?

To Everyone: Unless you have something to say about how the simplest proteins of life could or could not have formed spontaneously through random chance, please do not post to this thread.

Says the person who uses the phrase "death avoiding machines". Says the person who describes reactive matter as inert matter.My reasoning is just fine. No. Memories require brains. Modern genomes are the product of billions of years of evolution. Those are not memories any more than the roundness of a stone in a stream is a memory of flowing water.As to the topic, this is why modern proteins are not valid examples to be used for probabilities that describe abiogenesis. They are the products of evolution, not abiogenesis.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Wow. This guy was bang on. No wonder you guys got rid of him LOLI thought it appropriate to reproduce the original post, as I back it up 100%. The evidence for an intelligent origin of proteins is the same as the evidence for the intelligent origin of the nucleotide sequence on the original DNA/RNA.
I like when numbers come into this discussion. Tends to make the methodological naturalists start dancing, dog and pony shows, and all sorts of entertaining antics to skirt the quantitative issue and hope nobody notices...Speaking of which, it's probably just about time for RAZD to make an appearance! (lol just joking)Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Ever heard of the sharpshooter fallacy?

Wow!!Your ignorance is astounding. So what you are saying is that if I had 10 dice it would be take an astronomical amount of times to get me to roll them so I show all sixes?I'll tell you what. Send me a plane ticket, supply the dice and I will show you how I can roll them so they all show six in less than an hour. No cheating either.This argument presented by BoredomSetsIn is just plain stupid. If you had bothered to have read the whole thread you would have seen that his argument was systematical destroyed. Do you really think you have the new idea that destroys the underpinnings of evolution? You do think highly of yourself don't you.Tell you what read this one response.
Message 5 Obviously because you do not understand numbers. You might want to learn about statistics and probability before you start spouting nonsense.ABE Gee a creationist making misrepresentations, whudda thunk. He was not gotten rid of. He was a driveby creo/fundy. He made two posts and ran away. I am sure he told his pastor how he really showed those evo/atheists a thing or two. He didn't even have the decency to argue his won thread, but I am sure he got credit for a class at his fundie school.Edited by Theodoric, : A little rant