|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,249 Year: 6,506/9,624 Month: 84/270 Week: 80/37 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dcarraher Junior Member (Idle past 5294 days) Posts: 13 From: Cols, OH Joined:
|
I hate to interrupt all the self-congratulatory back-slapping and name-calling (ignoramouses? really?), but you can't seriously think that the article has anything to do with abiogenesis, can you?
What you have here is a purely chemical reaction, in which you take chemicals (RNA) that are known to react, put them in a solution of chemicals that they react with, and watch as the concentration levels of various combinations of the chemicals change. Color me bored. What you don't have is:1) Information - the RNA is merely undergoing chemical reactions, it is not following "instructions" (e.g. DNA) to regenerate. 2) Translation - there is no mechanism for "interpreting" the information (non-existent) of the RNA and utilizing to build a product (e.g. Protein). 3) Control - there isn't any control to the system - like all unguided chemical reactions, its a mere matter of what comes in contact with what under what environmental conditions. In other words, there isn't a single element of what distinguishes biology from chemistry. As a chemical analogy to "natural selection", it is an interesting(?) experiment, that may or may not (I'm guessing not) provide insight into population density changes in biological environments. As far as "abiogenesis" is concerned, this experiment is about as relevant as dropping alka-seltzer in a glass of water, and noticing that the chemical composition of the solution changes. This, btw, is a good example of why most conversations between evolutionists and creationists are pointless. To an educated creationist, this article is so clearly irrelevant to the entire argument of abiogenesis, it shouldn't even need refuted. To an evolutionist, apparently, this is practically first life, and a clear refutation of any creationist concerns over the impracticability of abiogenesis. Ah, well. Whether or not "Darwinian Processes" as defined in the post above are common, is irrelevant to the validity of Evolution or Creation as an explanation of the origin of life. Support for natural selection as a generic process <> support for Evolution/refutation of Creation. Just out of curiosity - any evolutionists willing to stand up and admit that recombinant RNA concentrations in a pool of RNA is kinda irrelevant to the idea of abiogenesis? Or is ceding a point to the other side, even a valid one, still verbotten?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dcarraher Junior Member (Idle past 5294 days) Posts: 13 From: Cols, OH Joined:
|
Well, biology IS chemistry (and chemistry is physics). There is no distinction. This explains alot, really. If you see no distinction between chemistry and biology, no line of demarcation that says "this is life" and "this is not", then abiogenesis is not an issue because the very word has no meaning - life is non-life, so no need to explain life from non-life. Disqualified.
All it proves is that these processes can happen, not that that is the way that they did happen. Ah. So, taking existing RNA, mixing it with chemicals, and ending up with different RNA that cannot be qualitatively shown to be more "complex" or contain more information (or really any - if the RNA has more "information", what "information" does it have? how to build a protein? how is the resultant RNA any different than chemical "noise"?), somehow proves that you can get something other than random RNA? Now, maybe if the experiment had started with amino acids, and ended with RNA, you might have something... If nothing else, thank you for demonstrating that these types of conversations are indeed pointless. Simply because creationists and evolutionists refuse to accept each other's premises (e.g. "Life is different than Chemistry", "Specified Complexity has meaning and is measurable", "Any type of change is qualitatively equal to the type of change desired"), and without agreement on premises, arguing specifics (this type of change doesn't help evolution) is pointless. One last try - Creationists don't AGREE with you on whether this experiment has value - that does NOT mean that they don't UNDERSTAND you, or are STUPID. I'm not certain the converse is true, but I'll cut you some slack.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dcarraher Junior Member (Idle past 5294 days) Posts: 13 From: Cols, OH Joined: |
First, a qualifier - in my responses, I will respond to multiple previous posters in a single post. This is not an indication that I am confusing who posted what, simply brevity for the sake of brevity.
Now, maybe if the experiment had started with amino acids, and ended with DNA, you might have something... Fixed. Mea culpa. Congratulations, you've scorned a typo.
When you get down to the nitty-gritty of abiogenesis, at the point where non-life is emerging into life, there is not going to be a "line" dividing the two.
Ah, so then you have a definition of life that can always distinguish life from non-life ... what is it? This is another excellent example of premise-conflict. I'm really astonished that evolutionists would care to argue that life is indistinguishable from non-life. If there is no clear demarcation, then what is abiogenesis all about? What are scientists and universities such as Harvard wasting their time and money trying to get to? According to you both, they won't know it when they get to it. But of course, you both know that you are speaking theoretically. You are engaged in a fairy-tale story of some non-existent form of chemical intermediary between recognizable non-life (e.g. an amino acid) and recognizable life (e.g. a single-celled organism that reproduces). And, on the basis of this (non-existent fair-tale grey) semi-organism, seen fit to ridicule creationists who have the audacity to peer into your petrie dish and say "hey, this isn't life, it's not even novel, just a chemical reaction between RNA and substrate that results in more RNA, until it runs out of substrate". As a thought experiment, let's discuss the RNA experiment in question, shall we? Let's treat it like a high-school lab projectProject Instructions: 1) Take two RNA enzymes 2) Place in four oligonucleotide substrates 3) Observe and record Now, there are multiple possible outcomes:1) Stasis - nothing happens 2) Equilibrium - stuff happens, but the overall effect is negligible 3) Deterioration - stuff breaks down until it's all gone 4) Increase in RNA due to chemical combination with substrate resulting in more RNA. Based on the chemical and thermal conditions, the chemical makeup of the RNA products may vary. 5) Generation of novel organisms that have the properties of homeostasis, metabolism, growth, and reproduction (as serviceable a descriptive definition of "Life" as any) Because results 1-3 are boring, RNA enzymes and substrates that provide these results are discarded. Result 4 (shown is this paper), is pretty much just a complex chemical reaction of reagents and products - when you run out of reagents, you're back to outcomes 1-3. If you get really interesting, the RNA might continuously break-down and re-combine, in which case you have a (random, uncontrolled) continuous reaction (thermodynamics would insist that eventually this stops). So, at the end of the day, you have an interesting chemical reaction that is interesting not because of any relevance to abiogenesis (you haven't gone anywhere - you end up with more of what you already started with), but because it has the same qualities as a kaleidoscope - look at all the pretty colors I can get when I twist the little thingie at the end! Let's call the patterns created by our kaleidoscope "natural selection" and pat ourselves on the back for how clever we are and how stupid creationists are.
You are welcome to your opinion, however opinion has been found to be rather amusingly inept at changing or altering reality in any way. Back at ya. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dcarraher Junior Member (Idle past 5294 days) Posts: 13 From: Cols, OH Joined: |
If I start an experiment with one bacterium and come back the next day to find billions of bacteria would you claim that this is not an example of life since I just ended up with more of what I started with? No - because you started with something that is unarguably "Life", and ended with more. In the RNA experiment, you started with RNA, which is unarguably "Not Life", and ended up with more "Not Life". QED - Experiments that start with non-life and end up with more non-life = irrelevant to abiogenesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dcarraher Junior Member (Idle past 5294 days) Posts: 13 From: Cols, OH Joined: |
You point out in multiple places that you feel it is clearly irrelevant, but fail to explain why. Maybe I am missing something here....why do you feel it is it not relevant? Because the experiment starts with something that is clearly non-life, and ends with more of something that is not significantly different. You started with the ability to replicate, and ended with the ability to replicate - you did not add the ability to replicate, nor did you add any other "life-like" characteristics. Ergo, irrelevant to the question of abiogenesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dcarraher Junior Member (Idle past 5294 days) Posts: 13 From: Cols, OH Joined: |
DNA also isn’t made of amino acids. DNA and RNA are both nucleic acids (that’s what the NA stands for). You are correct, I was not. My apologies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dcarraher Junior Member (Idle past 5294 days) Posts: 13 From: Cols, OH Joined: |
So you are saying that a self replicating RNA molecule has nothing to do with abiogenesis? Really? Yes. Even those evolutionists who propose an RNA scenario for the origin of life are merely presenting it as a hypothesis. And within the Evolutionary community, it has many detractors who dismiss it as implausible. So, I'm not really stating anything that other evolutionists haven't, re whether self-replicating RNA is relevant to abiogenesis. If you'd care to argue the point further - take it up with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dcarraher Junior Member (Idle past 5294 days) Posts: 13 From: Cols, OH Joined: |
I really have no response to those of who insist that biology and chemistry are so closely related that there is no difference. I'll have more to offer in the next post, but for this post, I'd like to quote physicist Paul Davies, in his book The Eerie Silence:
To a physicist like me, life looks to be a little short of magic: all those dumb molecules conspiring to achieve such clever things! How do they do it? There is no orchestrator, no choreographer directing the performance, no esprit de corps, no collective will, no life force — just mindless atoms pushing and pulling on each other, kicked about by random thermal fluctuations. Yet the end product is an exquisite and highly distinctive form of order. Even chemists, who are familiar with the amazing transformative powers of molecules, find it breathtaking. George Whitesides, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University, writes, ‘How remarkable is life? The answer is: very. Those of us who deal in networks of chemical reactions know of nothing like it.’ If I find the distinction between chemistry and biology to be pretty clear, at the very least I am not alone. Let's file this one under the heading of "agree to disagree", where you must admit that you are disagreeing with a significant portion of the evolutionary community, not just creationists and "IDiots".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dcarraher Junior Member (Idle past 5294 days) Posts: 13 From: Cols, OH Joined: |
A common thread running through the above posts is regarding the definition and measurement of such terms as "Life", "Information", "Chemistry vs. Biology", etc. One of the most common debating tactics of evolutionists is the demand that, not only must their opponent define and be able to measure these concepts, but that they have to do it on the evolutionist's terms - in a purely materialistic fashion. If they cannot (so the evolutionist argument goes), then they cannot use those terms to criticise evolutionist views.
This is not always possible, because materialism is unable to define and/or measure all forms of reality. This doesn't invalidate the reality. Let me provide an example: The sky is blue in my world. Based on this statement, you can theorize that either I'm a happy guy, or the weather outside is nice, or both. This is "Information". It is not definable, or measurable, in materialistic terms. It is not constrained by or limited to or even contained in the material elements (LCD pixels?) that transmits the information. But it is definitely "Real" - the material universe has changed because of it. But according to the evolutionist, I would not be allowed to assert that the sky is blue, because I am not able to measure the information content of the message. Similarly, "Life" is qualitatively different than "Non-Life" even if not in a form that is measurable materialistically. To use an example that has been beat to death (sorry, bad pun), what is the difference between a live cat and dead cat? A quantum of time. Materially they could be exactly identical. So you've asked me to provide a "definition" and "measurement" of information, and life, or you will not accept my criticism of this experiment as not showing an increase in (non-material) information, or being irrelevant to the question of (non-materially-constrained) abiogenesis? Sorry, you've merely confirmed my assertion that EvC is mostly pointless because we cannot accept each other's base premises. As a P.S. - One of the posters above states that the RNA has information. My own opinion on the subject (speaking only for myself) is that "material information" is qualitatively different than "non-material" information. RNA has what I call material information - information that is a direct result of its physical/chemical properties. This is the kind of information that even a water molecule has. A Living Cell, on the other hand, has nonmaterial information contained in its DNA - e.g. how to build a protein. The ability to build a copy of itself is not a characteristic of its physical binding chemistry, it is a process that requires messengers and translators. Replicating RNA replicates because of its chemical characteristics, not because of the information it contains that can be interpreted.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024