Are the sugars ribose and deoxyribose self assembling

Oh, okay, that Michael Ruse said it makes sense. I'm aware that's his stance - I obviously don't agree with him . The only place you can find that particular quote is on creationist websites. A more realistic treatment of Ruse's true position can be found in the article Ruse M, 2003 "Is Evolution a Secular Religion?", Science 299:1523-1524. His position is that there are two parallel sets of work in evolution: empirical and "philosophical", where one is science and the other - often promoted by the same people! - is metaphysical. Good science used as justification for bad philosophy (according to Ruse ). From the conclusion:

quote:

---

So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism--often an alternative to religion--exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.

---

You might find his book "Can a Darwinian be a Christian" (2000, Cambridge University Press) an interesting read for more of his philosophy - he takes a different tack than Gould does. He basically says that there can be reconciliation between science and religion, specifically Christianity. He also totally dismisses creationism and creation science. You probably won't agree with his definition of Christianity . You might also find his speech to the 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at the symposium "The New Antievolutionism", on line at the ARN pro-ID website (after you read the speech, you'll see why ARN likes it) interesting. Doesn't imply Ruse is right. Argument from authority doesn't work any better than argument from quote mine (which I guess is a form of the same thing). Again, you're talking cells, not abiogenesis. New thread, maybe? Well, then, I'd say you've got a problem, since the "small steps" you claim don't exist have been demonstrated. It's just the last step we haven't seen yet...On the osmosis etc questions - new thread? Let's get back to chemistry...

quote:

---

As I stated earlier I am already aware of the pieces. Ive seen the citations. A phospholipid bilayer is very far from a cell wouldnt you say?

---

The interesting thing about phospholipids is that they naturally assemble into sheets. And if these sheets are broken or otherwise disturbed, they often form into small spheres, enclosing whatever was inside that area. Interesting, eh?

quote:

---

You may as well say the shell of a car is a car. Where are all the internal parts which make the cell a cell?

---

Name your part that is in question.

quote:

---

Where are the protein channels which regulate what enters and what leaves a cell?

---

Where are the parts of a spore which regulate what enters and what leaves?A bilayer need not have initially served as a full isolation mechanism designed for a hypercycle to spend its entire existence fully enclosed in; it very well could have served as temporary protection, allowing a soup of replicators that ends up producing them to spread to new areas, or to be released when there was threat, and then allowed to break down. Transport proteins can come later, allowing them to form a barrier that is meant to last.Of course, the earliest protective layers could have been even simpler still, such as an organic "sludge" designed to hold a colony in place. Transport proteins would help their "food" make it through the "sludge", which would allow the sludge to become more dense, and end up isolating sections, etc.

quote:

---

Where are the carbohydrates associated with cell membranes?

---

"Associated with"? Associated with in what manner?We can equally go into the other parts of the cell. Mitochondria are quite obviously captured organisms (they even have cell membranes and DNA!). It likely was a symbiotic relationship between an ur-cell that had developed a good protection or propagation method but didn't have a very wide range of compounds it can break down, and a cell that had developed a good ability to break down compounds but had not developed either defenses or an effective propagation method - similar to what we find with lichens, except at the cellular level. Lysosomes are not needed in early cells. A golgi apparatus helps, but is not a requirement. The cytosol initially was likely just freshwater or seawater (whatever the first hypercycles developed in, anyway). Etc. It all depends on what you want to discuss.Of course, you know that if you focus on abiogenesis, you're going to be getting a lot of speculation beyond the point where we can show what sort of chemicals can form and link up on a prebiotic earth. We can't see the direct pathways individual organelles took, so we cannot state specifically *which* path something took. However, we can show "self replicators can form" in prebiotic conditions, and that "primitive bacteria are found in precambrian rocks", and we interpolate that there is a continuous flow from poor hypercycles to good hypercycles through ur-cells. Hopefully in the future we won't need to interpolate as far. Again, I should reiterate that abiogenesis is not part of the ToE. The ToE takes for granted an initial self-replicating, adaptive organism - whether it was produced through abiotic processes, or from God Magic. And unlike abiogenesis, there is relatively little in the fossil record that we need to speculate about, at least after the cambrian explosion. The fossils make the transitions abundantly clear. The only problem is, hypercycles and ur-cells don't exactly preserve well. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I'm not saying that you can't produce some amino acids and other compounds in a lab. As long as you are "intellegent" and can put in the starting material that will fulfill your desired result and "help" it along, you could certainly get some of the so called steps. What I am saying is that the "so called steps" are not steps!! They are simply ingredients which can't form themselves into cell without intellegence. I'm glad to see that we do agree on the end result.By the way I have really enjoyed these discussions. If it is not violating any rules may I ask what you do for a living? Does it have something to do with science or is that just your passion?

quote:

---

I'm not saying that you can't produce some amino acids and other compounds in a lab. As long as you are "intellegent" and can put in the starting material that will fulfill your desired result and "help" it along, you could certainly get some of the so called steps. What I am saying is that the "so called steps" are not steps!! They are simply ingredients which can't form themselves into cell without intellegence. I'm glad to see that we do agree on the end result.

---

Actually, you've got this wrong. We can produce PNA in a lab. We have not, yet, gotten it to link up on its own in a prebiotic earth style environment. When you read about these experiments, they will mention the model of prebioitic development that they're working with. Some experiments might be done in a "lagoon model", while others might be done in a "dilute open ocean" model, for example. What scientists are trying is different possible environments that would have occurred on early earth to see if things develop then. Of course, our odds of hitting the right one, and being able to tell more than just the start of the process (which took over a billion years on Earth), are low And yet, we've had quite interesting results so far.If we wanted to just create PNA in the lab, it'd be quite simple. But that's not what we're researching here ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

You know I have to thank you also. I have really enjoyed this thread. The more we discuss the more convince I am in my position. probably 99% of the population wouldn't even be able to follow this line of reason or even know what we are talking about.For those occasional dropers by who say that maybe a cell is difficult for me to understand. I think I understand very well what cells are all about. But the more we discuss the more I realize that a cell is soo complicated and the way evolutionsists feel a cell formed "abiogenesis" is soo complicated that to me it only strengthens my convictions that an intellegent creator must have put it together. We even have a source which tells us about it. So thanks for that.As for I would say you are right. I'm sure they never will.

Hmm, so if I get your argument correctly, diamonds can't form without an intelligence to create them? We create diamonds in the lab by mimicing the theoretical environment that create them in the ground, namely heat and pressure. By your argument, we have to conclude that diamonds in the "wild" have to be created by an intelligence because we have never observed diamonds being made in the wild and only in the lab.I don't think I agree with your argument, maybe you could flesh it out a bit?

Thanks for pointing out other examples which make my point. You mention intellegence and create, and reminded us that if God made the world that he certainly made the conditions to make diamonds.Notice how when you talk about earth and natural processes you assign words like create. You seem to give the earth some anthropomorphic quality.

[quote]

quote:

---

Romans 1:20 (NAS) "For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse."

---

Ah. Seen without excuse. That's why he made all of the evidence, from the distance of stars and the distance that their light has traveled to reach earth, to continual transitions of fossils in the ground, to what radioisotopes are missing from the decay sequence, etc, favor an old Earth? Sounds more like a prankster deity to me.

quote:

---

(Verse 22 says "Professing to be wise, they became fools."

---

Yes, I know, the bible likes to fling personal, haughty insults. All of the "wisdom" that the bible lent led to the Dark Ages and the repression of science, from heliocentrism to the spread of Bubonic Plague.

quote:

---

quote:

---

the odds of hitting the right one

---

​

I would say you are right. I'm sure they never will.

---

Quantify that, please, so that I can give a big "I told you so". Seing as we've already found simple self replicating ligases, and we're finding conditions that lead to easy amino acid production and linking on a prebiotic Earth, if your standard is self replication from a prebiotic environment then you'll probably find yourself proven wrong within 10-20 years. If your standard is to have full featured, advanced cells develop, you'll need to give us a billion years.

quote:

---

Notice how when you talk about earth and natural processes you assign words like create. You seem to give the earth some anthropomorphic quality.

---

And what word would you use for the creation of diamonds? They're created by geological processes. Why do you find the word "create" to somehow be magical? Blizzards create road hazards. Asteroids create craters. The sun creates light. What is so special about this word to you? It takes no intelligence to create diamonds. Unless you somehow think that geological processes are intelligent.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-20-2003]

So if I used intelligence with the words "can't create" would that prove abiogenesis? Your argument seems to hang on flimsy evidence.Notice how natural processes (heat and pressure) can create. Therefore, by linking natural processes with create I have proved abiogenesis through natural processes. Hmm, your method of arguing is a lot easier than actually using evidence, I'll have to do it more often. Create is not a quality possessed by humans alone therefore I am not anthropomorphizing it. For example, the river created a gorge, the rain created rivulets of water down my windsheild. If I said the rain waltzed across the windshield that would be anthropomorphizing.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-20-2003]

Did he really? Do you know that a fact, or are you just borrowing from what of the many Creationist quote mines on the Internet?Here's the thing, every single Creationist 'quote' from an Evolutionist like this that I've managed to track down has turned out to be a misquote, taken out of context, a selective quote or a downright fabrication. So I'm going to go right ahead and assume this quote is also a lie unless you have solid evidence it ain't.

Rei pretty much answered this already. I'll simply add that we synthesize PNA all the time. It's a molecule that because of its stability and binding properties, to say nothing of the ease of synthesis, that has tremendous applications in biotechnology and medicine. It's been known in cancer and other biotech research for quite a while - it just took the OOL guys some time to realize its application for their reasearch.I'm not sure what you mean by "agree on the end result". I haven't seen agreement on anything so far. Can you enlighten me here? Both, actually. My first career was in ecology (working on endangered species conservation, refuge development/management, ecotourism management planning, and impact assessments - including species catalogs, etc - for economic development projects). I've been out of that field for a number of years, currently focusing on community-based economic development consulting (it pays more). However, I do try and keep my hand in and keep up with the literature. OOL isn't really a particular passion with me - more like a vague interest. Want to argue how island ecology and biogeographic dynamics provide a nearly irrefutable line of evidence supporting evolution? Now THAT'S a passion...

That a cell can't be made yet. Micro or Macro? Still a long way away from a fully functioning cell but I quess in a billion years we will have that evidence.

I'm talking about how evolutionists talk about chance as if it were some sort of god.

Define cell. Both , since I've argued that there's no fundamental difference... Well, if we didn't have labs to play in where we can super-fast-forward the video it might. OTOH, whereas it might be too long to hold your breath, I expect to see it before I shuffle off this mortal coil.

The simplest one we know of. That basic unit of living things. Using bacteria as an example, something with DNA or RNA, a cell membrane(and many times a cell wall), and cytoplasm which contains the enzymes, protein (I know enzymes are made from proteins), and any other structures needed to replicate, capture and use energy(changing it to ATP), a way to regulate what enters and leaves the cell, and any other of that simple stuff that a cell needs to be alive. Pigeons that look different and dogs that look different hardly constitute macroevolution. No matter which way you slice it it's still a pigeon or a dog. That still fits in with the Bible's explanation of things reproducing after their kind. Now show me a dog giving birth to kittens, or pigeons, and then you have really shown me something. For your sake I hope you are right! If your right we will both simply cease to exist and all this wont matter. If I'm right then your argument has eternal consequences. So really if I'm wrong, I lose nothing. I am simply a better citizen because I try to live a life based on loving my neighbor, not stealing, not killing or committing adultery and those things. Wouldn’t this world be better if we all tried to live that type of life. If your wrong, not even God will be able to help you. So really I've lost nothing, I've enjoyed debating this subject, and it has strengthened by opinion that I am right.