DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano high-technology that defies naturalistic explanations

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano high-technology that defies naturalistic explanations

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes

DNA replication is the most crucial step in cellular division, a process necessary for life, and errors can cause cancer and many other diseases. Genome duplication presents a formidable enzymatic challenge, requiring the high fidelity replication of millions of bases of DNA. It is a incredible system involving a city of proteins, enzymes, and other components that are breathtaking in their complexity and efficiency.

How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a "protein compound ... ready to undergo still more complex changes"? Dawkins has to admit:

"Darwin, in his 'warm little pond' paragraph, speculated that the key event in the origin of life might have been the spontaneous arising of a protein, but this turns out to be less promising than most of Darwin's ideas. ... But there is something that proteins are outstandingly bad at, and this Darwin overlooked. They are completely hopeless at replication. They can't make copies of themselves. This means that the key step in the origin of life cannot have been the spontaneous arising of a protein." (pp. 419-20)

The process of DNA replication depends on many separate protein catalysts to unwind, stabilize, copy, edit, and rewind the original DNA message. In prokaryotic cells, DNA replication involves more than thirty specialized proteins to perform tasks necessary for building and accurately copying the genetic molecule. These specialized proteins include DNA polymerases, primases, helicases, topoisomerases, DNA-binding proteins, DNA ligases, and editing enzymes. DNA needs these proteins to copy the genetic information contained in DNA. But the proteins that copy the genetic information in DNA are themselves built from that information. This again poses what is, at the very least, a curiosity: the production of proteins requires DNA, but the production of DNA requires proteins.

Proponents of Darwinism are at a loss to tell us how this marvelous system began. Charles Darwin's main contribution, natural selection, does not apply until a system can reproduce all its parts. Getting a reproducible cell in a primordial soup is a giant leap, for which today's evolutionary biologists have no answer, no evidence, and no hope. It amounts to blind faith to believe that undirected, purposeless accidents somehow built the smallest, most complex, most efficient system known to man.

Several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.

Replication of the genetic material is the single central property of living systems. Dawkins provocatively claimed that organisms are but vehicles for replicating and evolving genes, and I believe that this simple concept captures a key aspect of biological evolution. All phenotypic features of organisms--indeed, cells and organisms themselves as complex physical entities--emerge and evolve only inasmuch as they are conducive to genome replication. That is, they enhance the rate of this process, or, at least, do not impede it.

According to mainstream scientific papers, the following twenty protein and protein complexes are essential for prokaryotic DNA replication. Each one mentioned below. They cannot be reduced. If one is missing, DNA replication cannot occur:

Pre-replication complex Formation of the pre-RC is required for DNA replication to occur
DnaA The crucial component in the initiation process is the DnaA protein
DiaA this novel protein plays an important role in regulating the initiation of chromosomal replication via direct interactions with the DnaA initiator.
DAM methylase It's gene expression requires full methylation of GATC at its promoter region.
DnaB helicase Helicases are essential enzymes for DNA replication, a fundamental process in all living organisms.
DnaC Loading of the DnaB helicase is the key step in replication initiation. DnaC is essential for replication in vitro and in vivo.
HU-proteins HU protein is required for proper synchrony of replication initiation
SSB Single-stranded binding proteins Single-stranded DNA binding proteins are essential for the sequestration and processing of single-stranded DNA. 6
SSBs from the OB domain family play an essential role in the maintenance of genome stability, functioning in DNA replication, the repair of damaged DNA, the activation of cell cycle checkpoints, and in telomere maintenance. SSB proteins play an essential role in DNA metabolism by protecting single-stranded DNA and by mediating several important protein-protein interactions. 7
Hexameric DNA helicases DNA helicases are essential during DNA replication because they separate double-stranded DNA into single strands allowing each strand to be copied.
DNA polymerase I and III DNA polymerase 3 is essential for the replication of the leading and the lagging strands whereas DNA polymerase 1 is essential for removing of the RNA primers from the fragments and replacing it with the required nucleotides.
DnaG Primases They are essential for the initiation of such phenomena because DNA polymerases are incapable of de novo synthesis and can only elongate existing strands
Topoisomerases 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.
Sliding clamp and clamp loader the clamp loader is a crucial aspect of the DNA replication machinery. Sliding clamps are DNA-tracking platforms that are essential for processive DNA replication in all living organisms
Primase (DnaG) Primases are essential RNA polymerases required for the initiation of DNA replication, lagging strand synthesis and replication restart. They are essential for the initiation of such phenomena because DNA polymerases are incapable of de novo synthesis and can only elongate existing strands.
RTP-Ter complex Ter sequences would not seem to be essential, but they may prevent overreplication by one fork in the event that the other is delayed or halted by an encounter with DNA damage or some other obstacle
Ribonuclease H RNase H1 plays essential roles in generating and clearing RNAs that act as primers of DNA replication.
Replication restart primosome Replication restart primosome is a complex dynamic system that is essential for bacterial survival.
DNA repair:
RecQ helicase In prokaryotes RecQ is necessary for plasmid recombination and DNA repair from UV-light, free radicals, and alkylating agents.
RecJ nuclease the repair machinery must be designed to act on a variety of heterogeneous DNA break sites.

It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked, interdependent and consistent of several irreducible complex subsystems. Since evolution depends on it, it could not have emerged through evolution. Even less through random chance or physical necessity. Special creation through a incredibly intelligent powerful creator is therefor the best explanation for DNA replication.

[Rolf]

<grassoempreen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:641938ef-fde6-4b0d...@googlegroups.com...

All right, let's presume you are right, all crestionists are.

When the initial, supernatural design and implementation has been done, is
life capable of survival on its own on the planet, or must the supernatural
designer, operating by the principles of magic (or eventually by a r&d +
manufacturing complex surpassing by many orders of magnitude what mankind
has been able to create) for ever have to nurse life on this planet?

[Rolf]

<grassoempreen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:641938ef-fde6-4b0d...@googlegroups.com...

> DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano high-technology that defies
> naturalistic explanations
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes
>

[snip]

> It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked, interdependent and
> consistent of several irreducible complex subsystems. Since evolution
> depends on it, it could not have emerged through evolution. Even less
> through random chance or physical necessity. Special creation through a
> incredibly intelligent powerful creator is therefor the best explanation
> for DNA replication.
>

Yeah, but who created a creator with such powers? Like there are turtles all
the way down, there are creators all the way up, problem solved.

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

> Yeah, but who created a creator with such powers? Like there are turtles all
> the way down, there are creators all the way up, problem solved.

5 Easy Steps to refute Atheism

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1877-5-easy-steps-to-destroy-atheism#3144

STEP 1: The Law of Existence is true. The Law of Existence states - If something exists, then something is eternal in the past without true beginning, or something came from absolutely nothing (AN).

Surely no one seeking real truth would accept a absolutely nothing hypothesis.

A. We have absolutely no reason to believe that AN has ever existed in the past or that it could ever be achieved.
B. AN has no creative powers and potentiality. This means AN cannot create or be the cause of anything, since its the absence of any thing.
C. AN cannot be Discriminatory - If something can come from AN then everything can.
D. Certain mathematical absolutes cannot be undermined. 0+0 always equals 0.
E. There is NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, which supports the claim that something can in fact come from AN. All the evidence points to the contrary view.
F. It would break the law of cause and effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
G. It would break the law of uniformity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
H. AN has no limiting boundaries, so not only would everything be able to come from AN (c), but it would be able to do so ALL the time!!

STEP 2: The universe had a beginning

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf

Two cosmologists, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin both from Tufts University in Massachusetts, have stuck their necks out with a mathematical paper that considers the mathematics of eternity. In it, they take a close look at the concept of a universe that has no beginning or end.

Currently, there are two main descriptions of the universe's existence that suggest that the universe is eternally old--without a Big Bang. The first is the eternal inflation model, in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. Then, there's the idea of an emergent universe--one which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands into life.

Thing is, it turns out that the idea of an eternal universes can only allow certain types of universe expansion to occur--and then they go on to show that the current inflation models that have been suggested have to have a begining. Needles to say, some of the math in their paper is pretty complex--you can read it here, though, if you'd like--but they manage to sum the whole thing up rather neatly:

"Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past."

They also manage to scupper the idea that an emergent model of the universe can't stretch back eternally--but they choose to do that using quantum mechanics. Agains, neatly summing it up, they say:

"A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse."

Basically, they've taken aim at the two current models of the universe that asume it's eternally old, and conclude that "none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal." Which means the universe definitely had a beginning.

STEP 3: Whatever existed in the past without beginning must be spaceless and timeless. Infinite regress is impossible. Why ?

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

STEP 4: Whatever existed in the past without beginning must also be personal. The truth is that we know the event (the creation of the universe) must have been beyond space and time.

The cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally) 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;

Therefore it cannot be physical or material. There are only two types of things that fit this description. Either abstract objects (like numbers), or some sort of intelligent mind...But we know abstract objects don't stand in causal relations and are causally impotent. Therefore the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe, must be an unembodied, personal, space-less, immaterial, timeless, intelligent mind. Secondly, only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe were an non-personal, mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless, but for its effect to begin in time, is for the cause to be a PERSONAL agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time, without any antecedent determining conditions. One of the main questions we frequently ask is how could a timeless, non-personal cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? You see, if the cause were a non-personal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without its effect... If the cause were permanently present without beginning, then the effect would be permanently present as well. And finally, since GOD would be the personal uncaused first cause, he is self-directed and self-motivated, and acted volitionally...If the cause were not personal it would not be capable of self-directed, self-motivated, volitional action. Preventing it from being the first cause.

STEP 5: A supernatural, timeless, immaterial, personal, eternal, uncreated creator must be responsible for the existence of the universe.

[walksalone]

grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote in
news:641938ef-fde6-4b0d...@googlegroups.com:

> DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano high-technology that
> defies naturalistic explanations
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokar
> yotes

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna3.htm

> DNA replication is the most crucial step in cellular division, a
> process necessary for life, and errors can cause cancer and many other
> diseases. Genome duplication presents a formidable enzymatic
> challenge, requiring the high fidelity replication of millions of
> bases of DNA. It is a incredible system involving a city of proteins,
> enzymes, and other components that are breathtaking in their
> complexity and efficiency.
>
> How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a
> "protein compound ... ready to undergo still more complex changes"?
> Dawkins has to admit:

So, like you, he doesn't understand it all, & admits it publicly. That's
nice.
As to how we get the living cell, it requires a journey so far back in
time, you may never comprehend it. It goes back at least 4 billion years
& required the cooling of the earth.

There will be some serious snippage. Either to decrease the verbosity,
or remove material that
A: I have no interest in.
B Or am uneducated in.

snip one.

> Proponents of Darwinism are at a loss to tell us how this marvelous
> system began. Charles Darwin's main contribution, natural selection,
> does not apply until a system can reproduce all its parts. Getting a
> reproducible cell in a primordial soup is a giant leap, for which
> today's evolutionary biologists have no answer, no evidence, and no
> hope. It amounts to blind faith to believe that undirected,
> purposeless accidents somehow built the smallest, most complex, most
> efficient system known to man.

Inasmuch as Darwin did not propose a theory of evolution, & how it
worked, is that surprising to anyone but you. His theory was the origin
of species. How they got to where they are. They lacked the ability to
do protein research. Due to more than anything, I suspect a serious lack
of the equipment to do the job. Because they didn't, TTBOMK, have a
concept of DNA or Proteins, they would not have been concerned with your
attempt at misdirection.

> Several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA
> synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.

Really? Based on your say so? How amazing. I suspect it's more of a
question of science realising just how little it knows, & getting on with
it.


snip 2

> It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked, interdependent
> and consistent of several irreducible complex subsystems. Since
> evolution depends on it, it could not have emerged through evolution.
> Even less through random chance or physical necessity. Special
> creation through a incredibly intelligent powerful creator is therefor
> the best explanation for DNA replication.

It seems to be you are arguing your assumptions. Very minor example of
the wonder of life.

NaCl. You do recognise the substance, I hope.
Taken individually, life can not exist in the presence of the pure
element. One is explosive around water sources, one is a toxic gas which
is not only fatal to life, but also forms. with water. one of the most
corrosive substances known on earth.
OTOH, you can not survive without the presence of the final product of
those two elements in your body.

Care to explain why?

walksalone who suspects that Thanatos will be gaining weight soon. Or
the abyss will be a little fuller.


CROSS, n. An ancient religious symbol erroneously supposed
to owe its significance to the most solemn event in the
history of Christianity, but really antedating it by thousands
of years. By many it has been believed to be identical with
the crux ansata of the ancient phallic worship, but it has
been traced even beyond all that we know of that, to the rites
of primitive peoples. We have to-day the White Cross as a
symbol of chastity, and the Red Cross as a badge of benevolent
neutrality in war. Devils dictionary

[RonO]

On 11/28/2015 9:47 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano high-technology that defies naturalistic explanations
>

SNIP:

Is this kind of junk going to become more common as the ID scam dies?

Kleinman has come back with the stupid scientific creationist
probability argument that was worthless decades before the ID scam
became necessary after the demise of scientific creationism in the court
system.

Jonathan is harking back to the quote mining period of the scientific
creationists with mostly junk that predates the formation of the ID scam
unit of the Discovery Institute.

This boob wants to bring back the stupid looks created argument that the
scientific creationist had that was replaced by the IC and CSI bull
pucky of the ID scam. Why would the ID scam be needed if this type of
argument was worth jack?

Is this all the creationists can manage to do?

A while ago I asked what the future of IDiocy/creationism was going to
be, and it looks like a pretty pathetic future. It looks like the
IDiot/creationists are going to hark back to the days when they were
mostly ignorant and stupid instead of ignorant, stupid and dishonest as
they are today.

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

If you have no response to the scientific points made, you are admitting defeat.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL you think it's his personal opinion? You need a little education in just what DNA replication involves:

DNA Replication in E coli
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaTKZBcVcIQ

When you try to change the subject like this, you are admitting defeat.

[walksalone]

Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b01adf36-30e3-487a...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, 29 November 2015 07:03:38 UTC-7, walksalone wrote:
>> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote in
>> news:641938ef-fde6-4b0d...@googlegroups.com:

[RonO]

What response is needed? What is your alternative? You don't really
have one do you? That is what makes you an idiot IDiot.

Eddie, buy a clue. The ID scam was supposed to be better than these
types of loser creationist arguments. The complexity argument was bogus
decades before IDiocy started after the courts ruled against scientific
creationism. Just think for just a moment if you can think. Why would
bogus junk like IC and CSI be needed if the stupid complexity argument
had ever mattered? Why didn't Behe just claim that the flagellum was
too complex to have evolved? Really, what do you think IC and CSI was
supposed to do?

If you are still clueless, why not ask other IDiots what IC and CSI were
supposed to do. Phone a friend if you have any that would tell you an
honest answer.

Stop wallowing in IDiocy. It only makes you more and more of an idiot.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

Rolf wrote:

...

>>
>> It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked,
>> interdependent and consistent of several irreducible
>> complex subsystems. Since evolution depends on it, it
>> could not have emerged through evolution. Even less
>> through random chance or physical necessity. Special
>> creation through a incredibly intelligent powerful
>> creator is therefor the best explanation for DNA
>> replication.
>>
> All right, let's presume you are right, all crestionists
> are.
>
> When the initial, supernatural design and implementation
> has been done, is life capable of survival on its own on
> the planet, or must the supernatural designer, operating
> by the principles of magic (or eventually by a r&d +
> manufacturing complex surpassing by many orders of
> magnitude what mankind has been able to create) for ever
> have to nurse life on this planet?

The original post offered a plausible objection to the
standard model of the ToE and most of the responses were
junvenile ridicule.

The ridicule was without substance, providing no counter-
evidence or even an appearance of refutation. This is
considered perfectly legitimate since any deviation from the
orthodx views are wrong by the fact that they aren't
orthodox.

It makes no difference what alternative or supplementary
evidence is proposed since the sole criterion for
correctness is agreement with established orthodoxy. Since
the ToE cannot be challenged, it can't be modified. Little
wonder that no challenges are acknowledged.

Bill

[Jimbo]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 12:59:19 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rolf wrote:
>
>...
>
>>>
>>> It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked,
>>> interdependent and consistent of several irreducible
>>> complex subsystems. Since evolution depends on it, it
>>> could not have emerged through evolution. Even less
>>> through random chance or physical necessity. Special
>>> creation through a incredibly intelligent powerful
>>> creator is therefor the best explanation for DNA
>>> replication.
>>>
>> All right, let's presume you are right, all crestionists
>> are.
>>
>> When the initial, supernatural design and implementation
>> has been done, is life capable of survival on its own on
>> the planet, or must the supernatural designer, operating
>> by the principles of magic (or eventually by a r&d +
>> manufacturing complex surpassing by many orders of
>> magnitude what mankind has been able to create) for ever
>> have to nurse life on this planet?
>
>The original post offered a plausible objection to the
>standard model of the ToE and most of the responses were
>junvenile ridicule.

You might have a point if anyone currently claims that DNA appeared
spontaneously and without the prior existence of proteins. Do you know
of anyone who is making that claim?

>The ridicule was without substance, providing no counter-
>evidence or even an appearance of refutation. This is
>considered perfectly legitimate since any deviation from the
>orthodx views are wrong by the fact that they aren't
>orthodox.

What do you think is being claimed? What is your understanding of
current abiogenesis research?

>It makes no difference what alternative or supplementary
>evidence is proposed since the sole criterion for
>correctness is agreement with established orthodoxy. Since
>the ToE cannot be challenged, it can't be modified. Little
>wonder that no challenges are acknowledged.

What challenge was made? Do you know of any evidence that abiogenesis
researchers are claiming that DNA appeared spontaneously in the
absence of proteins and RNA's? And why are you conflating evolutionary
theory with abiogenesis research? There can be no evolutionary claims
about what happened before the emergence of the first replicators
because evolution theory presupposes the existence of life. It says
nothing about the behavior of purely non-living systems.

>Bill
>
>

[jillery]

If something always existed, then it came from absolutely nothing, by
definition. So in just your first step, you have tripped over your
own line of reasoning, and all that follows it are missteps.

How can so many people be incapable of recognizing such an obvious
logical error?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 12:59:19 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rolf wrote:
>
>...
>
>>>
>>> It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked,
>>> interdependent and consistent of several irreducible
>>> complex subsystems. Since evolution depends on it, it
>>> could not have emerged through evolution. Even less
>>> through random chance or physical necessity. Special
>>> creation through a incredibly intelligent powerful
>>> creator is therefor the best explanation for DNA
>>> replication.
>>>
>> All right, let's presume you are right, all crestionists
>> are.
>>
>> When the initial, supernatural design and implementation
>> has been done, is life capable of survival on its own on
>> the planet, or must the supernatural designer, operating
>> by the principles of magic (or eventually by a r&d +
>> manufacturing complex surpassing by many orders of
>> magnitude what mankind has been able to create) for ever
>> have to nurse life on this planet?
>
>The original post offered a plausible objection to the
>standard model of the ToE and most of the responses were
>junvenile ridicule.

Actually, the OP was about the origin of DNA replication, as echoed by
the topic title, which has little to do with the standard model of the
ToE. Which means you have no idea what your talking about, as
emphasized by your comments below.

In response to the OP's point, however DNA first came to be, its
evolution proceeded apace per the standard model of the ToE.

>The ridicule was without substance, providing no counter-
>evidence or even an appearance of refutation. This is
>considered perfectly legitimate since any deviation from the
>orthodx views are wrong by the fact that they aren't
>orthodox.
>
>It makes no difference what alternative or supplementary
>evidence is proposed since the sole criterion for
>correctness is agreement with established orthodoxy. Since
>the ToE cannot be challenged, it can't be modified. Little
>wonder that no challenges are acknowledged.

So you're not a big fan of logical and rational thinking. Is anybody
surprised?

[Steady Eddie]

+1

[Steady Eddie]

Your choosing insults over engaging the evidence is an admission defeat.

[Steady Eddie]

If something always existed, it didn't "come from" anything.

[RonO]

You can talk, what an idiot IDiot. What have you had besides insults?
Why not counter anything? Why not tell me what ID science is in that
stupid video? Why not face reality. How bogus is this complexity
argument when even the ID perps abandoned it for scams like IC and CSI.
Really, what do you think that IC and CSI were supposed to do? They
were made up in order to get around the stupidity of the creationist
complexity argument that hadn't amounted to anything in decades.

Running from reality and claiming that someone else is choosing insults
when I just gave you the plain and simple facts. They are insulting
because IDiocy/creationism is so stupid.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:53:37 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If something always existed, then it came from absolutely nothing, by
>> definition. So in just your first step, you have tripped over your
>> own line of reasoning, and all that follows it are missteps.
>>
>> How can so many people be incapable of recognizing such an obvious
>> logical error?
>

>If something always existed, it didn't "come from" anything.

Here's the OP's step 1 again:

*******************************

> >STEP 1: The Law of Existence is true. The Law of Existence states - If something exists, then something is eternal in the past without true beginning, or something came from absolutely nothing (AN).
> >
> >Surely no one seeking real truth would accept a absolutely nothing hypothesis.

******************************

Whether something always existed (AE), or whether something came from
absolutely nothing (AN), both somethings didn't come from anything.

AE necessarily implies AN, so the OP says you're not seeking real
truth.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Goddiddit.

earle
*

[Earle Jones27]

*
Eddie:

Goddiddit.

(For your undestatnding: Goddoneit.)

earle
*

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

here goes the full text of my op ( which was not ready when i posted it )

DNA replication is an enormously complex process with many different components that interact to ensure the faithful passing down of genetic components that interact to ensure the faithful passing down of genetic information to the next generation. A large number of parts have to work together to that end. In the absence of one or more of a number of the components, DNA replication is either halted completely or significantly compromised, and the cell either dies or becomes quite sick. Many of the components of the replication machinery form conceptually discrete sub-assemblies with conceptually discrete functions.

Wiki mentions that a key feature of the DNA replication mechanism is that it is designed to replicate relatively large genomes rapidly and with high fidelity. Part of the cellular machinery devoted to DNA replication and DNA-repair. The regulation of DNA replication is a vital cellular process. It is controlled by a series of mechanisms. One point of control is by modulating the accessibility of replication machinery components ( called the replisome ) to the single origin (oriC) region on the DNA. DNA replication should take place only when a cell is about to divide. If DNA replication occurs too frequently, too many copies of the bacterial chromosome will be found in each cell. Alternatively, if DNA replication does not occur frequently enough, a daughter cell will be left without a chromosome. Therefore, cell division in bacterial cells must be coordinated with DNA replication.

In prokaryotes, the DNA is circular. Replication starts at a single origin (ori C) and is bi-directional. The region of replicating DNA associated with the single origin is called a replication bubble and consists of two replication forks moving in opposite direction around the DNA circle. During DNA replication, the two parental strands separate and each acts as a template to direct the enzyme catalysed synthesis of a new complementary daughter strand following the normal base pairing rule. At least 10 different enzymes or proteins participate in the initiation phase of replication. Three basic steps involved in DNA replication are Initiation, elongation and termination, subdivided in eight discrete steps.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4365

Initiation phase:

Step 1: Initiation begins, when DNA binds around an initiator protein complex DnaA with the goal to pull the two DNA strands apart. That creates a number of problems. First of all, the two strands like to be together - they stick to each other just as if they had tiny magnets up and down their length. In order to pull apart the DNA you have to put energy into the system. In modern cells, a protein called DnaA binds to a specific spot along the DNA, called single origin ( oriC ) and the protein proceeds to open up the double strand. The protein is a monomer, has motifs to bind to unique monomer sites, also they have motifs for protein-protein interaction, thus they can form clusters. They have hydrophobic regions for helical coiling and protein-protein interactions. Binding of the monomers to DnaA-A boxes, in ATP dependent manner (proteins have ATPase activity), leads to cooperative binding of more proteins. This clustering of proteins on DNA makes the DNA to wrap around the proteins, which induces torsional twist and it is this left handed twist that makes DNA to melt at 13-mer region and AT rich region; perhaps the negative super helical topology in this region may further facilitate the melting of the DNA. Opening or unwinding of dsDNA ( double strand DNA ) into single stranded region is an important event in initiation.

Single-strand binding protein (SSB)
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4377

The Hexameric DnaB Helicase
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4367

DnaC, and strategies for helicase recruitment and loading in bacteria
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4371

Unwinding the DNA Double Helix Requires DNA Helicases,Topoisomerases, and Single- Stranded DNA Binding Proteins
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4374

Step 2: During DNA replication, the two strands of the double helix must unwind at each replication fork to expose the single strands to the enzymes responsible for copying them. Three classes of proteins with distinct functions facilitate this unwinding process: DNA helicases, topoisomerases, and single-stranded DNA binding proteins ( SSB's). Helicase ( DnaB ) now comes along. The helicase exposes a region of single-stranded DNA that must be kept open for copying to proceed. Helicase is like a snowplow; it is a molecular machine that plows down the middle of the double helix, pushing apart the two strands. this allows the polymerase and associated proteins to travel along behind it in ease and comfort. DnaB helicase alone has no affinity for ssDNA ( single stranded DNA ) bound by SSB (single- stranded binding protein). Thus, entry of the DnaB helicase complex into the unwound oriC depends on DnaC, a additional protein factor. DnaC helps or facilitates the helicase to be loaded onto ssDNA at the replication fork in ATP dependent manner. The DnaB-DnaC complex forms a topologically open, three-tiered toroid. DnaC remodels DnaB to produce a cleft in the helicase ring suitable for DNA passage. DnaC's fold is dispensable for DnaB loading and activation. DnaB possesses autoregulatory elements that control helicase loading and unwinding. Using energy derived from ATP hydrolysis, these proteins unwind the DNA double helix in advance of the replication fork, breaking the hydrogen bonds as they go. Helicase recruitment and loading in bacteria is a remarkable process. Following video shows how that works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzNuLsqMqyE

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

There is a problem, though, with this setup. If you push apart two DNA strands they generally do not float around separately. If they are close to one another they will rapidly snap back and form a double strand again almost as soon as the helicase passes. Even if the strands are not near each other, a single strand will usually fold up and form hydrogen bonds with itself - in other words, a tangled mess. So it is not enough to push apart the two strands of DNA; there must be a way to keep the strands apart once they have been separated. In modern cells this job is done by single-strand binding proteins, or SBB's. As the helicase separates the strands of DNA, SSB's bind to the single stranded DNA and coats them. . SSB's prevent DNA from reannealing. SSB's associate to form tetramers around which the DNA is wrapped in a manner that significantly compacts the single-stranded DNA. There is another difficulty in being a double helix. The unwinding associated with DNA replication would create an intolerable amount of supercoiling and possibly tangling in the rest of the DNA. It can be illustrated with a simple example. Take two interwined shoe laces and ask a friend to hold them together at each end. Now take a pencil, insert it between the strands near one end, and start pushing it down toward the other end. As you can see, shoestrings behind the pencil become melted, in the jargon of biochemistry. The shoestrings ahead of the pencil become more and more tangled. It becomes harder and harder to push the pencil forward. Helicase and polymerase encounter the same problem with DNA. It does not matter wheter you are talking about interwined strings or interwined DNA strands. The problem of tangling is the result of the topological interconnectness of the two strands. If this problem persisted for very long in a cell, DNA replication would grind to a halt. However, the cell contains several enzymes, called topoisomerases, to take care of the difficulty. The way in which they do so can be illustrated with a enzyme called gyrase. Gyrase binds to DNA, pulls them apart and allows a separate portion of the DNA to pass through the cut. It then reseals the cut and lets go of the DNA. This action decreases the number of twists in DNA. The parental DNA is unwound by DNA helicases and SSB (travels in 5'-3' direction), the resulting positive super-coiling (torsional stress) is relieved by topoisomerse I and II (DNA gyrase) by inducing transient single stranded breaks.Topoisomerases are amazing enzymes. In this topic, a video shows how they function :

Topoisomerase II enzymes, amazing evidence of design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2111-topoisomerase-ii-enzymes-amazing-evidence-of-design?highlight=topoisomerase

In modern organisms, helicase, SSB, and gyrase all are required at the replication fork. Mutants in which any of them are missing are not viable - they die.

Question : Had not all three parts , the SSB binding proteins, the topoisomerase, and the helicase and the DnaC loading proteins not have to be there all at once, otherwise, nothing goes ? They might exercise their function but their own, but then they would not replicate DNA or have function in a bigger picture. Its evident that they had to come together to provide a functional whole. What we see here are highly coordinated , goal oriented tasks with specific movements designed to provide a specific outcome. Auto-regulation and control that seems required beside constant energy supply through ATP enhances the difficulty to make the whole mechanism work in the right manner. All this is awe inspiring and evidences the wise guidance and intelligence required to make all this happening in the right way.

Step 3: The enzyme DNA primase (primase, an RNA polymerase) attaches to the DNA and synthesizes a short RNA primer to initiate synthesis of the leading strand of the first replication fork.

Elongation phase :

Step 4: In the elongation fase, DNA polymerase III extends the RNA primer made by primase.

DNA Polymerase
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4375

DNA polymerase possesses separate catalytic sites for polymerization and degradation of nucleic acid strands. All DNA polymerases make DNA in 5'-3' direction . A ring-shaped sliding clamp protein encircles the DNA double helix and binds to DNA polymerase, thereby allowing the DNA polymerase to slide along the DNA while remaining firmly attached to it. Most enzymes work by colliding with their substrate, catalyzing a reaction and dissociating from the product. If that were the case with DNA polymerase, then it would bind to DNA, add a nucleotide to the new chain that was being made, and then fall off of the chain. Then ,put the next nucleotide onto the growing end, bind it and catalyze the addition. This same cycle would have to repeat itself a very large number of times to complete a new DNA chain. Polymerases however catalyze the addition of a nucleotide but do not fall off the DNA. Rather, they stay bound to it, until the next nucleotide comes in, and then they catalyze its addition to the chain. and they again stay bound. If it were not so, the replication process would be very slow. In the cell, polymerases stay on the DNA until their job is completed, which might be only after millions of nucleotides have been joined. This velocity is only possible because of clamp proteins. These have a ring shape. The ring can be opened up. These clamp proteins are joined to the DNA polymerase in a intricate way, through a clamp loader protein, which has a remarkable shape similar to a human hand. It takes the clamp, like a hand with five fingers would grab it, opens it up becoming like a doughnut shape,where the whole hole in the middle is big enough to accommodate the DNA, and then, when it is on the DNA, it positions it in a precise manner on the DNA polymerase, where it stays bound until it reaches the end of its polymerizing job. Through this ingenious process, the clamp stabilizes the DNA, making it possible to increase the speed of polymerization dramatically. They can be seen here:

The sliding clamp and clamp loader
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4376

Question : How would and could natural , unguided processes have figured out 1. the requirement of high-speed of polymerization ? How could they have figured out the right configuration and process to do so ? how could natural processes have emerged with the right proteins incrementally, with the hand-shaped clamp loader, and the precisely fitting clamp , enabling the fast process ?? Even the most intelligent scientists are still not able to imagine how this process is engineered ? Furthermore, the process requires molecular energy in the form of ATP, and everything must fit together, and be functional. Without the clamp loader protein, the clamp could not be positioned to the polymerase enzyme, and processivity would not rise to the required speed. The whole process must also be regulated and controlled. How could that regulation have been programmed ? Trial and error ?

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 02:03:54 -0800 (PST),
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:


I stipulate for argument's sake that all of the molecular biology you
cut and pasted from your cite is reasonably accurate. I snipped it
out only to help focus on your questions.

>Question : How would and could natural , unguided processes have figured out 1. the requirement of high-speed of polymerization ? How could they have figured out the right configuration and process to do so ? how could natural processes have emerged with the right proteins incrementally, with the hand-shaped clamp loader, and the precisely fitting clamp , enabling the fast process ?? Even the most intelligent scientists are still not able to imagine how this process is engineered ? Furthermore, the process requires molecular energy in the form of ATP, and everything must fit together, and be functional. Without the clamp loader protein, the clamp could not be positioned to the polymerase enzyme, and processivity would not rise to the required speed. The whole process must also be regulated and controlled. How could that regulation have been programmed ? Trial and error ?

I assume that your "figured out" is metaphorical, that you don't think
unguided preocesses are literally intelligent.

Go to any large city, and look at the tall buildings. Some of the
parts they are made of are too large to have been carried up the
elevators or stairs. So one might ask how those parts got up so high.
One answer is that during construction, there were cranes and other
equipment, and then removed once their job was done.

As you point out, modern cells have all kinds of complex processes
that could not have assembled all at once by themselves. But it's no
stretch to suppose that something similar happened in the development
of cells, that there once existed simpler processes, which supported
more efficient and complex processes, and were removed once they
became redundant.

Modern life is as efficient as it is in part because every organism is
competing with every other organism for resources. First life had no
competition, by definition, and so didn't need to be efficient at all.
First life could have taken days or weeks between generations, and it
still could have covered the Earth in a geological eyeblink.

But any improvement, no matter how minor, would have increased an
organism's chances to multiply faster than its neighbors. So trial
and error is more than capable of producing the complexity your cite
describes, given enough time. Don't let your personal credulity
underestimate what biological reproduction can accomplish in over
three billion years.

[Steady Eddie]

OVER THREE BILLION YEARS! Wow, that's enough time for ANYTHING to have happened!

Your credulity aside, have you considered what your claim implies?

For instance:
-How long did it take for this "simpler" life-process to arise from chemicals?

-How long did it take for this "simpler" process to then change to the "modern" life process?

-And, once that was done, how much time is left over for simple "modern" life to "evolve" all of its
present forms, structures, and processes?

Have you thought this through?

[Jimbo]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 02:03:54 -0800 (PST),
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>

Why are you assuming that the first life forms were DNA based?

[Bill]

Well that's a handy dodge ...

Bill

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

> Why are you assuming that the first life forms were DNA based?

why should i assume differently ?

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

But it's no stretch to suppose that something similar happened in the development of cells, that there once existed simpler processes, which supported more efficient and complex processes, and were removed once they
became redundant.

I think that's indeed too much of a stretch to be a compelling scenario. See, that is the thing about pseudo - science. When certain biologists discuss the early stages of life there is a tendency to think too vaguely. They see a biological wonder before them and they tell a story about how it might have come to be. They may even draw a picture to explain what they mean. Indeed, the story seems plausible enough, until you zoom in to look at the details. I don't mean to demean the intelligence of these biologists. It's just that it appears they haven't considered things as completely as they should. Like a cartoon drawing, the basic idea is portrayed, but there is nothing but blank space where the profound detail of biological processes should be.

[Jimbo]

Because hypotheses should be consistent with known facts. Your own cut
and pasted material demonstrates that 'DNA first' hypotheses don't
match well with known facts. You need to address contemporary
abiogenesis research, not old and deprecated ideas.

[Jimbo]

If you think it's a dodge, then please post the names of any current
abiogenesis researchers who claim that DNA came first.

>
>Bill

[Bill]

If abiogenesis researchers had found anything there would be
science of biogenesis accompanied by scientific data. Since
there isn't any, Abiogenesis research is limited to
conjecture. One of these would be the origin and development
of DNA. If one pays attention, all that is known is the
current state of existing organisms.

Bill

[Jimbo]

It appears that you can't name a single contemporary abiogenesis
researcher who claims that DNA came first. RNA, and possibly other
biologically important molecules came first. DNA was a product of
organisms that already existed.

>Bill

[Robert Camp]

On 11/30/15 11:16 AM, Bill wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:12:48 -0600, Bill
>> <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jimbo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 02:03:54 -0800 (PST),
>>>> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

>>>> Why are you assuming that the first life forms were DNA
>>>> based?
>>>
>>> Well that's a handy dodge ...
>>
>> If you think it's a dodge, then please post the names of
>> any current abiogenesis researchers who claim that DNA
>> came first.
>>
>
> If abiogenesis researchers had found anything there would be
> science of biogenesis accompanied by scientific data.

There is plenty of data out there, and there is quite a rich literature
of both direct research and popular writings documenting the current
state of knowledge regarding the origins of life, so you are once again
spouting ignorant bullshit.

Try the Wiki page for starters, it includes over 200 references, a long
bibliography, and quite a list for further reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Since
> there isn't any, Abiogenesis research is limited to
> conjecture. One of these would be the origin and development
> of DNA. If one pays attention, all that is known is the
> current state of existing organisms.

Why do you persist in talking about things of which you know nothing?

[Robert Camp]

On 11/30/15 10:19 AM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> But it's no stretch to suppose that something similar happened in
> the development of cells, that there once existed simpler processes,
> which supported more efficient and complex processes, and were
> removed once they became redundant.

Please learn to properly quote the material to which you are responding.

> I think that's indeed too much of a stretch to be a compelling
> scenario. See, that is the thing about pseudo - science.

Do you understand that "I just can't imagine how it could have
happened," is a logical fallacy (argument from incredulity)?

(And the idea that an ID advocate would refer to evolutionary biology as
"pseudo-science" is both hilarious and pathetic.)

> When certain biologists discuss the early stages of life there is a
> tendency to think too vaguely. They see a biological wonder before
> them and they tell a story about how it might have come to be.

Do you understand the irony of this accusation in the light of your
continued inferences to an intelligent creator?

> They may even draw a picture to explain what they mean. Indeed, the story
> seems plausible enough, until you zoom in to look at the details.

Do you understand that simple plausibility puts any naturalistic
proposal far ahead of your credulous inferences to supernatural agency?

> I don't mean to demean the intelligence of these biologists.

Yes, you do. You just think because you aren't doing it with malice that
it's okay.

You are presuming that your Faith gives you knowledge of the Truth. It
is in service of that supposed Truth that you imagine you see more
clearly than those who've devoted their lives to biological research.
Your ignorant presumption is an insult, whether you intend it or not.

> It's just
> that it appears they haven't considered things as completely as they
> should.

Do you understand anything about Dunning-Kruger Syndrome? (You should
really look into it.)

> Like a cartoon drawing, the basic idea is portrayed, but
> there is nothing but blank space where the profound detail of
> biological processes should be.

Do you understand what an argument from ignorance is?

Do you understand anything at all?

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:19:52 -0800 (PST),
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:


Nobody knows to whom you're replying. Stop deleting the attributions.

>But it's no stretch to suppose that something similar happened in the development of cells, that there once existed simpler processes, which supported more efficient and complex processes, and were removed once they
>became redundant.
>
>I think that's indeed too much of a stretch to be a compelling scenario. See, that is the thing about pseudo - science. When certain biologists discuss the early stages of life there is a tendency to think too vaguely. They see a biological wonder before them and they tell a story about how it might have come to be. They may even draw a picture to explain what they mean. Indeed, the story seems plausible enough, until you zoom in to look at the details. I don't mean to demean the intelligence of these biologists. It's just that it appears they haven't considered things as completely as they should. Like a cartoon drawing, the basic idea is portrayed, but there is nothing but blank space where the profound detail of biological processes should be.

If you're replying to my post, state clearly what did I say that you
think is too much of a stretch, and why.

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:20:58 -0800 (PST),
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:

>

Because DNA processes are too complex to arise directly from abiotic
chemical, as your own cite spent so much time explaining. Did you
even read what you cut-and-pasted?

[jillery]

>OVER THREE BILLION YEARS! Wow, that's enough time for ANYTHING to have happened!

Do you disagree that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion
years? If so, on what basis?


>Your credulity aside,


Identify where I have shown credulity.

> have you considered what your claim implies?

Apparently you don't think so. Enlighten me, grasshopper.

>For instance:
>-How long did it take for this "simpler" life-process to arise from chemicals?

Since you asked, not very long at all.

>-How long did it take for this "simpler" process to then change to the "modern" life process?

Since you asked, a bit longer, depending on your definition of
"modern" life processes.

>-And, once that was done, how much time is left over for simple "modern" life to "evolve" all of its
>present forms, structures, and processes?

Since you asked, all the way up to the present. Apparently you don't
understand that life on Earth is still evolving.

>Have you thought this through?

Since I answered your questions, obviously I have.

Now then, what are these alleged implications of mine that you're so
worried about?

[Bill]

If abiogenesis is really science, what are the researchers
researching? Surely there is some data available. Since you
imply that these researchers actually exist you must know
who they are so asking me must be a rhetorical question. I
invite your citations along with whatever supporting
evidence you may have.


Bill

[Burkhard]

and of course you are intimately familiar with the field and its
publication, devouring paper such as Longo, L. M., & Blaber, M. (2013).
Prebiotic protein design supports a halophile origin of foldable
proteins. Frontiers in microbiology, 4 or Dadon Z, Wagner N, Ashkenasy
G. 2008 The road to non-enzymatic molecular networks. Angew. Chem. Int.
Ed. 47,for breakfast, with a deep appreciation of the data they are using

[Jimbo]

Did you not think to at least look at Wikipedia before asking this
question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

It has many citations and external links to various resources
including scientific papers. Here's a paper on the origin of membrane
bioenergetics:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867412014389

If that's too technical for you, there are youtube videos:

The following videos comprise a three part series that outlines the
work of cellular life on earth, including membrane energetics and
other aspects of protocell membranes and the non-enzymatic copying of
nucleic acid templates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU


There's more information than you will probably ever look at, though
it's very easy to access. You are clearly uninterested or you would
have already looked.


>Bill

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

RNA, and possibly other
> biologically important molecules came first. DNA was a product of
> organisms that already existed.
>
> >Bill

No kidding.

No evidence that RNA molecules ever had the broad range of catalytic activities

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life#3415

The "RNA World" is essentially a hypothetical stage of life between the first replicating molecule and the highly complicated DNA-protein-based life. The chief problem facing an RNA world is that RNA cannot perform all of the functions of DNA adequately to allow for replication and transcription of proteins.

New findings challenge assumptions about origins of life
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1428-replicator-first-and-metabolism-first-scenarios
There is currently no known chemical pathway for an "RNA world" to transform into a "DNA/protein world."

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-assumptions-life.html#jCp
But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That's a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth's age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today.

OOL theorist Leslie Orgel notes that an "RNA World" could only form the basis for life, "if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis." The RNA world is thus a hypothetical system behind which there is little positive evidence, and much materialist philosophy: "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear ... investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.

The best claimed evidence of an "RNA World" includes the fact that there are RNA enzymes and genomes, and that cells use RNA to convert the DNA code into proteins. However, RNA plays only a supporting role in the cell, and there is no known biochemical system completely composed of RNA.

RNA experts have created a variety of RNA molecules which can perform biochemical functions through what is commonly termed "test tube evolution." However, "test tube evolution" is just a description for what is in reality nothing more than chemical engineering in the laboratory employing Darwinian principles; that does not imply that there is some known pathway through which these molecules could arise naturally.

In order a molecule to be a self replicator , it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. On the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.

Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013. In it he said,

"We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA."

That lead Leslie Orgel to say :
It would take a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the primitive Earth.

(Dover, 1999, p. 218).
I would have thought it relevant to point out for biologists in general that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences

How could the first living cells with DNA-based molecular biology have originated by spontaneous chemical processes on the prebiotic Earth? Primordial DNA synthesis would have required the presence of specific enzymes, but how could these enzymes be synthesized without the genetic information in DNA and without RNA for translating that information into the amino acid sequence of the protein enzymes? In other words, proteins are required for DNA synthesis and DNA is required for protein synthesis.

This classic "chicken-and-egg" problem made it immensely difficult to conceive of any plausible prebiotic chemical pathway to the molecular biological system. Certainly no such chemical pathway had been demonstrated 2

Joyce and Orgel note, it seems unlikely that a structure with fewer than 40 nucleotides would be sufficient. Suppose, then, that "there is some 50-mer [RNA molecule of 50 nucleotides length]," Joyce and Orgel speculate, that "replicates with 90% fidelity. ... Would such a molecule be expected to occur within a population of random RNAs?"

Perhaps: but one such self-replicating molecule will not suffice.

"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself," Joyce and Orgel note, "that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template." Copying any given RNA in its vicinity will lead to an error catastrophe, as the population of RNAs will decay into a collection of random sequences. But to find another copy of itself, the self-replicating RNA would need (Joyce and Orgel calculate) a library of RNA that "far exceeds the mass of the earth."18

In the face of these difficulties, they advise, one must reject the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential. If you doubt this, ask yourself whether you believe that a replicase ribozyme would arise in a solution containing nucleoside 5'-diphosphates and polynucleotide phosphorylase!

G. F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," In the RNA World, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, 1993, p. 13.

This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential
Even if we suppose that there was self-replicating RNA in the primordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to be used by RNA were available, and that all of these impossibilities somehow took place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even one single protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism for the production of proteins. To consider the existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as expecting a car to assemble itself by simply throwing the blueprint onto a heap of parts piled up on top of each other. A blueprint cannot produce a car all by itself without a factory and workers to assemble the parts according to the instructions contained in the blueprint; in the same way, the blueprint contained in RNA cannot produce proteins by itself without the cooperation of other cellular components which follow the instructions contained in the RNA.

The problem of the origin of the RNA World is far from being solved. One can sketch out a logical order of events, beginning with prebiotic chemistry and ending with DNA/protein-based life. However, it must be said that the details of this process remain obscure and are not likely to be known in the near future.

[Bill]

Confidently asserting one's confidence in their knowledge is
usually just indicates one's confidence in one's
indoctrination.

Bill

[Bill]

From the Wikipedia entry, "Abiogensis is the natural process
of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple
organic compounds.It is thought to have occurred on Earth
between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is studied
through a combination of laboratory experiments and
extrapolation from the genetic information of modern
organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what
pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living
system."

Hardly what we can call scientific fact. The facts are that
there are no facts. There is conjecture and possiblies and
perhapses and that is the current state of that sciences.

Bill

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:46:30 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Confidently asserting one's confidence in their knowledge is
>usually just indicates one's confidence in one's
>indoctrination.

Save your confessions for when you go to Church.

[jillery]

Everything has to start somewhere. Had you lived in Galileo's day,
you would have made a good witness for the Inquisition.

[Öö Tiib]

You move goalposts. You asked "If abiogenesis is really science,
what are the researchers researching?". Jimbo answered.

Science is not sitting on book of facts and arguing. Science is
researching, investigating, experimenting. Life did arose. That
is fact. Abiogenesis gives lot of ground to research.

There are nothing to research about "goddidit" of your Marduk,
Cheonjiwang, Brahma or Yahweh because these stories are awfully
silly. Interesting fantasies and fiction of uneducated man.

[Steady Eddie]

How long would that be?
3 days?
3 billion years?

> >-How long did it take for this "simpler" process to then change to the "modern" life process?
>
>
> Since you asked, a bit longer, depending on your definition of
> "modern" life processes.

So, how long would that be?
6 days?
6 billion years?
What?

> >-And, once that was done, how much time is left over for simple "modern" life to "evolve" all of its
> >present forms, structures, and processes?
>
>
> Since you asked, all the way up to the present. Apparently you don't
> understand that life on Earth is still evolving.

And how much time would that be, ballpark?
3 days?
3 billion years?
What?

> >Have you thought this through?
>
>
> Since I answered your questions, obviously I have.
>
> Now then, what are these alleged implications of mine that you're so
> worried about?
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

Your answers show that you haven't thought this through.

[jillery]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:30:35 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

>Your answers show that you haven't thought this through.

Please stop auditioning for village idiot. My answers are adequate
responses to your poorly thought out questions. Since you imply that
my answers aren't sufficiently precise, then explain why you now
demand more precise answers.

Do you disagree that life existed on Earth for over three billion
years or not? If so, state the basis of your disagreement.

Do you think I demonstrated credulity or not? If so, state how I so
demonstrated.

And even if your last statement was correct, it can't be the
implications to which you previously referred, since my answers came
after you asserted the existence of said implications. Apparently you
have no idea at all what you're talking about. Once again, identify
the alleged implications that you're so worried about.

[Jimbo]

Some details of the process do remain obscure, but it's also true that
plausible answers have been found to a number of seemingly
insurmountable problems. Look at these three videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU

Jack Szostak explains his own and his team's experiments. They
demonstrate that vesicles enclosed by relatively permeable 'primitive'
lipid membranes can spontaneously form, assimilate materials, and
divide to produce daughter cells without benefit of enzymes.
Non-enzymatic copying of nucleic acids also occurs. This work isn't
pointing to a classical 'RNA world" scenario. Instead it appears more
likely that the original replicators could have been based on
heterogenic RNA and DNA backbones composed of interspersed primers,
monomers and oligomers rather than 'pure' RNA or DNA polymers.

Other lines of abiogenetic research are also being carried out. A lot
has been learned in a relatively short period of time. You can choose
to believe that life is so complicated that it had to be intelligently
designed, but that's a scientifically sterile view with no positive
evidence to support it. During the period during which Szostak and
others have gained us a great deal of new knowledge, the so-called
science of intelligent design produced absolutely nothing - not a
single new discovery or insight into the workings of nature.

[Jimbo]

So, according to you there are no facts in Jack Szostak's three
presentations? Do you claim that all the experiments he described
never in fact occurred? Or that he is reporting false results? Or did
you even watch the videos? If you never watched them or read the paper
I linked to or looked into any of the links on the Wikipedia article
on abiogenesis, then you are just proclaiming your uninformed personal
beliefs.

>
>Bill

[grassoempreen...@gmail.com]

> Some details of the process do remain obscure, but it's also true that
> plausible answers have been found to a number of seemingly
> insurmountable problems.

These problems remain, and will never be solved.

Cell Membranes, origins through natural mechanisms, or design ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2128-membrane-structure#3798

According to this website : The Interdependency of Lipid Membranes and Membrane Proteins
The cell membrane contains various types of proteins, including ion channel proteins, proton pumps, G proteins, and enzymes. These membrane proteins function cooperatively to allow ions to penetrate the lipid bilayer. The interdependency of lipid membranes and membrane proteins suggests that lipid bilayers and membrane proteins co-evolved together with membrane bioenergetics.

The nonsense of this assertion is evident. How could the membrane proteins co-evolve, if they had to be manufactured by the machinery , protected by the cell membrane ?

The cell membrane contains various types of proteins, including ion channel proteins, proton pumps, G proteins, and enzymes. These membrane proteins function cooperatively to allow ions to penetrate the lipid bilayer.

The ER and Golgi apparatus together constitute the endomembrane compartment in the cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells. The endomembrane compartment is a major site of lipid synthesis, and the ER is where not only lipids are synthesized, but membrane-bound proteins and secretory proteins are also made.

So in order to make cell membranes, the Endoplasmic Recticulum is required. But also the Golgi Apparatus, the peroxysome, and the mitochondria. But these only function, if protected and encapsulated in the cell membrane. What came first, the cell membrane, or the endoplasmic recticulum ? This is one of many other catch22 situations in the cell, which indicate that the cell could not emerge in a stepwise gradual manner, as proponents of natural mechanisms want to make us believe.

Not only is the cell membrane intricate and complex (and certainly not random), but it has tuning parameters such as the degree to which the phospholipid tails are saturated. It is another example of a sophisticated biological design about which evolutionists can only speculate. Random mutations must have luckily assembled molecular mechanisms which sense environmental challenges and respond to them by altering the phospholipid population in the membrane in just the right way. Such designs are tremendously helpful so of course they would have been preserved by natural selection. It is yet another example of how silly evolutionary theory is in light of scientific facts.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/30/15 11:16 AM, Bill wrote:
>

> If abiogenesis researchers had found anything there would be
> science of biogenesis accompanied by scientific data. Since

> there isn't any, [...]

What makes you think there isn't any? You obviously have not even tried
to look!

Did you ever stop to consider that you have just borne false witness?
Is that how you want to be known?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Jimbo]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:41:25 -0800 (PST),
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>> Some details of the process do remain obscure, but it's also true that
>> plausible answers have been found to a number of seemingly
>> insurmountable problems.
>
>
>These problems remain, and will never be solved.
>
>Cell Membranes, origins through natural mechanisms, or design ?
>
>http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2128-membrane-structure#3798
>
>According to this website : The Interdependency of Lipid Membranes and Membrane Proteins
>The cell membrane contains various types of proteins, including ion channel proteins, proton pumps, G proteins, and enzymes. These membrane proteins function cooperatively to allow ions to penetrate the lipid bilayer. The interdependency of lipid membranes and membrane proteins suggests that lipid bilayers and membrane proteins co-evolved together with membrane bioenergetics.
>
>The nonsense of this assertion is evident. How could the membrane proteins co-evolve, if they had to be manufactured by the machinery , protected by the cell membrane ?
>
>The cell membrane contains various types of proteins, including ion channel proteins, proton pumps, G proteins, and enzymes. These membrane proteins function cooperatively to allow ions to penetrate the lipid bilayer.

Modern cell membranes consist of relatively impermiable phospholipid
bilayers and so they need specialized ion channels. Szozak has
demonstrated that vesicles enclosed in relatively permeable lipid
bilayers and monolayers can form spontaneously. After primitive life
forms developed and biological evolution began, the primitive lipid
membranes could gradually transition to modern phospholipid membranes
with protein gate mechanisms.

>The ER and Golgi apparatus together constitute the endomembrane compartment in the cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells. The endomembrane compartment is a major site of lipid synthesis, and the ER is where not only lipids are synthesized, but membrane-bound proteins and secretory proteins are also made.
>
>So in order to make cell membranes, the Endoplasmic Recticulum is required. But also the Golgi Apparatus, the peroxysome, and the mitochondria. But these only function, if protected and encapsulated in the cell membrane. What came first, the cell membrane, or the endoplasmic recticulum ? This is one of many other catch22 situations in the cell, which indicate that the cell could not emerge in a stepwise gradual manner, as proponents of natural mechanisms want to make us believe.

Primitive lipid membranes came first, so an environment existed in
which various necessary molecular systems could co-evolve with
progressively more 'modern' membranes.

>Not only is the cell membrane intricate and complex (and certainly not random), but it has tuning parameters such as the degree to which the phospholipid tails are saturated. It is another example of a sophisticated biological design about which evolutionists can only speculate. Random mutations must have luckily assembled molecular mechanisms which sense environmental challenges and respond to them by altering the phospholipid population in the membrane in just the right way. Such designs are tremendously helpful so of course they would have been preserved by natural selection. It is yet another example of how silly evolutionary theory is in light of scientific facts.

You're arguing from ignorance and incredulity. You can't imagine how
such a machinery could develop and therefore it couldn't develop.
Follow the links I provided and watch the videos.

[Bill]

>>e
>> Bill

My last paragraph above is based on a casual reading of the
Wikipedia article. A more careful review reinforced my first
impression. Nothing is known about abiogenesis although
there are lots of conjecture and speculation about what may
have been that might suggest possible mechanisms. The whole
thing is a collection of maybes.

Bill


M

[Bill]

So, if I'm skeptical of claimed knowledge of abiogenesis, it
must be because I have some religious alternative? Surely
you can find a more convincing demonstration of your
intelligence.

Bill

[Bill]

Resorting to the false dilemma fallacy,I see. Either I
accept the TO version of science uncritically or I am anti-
science. Little wonder that most posters here follow the
offcial, science channel orthodoxy.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

On 12/1/15 10:35 AM, Bill wrote:
> Burkhard wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Jimbo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:12:48 -0600, Bill
>>>> <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jimbo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 02:03:54 -0800 (PST),
>>>>>> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

Yes, well, your epistemology (*cough* nihilist! *cough*) is openly
understood to serve the convenience of whatever woo-filled rhetoric you
currently gush.

[Öö Tiib]

> >> >>>>>>>>they die.嘱

Either that or epistemological nihilism. I do not understand that
philosophy either. For me improving our knowledge is always possible.

> Surely you can find a more convincing demonstration of your
> intelligence.

Surely it is your business to air your viewpoints not mine. My best
guess stays that there is one of those Flying Spaghetti Monsters
involved. Show me mistaken.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:641938ef-fde6-4b0d...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano high-technology that
> > defies naturalistic explanations
> >
> > http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokar
> > yotes
>
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna3.htm
>
>
> > DNA replication is the most crucial step in cellular division, a
> > process necessary for life, and errors can cause cancer and many other
> > diseases. Genome duplication presents a formidable enzymatic
> > challenge, requiring the high fidelity replication of millions of
> > bases of DNA. It is a incredible system involving a city of proteins,
> > enzymes, and other components that are breathtaking in their
> > complexity and efficiency.
> >
> > How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a
> > "protein compound ... ready to undergo still more complex changes"?
> > Dawkins has to admit:
>
> So, like you, he doesn't understand it all, & admits it publicly. That's
> nice.
> As to how we get the living cell, it requires a journey so far back in
> time, you may never comprehend it. It goes back at least 4 billion years
> & required the cooling of the earth.

That is a *necessary* condition for abiogenesis. How about filling in
at least a few of the superastronomically numerous conditions which
together are *sufficient*? You don't try even to the extent that
"Grasso" tried.


> There will be some serious snippage. Either to decrease the verbosity,
> or remove material that
> A: I have no interest in.
> B Or am uneducated in.

Are you uneducated in the huge literature on what I call the "sub-basement"
of the abiogenesis "skyscraper"?

I used to be convinced of the *ease* with which abiogenesis had to
happen, as in Gould's "maybe life is as inevitable as quartz"
until I saw Nobel Laureate biochemist Christian de Duve spend
a good portion of his rhapsodic _Vital Dust_ thoroughly exploring
the sub-basement and then vault, without even telling us that he
was doing it, to the top level, where the entire protein translation
mechanism, complete with protein enzymes, was in place.

By a happy coincidence, at the same time I checked out this book,
I also checked out _Life Itself_ by another Nobel Laureate, Francis
Crick, who helped me see that we have absolutely no idea of how
common or how rare abiogenesis is. He and Orgel even noted that
we cannot be sure that there isn't only ONE place in the universe
that got as far as evolving an intealligent, technological
species like ourselves.

And here is their punch line: that incredibly lucky planet might
NOT have been earth, but another planet in our galaxy, and if so, the
abiogenesis event did NOT happen a mere 4 billion years ago, but
maybe more than twice that long ago.

Which brings me back to your "necessary" figure up there.
And now for the next step: is the term "directed panspermia"
familiar to you? You can read about it here:

F.H.C. Crick and L. E. Orgel, "Directed panspermia," *Icarus* 19
(1973) 341-346.
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf


> snip one.

Likewise.

> > Several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA
> > synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.
>
> Really? Based on your say so? How amazing. I suspect it's more of a
> question of science realising just how little it knows, & getting on with
> it.

But how far? Do you reckon they've gotten to the ground floor
of that skyscraper yet?

> > It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked, interdependent
> > and consistent of several irreducible complex subsystems. Since
> > evolution depends on it, it could not have emerged through evolution.
> > Even less through random chance or physical necessity.

My agnostic take on this: given enough universes, even abiogenesis
can happen by sheer chance. Lots of multiverse "theories"
[read: speculations] give enough; in some cases, infinitely many.

my snip two.

> NaCl. You do recognise the substance, I hope.
> Taken individually, life can not exist in the presence of the pure
> element. One is explosive around water sources, one is a toxic gas which
> is not only fatal to life, but also forms. with water. one of the most
> corrosive substances known on earth.
> OTOH, you can not survive without the presence of the final product of
> those two elements in your body.
>
> Care to explain why?

Because we are "life as we know it" and not some alien creatures
with a different body chemistry.

And you've only given one more *necessary* condition for life as we
know it.
condi

> walksalone who suspects that Thanatos will be gaining weight soon. Or
> the abyss will be a little fuller.

Does this mean you think you will die soon? I most certainly hope not.
It was sad enough to see "el cid"s obituary almost five years ago
-- and a mere month or so after I got acquainted with him. I haven't
seen his like in talk.origins since.

>
> CROSS, n. An ancient religious symbol erroneously supposed
> to owe its significance to the most solemn event in the
> history of Christianity, but really antedating it by thousands
> of years.

And crucifixion, which is the real crux [excuse the pun] of the
the Christian faith, antedated the NT event by hundreds of years.

But the real "crux of the crux" is that Christianity transformed
crucifixion from the shameful, humiliating death that it
had meant up to then, into a powerful, glorious symbol of a
necessary (but NOT sufficient) condition for Christianity to be more
than just another fertility cult.

Peter Nyikos,
who wonders why so many Protestants have nothing to
do with crucifixes but will tolerate empty crosses. [Now, an empty
TOMB, that's a horse of a different color.]

[jillery]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 12:46:30 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>From the Wikipedia entry, "Abiogensis is the natural
>>>process of life arising from non-living matter, such as
>>>simple organic compounds.It is thought to have occurred on
>>>Earth between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is
>>>studied through a combination of laboratory experiments
>>>and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern
>>>organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about
>>>what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a
>>>living system."
>>>
>>>Hardly what we can call scientific fact. The facts are
>>>that there are no facts. There is conjecture and
>>>possiblies and perhapses and that is the current state of
>>>that sciences.
>>
>>
>> Everything has to start somewhere. Had you lived in
>> Galileo's day, you would have made a good witness for the
>> Inquisition. --
>

>Resorting to the false dilemma fallacy,I see.

You're projecting. What I did was to identify the fallacy of your
logic, that since we don't know everything, we don't know anything.
You have been pushing that theme for a long time now.

>Either I
>accept the TO version of science uncritically or I am anti-
>science. Little wonder that most posters here follow the
>offcial, science channel orthodoxy.

Now that's a false dilemma. There is no TO version of science, and
you need not accept anything, uncritically or otherwise. But
pseudo-skepticism is not valid criticism. if you want to express a
point of view without sounding like a Donald Trump wannabe, you need
to do more than just spew your view, but also back it up with
something other than "because I'm better than you".

[Bill]

So abiogensis is science because the, "epistemology (*cough*

nihilist! *cough*) is openly understood to serve the

convenience of whatever woo-filled rhetoric" that disagrees
with your with your version. It seems somewhat more
scientific to have data before making conclusions about what
it means. Even more scientific would be to avoid jumping to
conclusions about what the data would not mean if it
existed.

We have discovered that there is no data for abiogenesis
but, since there must have been a beginning to life and any
alternative depends on the "epistemology (*cough* nihilist!

*cough*) is openly understood to serve the convenience of

whatever woo-filled rhetoric", it won't be considered. Thus
orthodoxy remains inviolate.

Bill

[Bill]

Since wee both know how you will characterize my posts, why
bother?

Bill

[walksalone]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2a3fa1b5-f045-4a3a...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:

snip

>> > How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a
>> > "protein compound ... ready to undergo still more complex changes"?
>> > Dawkins has to admit:
>>
>> So, like you, he doesn't understand it all, & admits it publicly.
>> That's nice.
>> As to how we get the living cell, it requires a journey so far back
>> in time, you may never comprehend it. It goes back at least 4
>> billion years & required the cooling of the earth.
>
> That is a *necessary* condition for abiogenesis. How about filling in
> at least a few of the superastronomically numerous conditions which
> together are *sufficient*? You don't try even to the extent that
> "Grasso" tried.

Maybe because, unlike you & him, I don't try to bullshit the troops.
What is scary here, if I, a mythologist can take the time, those
pontificating on it won't. & that's based on observation of their claims
& various tap dances.
But it doesn't matter. Abiogenists is fact. Once [aprx. 4 billion yrs.
ago] there was no life. Now there is. Hence, sometime in the past,
abiogenists occurred.

>> There will be some serious snippage. Either to decrease the
>> verbosity, or remove material that
>> A: I have no interest in.
>> B Or am uneducated in.
>
> Are you uneducated in the huge literature on what I call the
> "sub-basement" of the abiogenesis "skyscraper"?

Nope, & it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of life.


snip, no interest in la la land, or unfounded essays. Appeals to
authority are just another form of tail chasing.

>> snip one.

snip

> But how far? Do you reckon they've gotten to the ground floor
> of that skyscraper yet?

Your skyscraper, not mine.

snip

> my snip two.
>
>> NaCl. You do recognise the substance, I hope.
>> Taken individually, life can not exist in the presence of the pure
>> element. One is explosive around water sources, one is a toxic gas
>> which is not only fatal to life, but also forms. with water. one of
>> the most corrosive substances known on earth.
>> OTOH, you can not survive without the presence of the final product
>> of those two elements in your body.
>>
>> Care to explain why?

> Because we are "life as we know it" and not some alien creatures
> with a different body chemistry.

Nope, it's even more basic than that.

> And you've only given one more *necessary* condition for life as we
> know it.

All conditions for life as we know it are not an option.

snip

walksalone who sometime does wish he wasn't a civil as he is. Then the
drolls would never be a PITA to me. BTW, answering this missive will be
accepted as an admission on your part. You are here for the spotlight &
a droll.

Aboriginies, n. Persons of little worth found cumbering the soil of a
newly discovered country. They soon cease to cumber; they fertilize.
Devils dictionary

[Burkhard]

Maybe before trying to digest the wikipdia entry, you should look up
"data", "scientific theory" and "fact" in a good dictionary?

>
> Bill
>
>
> M
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:28 PM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:2a3fa1b5-f045-4a3a...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:

> >> As to how we get the living cell, it requires a journey so far back
> >> in time, you may never comprehend it. It goes back at least 4
> >> billion years & required the cooling of the earth.
> >
> > That is a *necessary* condition for abiogenesis. How about filling in
> > at least a few of the superastronomically numerous conditions which
> > together are *sufficient*? You don't try even to the extent that
> > "Grasso" tried.
>
> Maybe because, unlike you & him, I don't try to bullshit the troops.

Now, now... where does this "bullshit" charge come from? What's behind it?

I have no personal "troops," by the way. I'm as much of a "walksalone"
as you are, maybe more -- see my parting shot at the end.

For sure, I am a nonconformist here, an anti-creationism person
who doesn't go along to get along (with my fellow science-oriented
types here) and I have the scars to show for it.

> What is scary here, if I, a mythologist can take the time, those
> pontificating on it won't. & that's based on observation of their claims
> & various tap dances.
> But it doesn't matter. Abiogenists is fact. Once [aprx. 4 billion yrs.
> ago] there was no life. Now there is. Hence, sometime in the past,
> abiogenists occurred.

Correction: there was no life ON EARTH. Now there is.

I won't argue with your "Hence" as long as you add the
capitalized qualifier. Without it, you have a *non sequitur*.

> >> There will be some serious snippage. Either to decrease the
> >> verbosity, or remove material that
> >> A: I have no interest in.
> >> B Or am uneducated in.
> >
> > Are you uneducated in the huge literature on what I call the
> > "sub-basement" of the abiogenesis "skyscraper"?
>
> Nope, & it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of life.

Did you say "Nope" because you read my question as "Are you
educated in the huge literature..." rather than what I actually wrote?

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume
you are basing your next claim on having amassed a lot
of information on the side of Christian de Duve, and
AGAINST Crick & Orgel.

But if so, I'd like a reference to some of it.

>
> snip, no interest in la la land, or unfounded essays. Appeals to
> authority are just another form of tail chasing.

I made no appeal to authority. I mentioned the names of some
"authorities" with *opposite* views on the likelihood of abiogenesis,
[named above] and came down on the side of one rather than the other
on the basis of original thinking over the last two decades minus
two years.

I've posted voluminously on my reasons for this. Have you seen anything
from my extensive draft for a FAQ on the subject?

Here is a little teaser, with the reply to B2 segueing nicely to
the next pair of comments between us:

Section B. Some Pointed Questions about Directed Panspermia

B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
where the origin of life is concerned?

REPLY: This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
life ON EARTH.


B2. Aren't origin-of-life experiments showing that life very likely
began on earth?

REPLY: The experiments have yet to produce even one of the four basic
nucleotides of RNA under simulation of conditions on the early earth,
after over six decades since the original Urey-Miller experiment. In
fact one website that has been approvingly quoted by "evolutionists"
in talk.origins has gone so far to say that scientists aren't trying
to produce life from scratch in the laboratory, at all.

The experiments that have been done to date only help to shed light
(very feeble light at that, see B7 below) as to how abiogenesis could
take place *somewhere*.

> >> snip one.
>
> snip
>
> > But how far? Do you reckon they've gotten to the ground floor
> > of that skyscraper yet?
>
> Your skyscraper, not mine.

So you allege, without referring me to anything. But now the reply
to B2 gives you some idea of what I mean by "the ground floor."

>
> > my snip two.
> >
> >> NaCl. You do recognise the substance, I hope.
> >> Taken individually, life can not exist in the presence of the pure
> >> element. One is explosive around water sources, one is a toxic gas
> >> which is not only fatal to life, but also forms. with water. one of
> >> the most corrosive substances known on earth.
> >> OTOH, you can not survive without the presence of the final product
> >> of those two elements in your body.
> >>
> >> Care to explain why?
>
> > Because we are "life as we know it" and not some alien creatures
> > with a different body chemistry.
>
> Nope, it's even more basic than that.

Do you think that because Cl is more common on earth than F or I,
therefore Cl is essential for life while F is not?

If not, what *did* you have in mind?

> > And you've only given one more *necessary* condition for life as we
> > know it.
>
> All conditions for life as we know it are not an option.

By an excruciatingly narrow definition of "life as we know it," yes.

OK, let's change it to "life as we almost know it," with
possibilities like F in place of Cl, or life that uses,
say, 4 amino acids instead of 20 in its proteins.

The latter is actively endorsed by beginning-of-life
theorists as a "highly probable" property of the first
microorganisms in "life as we know it" ca. 4 gya.

> walksalone who sometime does wish he wasn't a civil as he is.

Was it civil to snip my good wishes that your life NOT be cut
short soon?

> Then the
> drolls would never be a PITA to me. BTW, answering this missive will be
> accepted as an admission on your part. You are here for the spotlight &
> a droll.

I see you have bought into a lot of scuttlebutt about me.

Maybe you should change your handle to "walkswiththepack," eh? :-)

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

[jillery]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 03:08:37 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

Well?

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:05:25 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:28 PM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

<snip without further attribution polemics I don't reply to here>

>> What is scary here, if I, a mythologist can take the time, those
>> pontificating on it won't. & that's based on observation of their claims
>> & various tap dances.
>> But it doesn't matter. Abiogenists is fact. Once [aprx. 4 billion yrs.
>> ago] there was no life. Now there is. Hence, sometime in the past,
>> abiogenists occurred.
>
>Correction: there was no life ON EARTH. Now there is.
>
>I won't argue with your "Hence" as long as you add the
>capitalized qualifier. Without it, you have a *non sequitur*.

Incorrect. Even with directed panspermia, the assumption is that life
began sometime after the Universe began, therefore walksalone's
comment is accurate and relevant. Or do you assume otherwise, that
life always existed, even before the Universe began?

>B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
>where the origin of life is concerned?
>
>REPLY: This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
>panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
>ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
>life ON EARTH.

Now that's a non sequitur. The default assumption is that abiogenesis
ON EARTH was independent of abiogenesis elsewhere. If one assumes
otherwise, that life ON EARTH originated somewhere else, then directed
panspermia says nothing useful about abiogenesis ON EARTH, and the
question does in fact get kicked down the road to the abiogenesis
elsewhere. Dismissing that question moots the entire concept of
directed panspermia wrt the origin of life ON EARTH.

>B2. Aren't origin-of-life experiments showing that life very likely
>began on earth?
>
>REPLY: The experiments have yet to produce even one of the four basic
>nucleotides of RNA under simulation of conditions on the early earth,
>after over six decades since the original Urey-Miller experiment. In
>fact one website that has been approvingly quoted by "evolutionists"
>in talk.origins has gone so far to say that scientists aren't trying
>to produce life from scratch in the laboratory, at all.

Questions about abiogenesis aren't limited to RNA synthesis, nor are
the answers to it limited to one website. In this topic, many items
were cited, including Wikipedia's article on abiogenesis, which
included 47 cites and identified numerous references to additional
items for further reading, and included specific references to Jack
Szostak's experiments.

[Steady Eddie]

+1

[Steady Eddie]

Have you thought about how long it would take for some "simple" but fundamentally different scheme for
sustaining life to "evolve" into the universal, extant system?

[Steady Eddie]

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 10:13:36 UTC-7, walksalone wrote:
> Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:b01adf36-30e3-487a...@googlegroups.com:

>
> > On Sunday, 29 November 2015 07:03:38 UTC-7, walksalone wrote:
> >> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote in
> >> news:641938ef-fde6-4b0d...@googlegroups.com:
>
>

> >> So, like you, he doesn't understand it all, & admits it publicly.
> >> That's nice.

> >> As to how we get the living cell, it requires a journey so far back
> >> in time, you may never comprehend it. It goes back at least 4
> >> billion years & required the cooling of the earth.
> >>

> >> There will be some serious snippage. Either to decrease the
> >> verbosity, or remove material that
> >> A: I have no interest in.
> >> B Or am uneducated in.
> >>

> >> snip one.
> >>
> >> > Proponents of Darwinism are at a loss to tell us how this marvelous
> >> > system began. Charles Darwin's main contribution, natural
> >> > selection, does not apply until a system can reproduce all its
> >> > parts. Getting a reproducible cell in a primordial soup is a giant
> >> > leap, for which today's evolutionary biologists have no answer, no
> >> > evidence, and no hope. It amounts to blind faith to believe that
> >> > undirected, purposeless accidents somehow built the smallest, most
> >> > complex, most efficient system known to man.
> >>
> >> Inasmuch as Darwin did not propose a theory of evolution, & how it
> >> worked, is that surprising to anyone but you. His theory was the
> >> origin of species. How they got to where they are. They lacked the
> >> ability to do protein research. Due to more than anything, I suspect
> >> a serious lack of the equipment to do the job. Because they didn't,
> >> TTBOMK, have a concept of DNA or Proteins, they would not have been
> >> concerned with your attempt at misdirection.

> >>
> >> > Several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA
> >> > synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.
> >>
> >> Really? Based on your say so? How amazing. I suspect it's more of
> >> a question of science realising just how little it knows, & getting
> >> on with it.
> >

> > LOL you think it's his personal opinion? You need a little education
> > in just what DNA replication involves:
> >
> > DNA Replication in E coli
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaTKZBcVcIQ

So, do you still need help seeing the plethora of proteins necessary for DNA synthesis and replication?

> >> snip 2

> >>
> >> > It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked,
> >> > interdependent and consistent of several irreducible complex
> >> > subsystems. Since evolution depends on it, it could not have
> >> > emerged through evolution. Even less through random chance or

> >> > physical necessity. Special creation through a incredibly
> >> > intelligent powerful creator is therefor the best explanation for
> >> > DNA replication.
> >>
> >> It seems to be you are arguing your assumptions. Very minor example
> >> of the wonder of life.

> >>
> >> NaCl. You do recognise the substance, I hope.
> >> Taken individually, life can not exist in the presence of the pure
> >> element. One is explosive around water sources, one is a toxic gas
> >> which is not only fatal to life, but also forms. with water. one of
> >> the most corrosive substances known on earth.
> >> OTOH, you can not survive without the presence of the final product
> >> of those two elements in your body.
> >>
> >> Care to explain why?
> >>

> >> walksalone who suspects that Thanatos will be gaining weight soon.
> >> Or the abyss will be a little fuller.
> >>
> >>

> >> CROSS, n. An ancient religious symbol erroneously supposed
> >> to owe its significance to the most solemn event in the
> >> history of Christianity, but really antedating it by thousands

> >> of years. By many it has been believed to be identical with
> >> the crux ansata of the ancient phallic worship, but it has
> >> been traced even beyond all that we know of that, to the rites
> >> of primitive peoples. We have to-day the White Cross as a
> >> symbol of chastity, and the Red Cross as a badge of benevolent
> >> neutrality in war. Devils dictionary
> >
> > When you try to change the subject like this, you are admitting
> > defeat.
> >

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 20:48:37 UTC-7, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano high-technology that defies naturalistic explanations
>
> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes
>

> DNA replication is the most crucial step in cellular division, a process necessary for life, and errors can cause cancer and many other diseases. Genome duplication presents a formidable enzymatic challenge, requiring the high fidelity replication of millions of bases of DNA. It is a incredible system involving a city of proteins, enzymes, and other components that are breathtaking in their complexity and efficiency.
>

> How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a "protein compound ... ready to undergo still more complex changes"? Dawkins has to admit:
>

> "Darwin, in his 'warm little pond' paragraph, speculated that the key event in the origin of life might have been the spontaneous arising of a protein, but this turns out to be less promising than most of Darwin's ideas. ... But there is something that proteins are outstandingly bad at, and this Darwin overlooked. They are completely hopeless at replication. They can't make copies of themselves. This means that the key step in the origin of life cannot have been the spontaneous arising of a protein." (pp. 419-20)
>
> The process of DNA replication depends on many separate protein catalysts to unwind, stabilize, copy, edit, and rewind the original DNA message. In prokaryotic cells, DNA replication involves more than thirty specialized proteins to perform tasks necessary for building and accurately copying the genetic molecule. These specialized proteins include DNA polymerases, primases, helicases, topoisomerases, DNA-binding proteins, DNA ligases, and editing enzymes. DNA needs these proteins to copy the genetic information contained in DNA. But the proteins that copy the genetic information in DNA are themselves built from that information. This again poses what is, at the very least, a curiosity: the production of proteins requires DNA, but the production of DNA requires proteins.

>
> Proponents of Darwinism are at a loss to tell us how this marvelous system began. Charles Darwin's main contribution, natural selection, does not apply until a system can reproduce all its parts. Getting a reproducible cell in a primordial soup is a giant leap, for which today's evolutionary biologists have no answer, no evidence, and no hope. It amounts to blind faith to believe that undirected, purposeless accidents somehow built the smallest, most complex, most efficient system known to man.
>

> Several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.
>

> Replication of the genetic material is the single central property of living systems. Dawkins provocatively claimed that organisms are but vehicles for replicating and evolving genes, and I believe that this simple concept captures a key aspect of biological evolution. All phenotypic features of organisms--indeed, cells and organisms themselves as complex physical entities--emerge and evolve only inasmuch as they are conducive to genome replication. That is, they enhance the rate of this process, or, at least, do not impede it.
>
> According to mainstream scientific papers, the following twenty protein and protein complexes are essential for prokaryotic DNA replication. Each one mentioned below. They cannot be reduced. If one is missing, DNA replication cannot occur:
>
> Pre-replication complex Formation of the pre-RC is required for DNA replication to occur
> DnaA The crucial component in the initiation process is the DnaA protein
> DiaA this novel protein plays an important role in regulating the initiation of chromosomal replication via direct interactions with the DnaA initiator.
> DAM methylase It's gene expression requires full methylation of GATC at its promoter region.
> DnaB helicase Helicases are essential enzymes for DNA replication, a fundamental process in all living organisms.
> DnaC Loading of the DnaB helicase is the key step in replication initiation. DnaC is essential for replication in vitro and in vivo.
> HU-proteins HU protein is required for proper synchrony of replication initiation
> SSB Single-stranded binding proteins Single-stranded DNA binding proteins are essential for the sequestration and processing of single-stranded DNA. 6
> SSBs from the OB domain family play an essential role in the maintenance of genome stability, functioning in DNA replication, the repair of damaged DNA, the activation of cell cycle checkpoints, and in telomere maintenance. SSB proteins play an essential role in DNA metabolism by protecting single-stranded DNA and by mediating several important protein-protein interactions. 7
> Hexameric DNA helicases DNA helicases are essential during DNA replication because they separate double-stranded DNA into single strands allowing each strand to be copied.
> DNA polymerase I and III DNA polymerase 3 is essential for the replication of the leading and the lagging strands whereas DNA polymerase 1 is essential for removing of the RNA primers from the fragments and replacing it with the required nucleotides.
> DnaG Primases They are essential for the initiation of such phenomena because DNA polymerases are incapable of de novo synthesis and can only elongate existing strands
> Topoisomerases 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.
> Sliding clamp and clamp loader the clamp loader is a crucial aspect of the DNA replication machinery. Sliding clamps are DNA-tracking platforms that are essential for processive DNA replication in all living organisms
> Primase (DnaG) Primases are essential RNA polymerases required for the initiation of DNA replication, lagging strand synthesis and replication restart. They are essential for the initiation of such phenomena because DNA polymerases are incapable of de novo synthesis and can only elongate existing strands.
> RTP-Ter complex Ter sequences would not seem to be essential, but they may prevent overreplication by one fork in the event that the other is delayed or halted by an encounter with DNA damage or some other obstacle
> Ribonuclease H RNase H1 plays essential roles in generating and clearing RNAs that act as primers of DNA replication.
> Replication restart primosome Replication restart primosome is a complex dynamic system that is essential for bacterial survival.
> DNA repair:
> RecQ helicase In prokaryotes RecQ is necessary for plasmid recombination and DNA repair from UV-light, free radicals, and alkylating agents.
> RecJ nuclease the repair machinery must be designed to act on a variety of heterogeneous DNA break sites.

>
> It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked, interdependent and consistent of several irreducible complex subsystems. Since evolution depends on it, it could not have emerged through evolution. Even less through random chance or physical necessity. Special creation through a incredibly intelligent powerful creator is therefor the best explanation for DNA replication.

"DNA replication in Prokaryotes 1 | Prokaryotic DNA replication initiation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZAw7pahzMM

4:13
He involuntarily starts using the term "they", as if done by some intelligent agents -
"they" check, before the synthesis phase starts, whether everything is in place and ready to perform the upcoming task.
This is eerily like a process that can only be done by a group of well-coordinated intelligent colleagues.
Yet, it's all done by INANIMATE MATTER!
Does this not suggest the need for the "matter" to be PRECISELY built and organized by an intelligent designer of some sort?

[walksalone]

Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:bca2548d-0adb-4a4c...@googlegroups.com:

snip

>> > LOL you think it's his personal opinion? You need a little
>> > education in just what DNA replication involves:

It's his post, I let him speak for himself.

>> > DNA Replication in E coli
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaTKZBcVcIQ
>
> So, do you still need help seeing the plethora of proteins necessary
> for DNA synthesis and replication?

Should I develop such an interest, yes. But, not yours or any of the
other drolls. Why not, I prefer my references to be accurate as well as
timely. I don't have to agree with them, but in spite of the claims like
yours, they have to be accurate. I would have no desire to embarrass my
children, or grandchildren. My interest is the continuation of
abiogenesis today. & yes, that's the best description for it. An
example would be found in the regions of smokers.

snip

Now I realise that you refuse to believe anyone would not be eager to
engage you is bull shitting. But such is the case where you & I are
concerned. You have noting to offer but the YEC style shuffle, & I doubt
I will live long enough to cipher any new knowledge form your version.
So feel free to accept the fact. Where you are concerned, I am totally
unimpressed. & therefore have no desire to explore the depths of your
displayed ignorance.

walksalone who is of a mind, that when those like eddie keep coming back,
they really assume you didn't tell get lost. But I did & he will where I
am concerned.


A Man and a Lion were discussing the relative strength of men
and lions in general. The Man contended that he and his fellows
were stronger than lions by reason of their greater intelligence.
"Come now with me," he cried, "and I will soon prove that I am
right." So he took him into the public gardens and showed him a
statue of Hercules overcoming the Lion and tearing his mouth in
two.
"That is all very well," said the Lion, "but proves nothing,
for it was a man who made the statue."
We can easily represent things as we wish them to be.

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 12:08:25 UTC-7, walksalone wrote:
> Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:bca2548d-0adb-4a4c...@googlegroups.com:
>
> snip
>
> >> > LOL you think it's his personal opinion? You need a little
> >> > education in just what DNA replication involves:
>
> It's his post, I let him speak for himself.
>
> >> > DNA Replication in E coli
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaTKZBcVcIQ
> >
> > So, do you still need help seeing the plethora of proteins necessary
> > for DNA synthesis and replication?
>
> Should I develop such an interest, yes. But, not yours or any of the
> other drolls. Why not, I prefer my references to be accurate as well as
> timely.

Yes, you DO need an education in the workings of the cell.
The video I linked to is not by a Creationist; but by a BIOLOGIST, explaining the basic facts of biology.
If you prefer ignorance, then why are you here?

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:6f9fba34-0ed1-4765...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:28 PM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:2a3fa1b5-f045-4a3a...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 9:03:38 AM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
>
>> >> As to how we get the living cell, it requires a journey so far
>> >> back in time, you may never comprehend it. It goes back at least
>> >> 4 billion years & required the cooling of the earth.
>> >
>> > That is a *necessary* condition for abiogenesis. How about filling
>> > in at least a few of the superastronomically numerous conditions
>> > which together are *sufficient*? You don't try even to the extent
>> > that "Grasso" tried.
>>
>> Maybe because, unlike you & him, I don't try to bullshit the troops.
>
> Now, now... where does this "bullshit" charge come from? What's
> behind it?

Perhaps walksalone mistakenly thought you weren't a big enough crank to
take your Directed Panspermia nonsense seriously.

[snip]

>> But it doesn't matter. Abiogenists is fact. Once [aprx. 4 billion
>> yrs. ago] there was no life. Now there is. Hence, sometime in the
>> past, abiogenists occurred.
>
> Correction: there was no life ON EARTH. Now there is.

As those of us who aren't cranks know, there is no evidence for life
anywhere outside our solar system, and only the barest hints of life
anywhere outside our planet. Absent such evidence, Directed Panspermia is
an amusing notion at best.

Unless you believe that life has always existed, then abiogenesis must
have occurred in the past. All the evidence presently available is
consistent with the hypothesis that it occurred here on Earth. The fact
that you can't believe the window between the cooling of the Earth's
surface and the appearance of the first living organisms was wide enough
to admit the occurrence of abiogenesis is your problem; your incredulity
is irrelevant.

[snip]

> Section B. Some Pointed Questions about Directed Panspermia
>
> B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
> where the origin of life is concerned?
>
> REPLY: This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
> panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
> ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
> life ON EARTH.

It's rather comical to see that you've correctly identified the reason
the hypothesis is worthless - it does indeed have nothing to say about
the ultimate origins of life.

Without a model to explain *how* life could have originated from nonlife,
the question of *where* life originated from nonlife is irrelevant.

If there were a plausible model of abiogenesis that required more time
than can be shown to have been available here on Earth, then it would
make sense to speculate about where else it might have happened. But all
you've got is an inability to imagine how there could have been enough
time for it to happen on Earth.

> B2. Aren't origin-of-life experiments showing that life very likely
> began on earth?
>
> REPLY: The experiments have yet to produce even one of the four basic
> nucleotides of RNA under simulation of conditions on the early earth,
> after over six decades since the original Urey-Miller experiment. In
> fact one website that has been approvingly quoted by "evolutionists"
> in talk.origins has gone so far to say that scientists aren't trying
> to produce life from scratch in the laboratory, at all.

That's eerily reminiscent of the argument that evolution is falsified by
the fact that scientists haven't been able to change reptiles into birds.

> The experiments that have been done to date only help to shed light
> (very feeble light at that, see B7 below) as to how abiogenesis could
> take place *somewhere*.

Even very feeble light is preferable to the antilight shed by your
dribblings.
--
S.O.P.

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:43:58 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

Asked and answered. Now answer the questions I asked you first.

[Steady Eddie]

How long is "not long"?

[Peter Nyikos]

Note to the general readership: "Sneaky" is under a boycott because he
has refused to either retract trumped-up charges against me or to
post a reasonable explanation for why he posted them. HOWEVER, if anyone
else wishes to endorse any comment made by him in reply to me,
they may challenge me with it and I will deal with it. No need
to credit SOP with it--I will NOT treat it as a case of plagiarism.

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 2 December 2015 02:13:29 UTC+2, Bill wrote:

> 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 20:43:28 UTC+2, Bill wrote:

> >> 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 04:03:33 UTC+2, Bill
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Jimbo wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:58:09 -0600, Bill
> >> >> > <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >

<snip>

What I have to do with any of it? It is your decision if you
want to reason something or to post one-liner insults and
groundless assertions. To me the latter is simply ...
uninteresting.

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:52:46 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>How long is "not long"?

That's not an answer. You raise your faith to scorn.

[jillery]

On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:02:21 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No reply. No surprise.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:6a7490ad-8884-409b...@googlegroups.com:

> Note to the general readership: "Sneaky" is under a boycott because he
> has refused to either retract trumped-up charges against me or to
> post a reasonable explanation for why he posted them.

Addendum: Peter is full of shit. He regularly responds to Ray Martinez, who
has actually and unapologetically lied about him without explanation. I
refrain from speculating about why he might find responding to Ray's posts
more congenial than responding to mine.
--
S.O.P.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:22:23 -0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com>:

You, unlike Ray, are able to think rationally and construct
rational arguments? Ray's a "soft target".
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:50:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:22:23 -0000 (UTC), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
><sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>>news:6a7490ad-8884-409b...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Note to the general readership: "Sneaky" is under a boycott because he
>>> has refused to either retract trumped-up charges against me or to
>>> post a reasonable explanation for why he posted them.
>>
>>Addendum: Peter is full of shit. He regularly responds to Ray Martinez, who
>>has actually and unapologetically lied about him without explanation. I
>>refrain from speculating about why he might find responding to Ray's posts
>>more congenial than responding to mine.
>
>You, unlike Ray, are able to think rationally and construct
>rational arguments? Ray's a "soft target".

Ray is a fish in a barrel.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 1:53:19 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:22:23 -0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >news:6a7490ad-8884-409b...@googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> Note to the general readership: "Sneaky" is under a boycott because he
> >> has refused to either retract trumped-up charges against me or to
> >> post a reasonable explanation for why he posted them.
> >
> >Addendum: Peter is full of shit. He regularly responds to Ray Martinez, who
> >has actually and unapologetically lied about him without explanation. I
> >refrain from speculating about why he might find responding to Ray's posts
> >more congenial than responding to mine.
>
> You, unlike Ray, are able to think rationally and construct
> rational arguments? Ray's a "soft target".

Correct on the second count. The first is only relevant in that it
makes Sneaky's trumped-up charges far more dangerous than any lie
Ray has posted about me [and Ray has posted many, including the lie
that what I call lies are disagreements on on-topic issues].

But what makes Sneaky's trumped-up charges so dangerous is that they
accuse me of hating gays, and I cannot prove a negative -- I cannot
prove that I have never posted anything derogatory about gays in
general for the simple reason that even if I were to repost every
single thing I have ever posted on the internet, someone could claim
that I cannot be trusted to have posted them all.

And I believe that most people in talk.origins have more contempt for
someone who hates gays than they do for pathological liars like Ray.
Didn't "prawnster" get banned because he was a bigot?

I believe I have bent over backwards as far as I reasonably can by the terms
I have for ending the boycott. But Sneaky just keeps posting paraphrasals
of the trumped-up charge and never identifies any specific posting
of mine that could have led him to think that I hate gays.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:13:37 PM UTC-5, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 20:43:28 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
> > 嘱 Tiib wrote:

> > > Science is not sitting on book of facts and arguing.
> > > Science is researching, investigating, experimenting. Life
> > > did arose. That is fact. Abiogenesis gives lot of ground
> > > to research.
> > >
> > > There are nothing to research about "goddidit" of your
> > > Marduk, Cheonjiwang, Brahma or Yahweh because these
> > > stories are awfully silly. Interesting fantasies and
> > > fiction of uneducated man.

You are entitled to your viewpoint, but Christians are entitled
to theirs, and most of them do not take Genesis literally.
Kenneth Miller is an example, fairly extreme against literalism
but still faithful to his Roman Catholic faith AFAIK.

> > So, if I'm skeptical of claimed knowledge of abiogenesis, it
> > must be because I have some religious alternative?
>
> Either that or epistemological nihilism. I do not understand that
> philosophy either. For me improving our knowledge is always possible.

But the actual knowledge of abiogenesis is so minuscule that one
can stay in suspended judgment about whether it actually happened
naturalistically. You do know what the word "agnostic" means, don't you?

> > Surely you can find a more convincing demonstration of your
> > intelligence.
>
> Surely it is your business to air your viewpoints not mine. My best
> guess stays that there is one of those Flying Spaghetti Monsters
> involved. Show me mistaken.

If that's your best guess, it sounds like you are a convinced atheist.
Are you?

Peter Nyikos

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 05:58:06 UTC+2, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:13:37 PM UTC-5, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 20:43:28 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
> > > 嘱 Tiib wrote:
>
> > > > Science is not sitting on book of facts and arguing.
> > > > Science is researching, investigating, experimenting. Life
> > > > did arose. That is fact. Abiogenesis gives lot of ground
> > > > to research.
> > > >
> > > > There are nothing to research about "goddidit" of your
> > > > Marduk, Cheonjiwang, Brahma or Yahweh because these
> > > > stories are awfully silly. Interesting fantasies and
> > > > fiction of uneducated man.
>
> You are entitled to your viewpoint, but Christians are entitled
> to theirs, and most of them do not take Genesis literally.
> Kenneth Miller is an example, fairly extreme against literalism
> but still faithful to his Roman Catholic faith AFAIK.

The events could happen quite literally with help of sufficiently
advanced technology (that is "indistinguishable from magic"
Arthur C. Clarke). Why I consider it silly is the alleged waste
of time, energy and efforts to achieve such questionable effects. I like
fiction so why don't they try to write better and more believable
books?

>
> > > So, if I'm skeptical of claimed knowledge of abiogenesis, it
> > > must be because I have some religious alternative?
> >
> > Either that or epistemological nihilism. I do not understand that
> > philosophy either. For me improving our knowledge is always possible.
>
> But the actual knowledge of abiogenesis is so minuscule that one
> can stay in suspended judgment about whether it actually happened
> naturalistically. You do know what the word "agnostic" means, don't you?

I am myself quite agnostic about abiogenesis on earth. My position is
that we don't know if and how it actually happened, and we likely never
find it out. Research of abiogenesis is still worth all the money and
effort since we may find out the space of conditions where it may
happen and what the probabilities are.

>
> > > Surely you can find a more convincing demonstration of your
> > > intelligence.
> >
> > Surely it is your business to air your viewpoints not mine. My best
> > guess stays that there is one of those Flying Spaghetti Monsters
> > involved. Show me mistaken.
>
> If that's your best guess, it sounds like you are a convinced atheist.
> Are you?

I am convinced. I also consider it *most* *risky* wishful thinking to
hope that we are not totally on our own here. I like fantasy regardless
if it is fairy tale, religion or "science fiction". People with good
fantasies are usually humorous as well. However when people start to
take such fantasies as facts of reality then I'm worried.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:21230f09-ca1f-4afb...@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 1:53:19 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:22:23 -0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Sneaky O. Possum"
>> <sneaky...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> >news:6a7490ad-8884-409b...@googlegroups.com:
>> >
>> >> Note to the general readership: "Sneaky" is under a boycott
>> >> because he has refused to either retract trumped-up charges
>> >> against me or to post a reasonable explanation for why he posted
>> >> them.
>> >
>> >Addendum: Peter is full of shit. He regularly responds to Ray
>> >Martinez, who has actually and unapologetically lied about him
>> >without explanation. I refrain from speculating about why he might
>> >find responding to Ray's posts more congenial than responding to
>> >mine.
>>
>> You, unlike Ray, are able to think rationally and construct
>> rational arguments? Ray's a "soft target".
>
> Correct on the second count. The first is only relevant in that it
> makes Sneaky's trumped-up charges far more dangerous than any lie
> Ray has posted about me [and Ray has posted many, including the lie
> that what I call lies are disagreements on on-topic issues].

You know, John's got a point, Peter. You really do seem overwrought.
Nothing I've said about you is in any way dangerous.

> But what makes Sneaky's trumped-up charges so dangerous is that they
> accuse me of hating gays, and I cannot prove a negative -- I cannot
> prove that I have never posted anything derogatory about gays in
> general for the simple reason that even if I were to repost every
> single thing I have ever posted on the internet, someone could claim
> that I cannot be trusted to have posted them all.

Are you incapable of acknowledging the possibility that a statement that
doesn't seem derogatory to you might appear derogatory to someone else?
Do you imagine that your perception of what you post is the only
legitimate one? Is it possible that you really are that solipsistic?

> And I believe that most people in talk.origins have more contempt for
> someone who hates gays than they do for pathological liars like Ray.

Accepting *arguendo* that your obvious anti-gay bigotry is merely a
figment of my imagination, and that any fair-minded reader can see that,
why do you think anyone else would take it seriously? Are you under the
impression that most talk.origins posters are in the habit of giving me
the benefit of the doubt? Am I, like Lamont Cranston, possessed of the
power to cloud men's minds?

> Didn't "prawnster" get banned because he was a bigot?
>
> I believe I have bent over backwards as far as I reasonably can by the
> terms I have for ending the boycott. But Sneaky just keeps posting
> paraphrasals of the trumped-up charge and never identifies any
> specific posting of mine that could have led him to think that I hate
> gays.

That is untrue. I don't care whether you deny that the examples I've
provided demonstrate what I think they demonstrate, but when you falsely
claim that I've never provided examples, it irritates me.

Please retract the false claim.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:f8410a76-0781-4d2e...@googlegroups.com:

[snip]

> But the actual knowledge of abiogenesis is so minuscule that one
> can stay in suspended judgment about whether it actually happened
> naturalistically. You do know what the word "agnostic" means, don't
> you?

I know what the word 'scientific' means. Suspending judgment about
whether abiogenesis happened in a way that can be described
naturalistically is unscientific.

Even if some supernatural entity or force was responsible for
creating life, that creation was a natural creation that occurred in a
natural universe and produced natural phenomena. From a scientific
perspective, it doesn't *matter* whether God (or Raven, or Yog-Sothoth)
created life: what matters is that life can be observed and described in
the same terms as other natural phenomena. Even if we never determine
the exact process of abiogenesis, we can still reasonably infer that
there was an exact process, one that can in principle be described in
purely naturalistic terms.

As an agnostic, I suspend judgment on the question of whether entities
or forces that cannot be described in purely naturalistic terms exist;
but if an entity or force interacts with the natural world, we may
reasonably infer that the *interaction* can be described in purely
naturalistic terms, *regardless of any other terms that may apply to
it*. If abiogenesis is not a purely natural phenomenon, it is at
least a primarily natural one.
--
S.O.P.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 2:38:07 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 05:58:06 UTC+2, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:13:37 PM UTC-5, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 20:43:28 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
> > > > 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >
> > > > > Science is not sitting on book of facts and arguing.
> > > > > Science is researching, investigating, experimenting. Life
> > > > > did arose. That is fact. Abiogenesis gives lot of ground
> > > > > to research.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are nothing to research about "goddidit" of your
> > > > > Marduk, Cheonjiwang, Brahma or Yahweh because these
> > > > > stories are awfully silly. Interesting fantasies and
> > > > > fiction of uneducated man.
> >
> > You are entitled to your viewpoint, but Christians are entitled
> > to theirs, and most of them do not take Genesis literally.
> > Kenneth Miller is an example, fairly extreme against literalism
> > but still faithful to his Roman Catholic faith AFAIK.
>
> The events could happen quite literally with help of sufficiently
> advanced technology (that is "indistinguishable from magic"
> Arthur C. Clarke).

I am ridiculed right on this thread for no valid reason, just because I
think the evidence favors a seeding of earth by microorganisms
sent ca. 4 bya by a technological species with no more scientific
knowledge than we will get in the next few decades, and technology
that we could develop in the same time frame, given enough money.

I've posted reams on this, and will be reposting the huge FAQ I have
posted in the past, slightly updated, some time next year. And then,
once the criticism is pretty much addressed, I will submit it to the
talk.origins FAQ archive, as long as I am reassured that I have
copyright privileges. Whether that will put an end to the ridicule
is anybody's guess.

But can you imagine the ridicule to which I'd be subjected if I dared
to suggest that an advanced civilization established a colony on
earth 550-530 mya and engineered the Cambrian explosion from
protist beginnings?

By the way, which effects were *you* thinking of?

> Why I consider it silly is the alleged waste
> of time, energy and efforts to achieve such questionable effects. I like
> fiction so why don't they try to write better and more believable
> books?

Who are the "they" you are thinking of?

> >
> > > > So, if I'm skeptical of claimed knowledge of abiogenesis, it
> > > > must be because I have some religious alternative?
> > >
> > > Either that or epistemological nihilism. I do not understand that
> > > philosophy either. For me improving our knowledge is always possible.
> >
> > But the actual knowledge of abiogenesis is so minuscule that one
> > can stay in suspended judgment about whether it actually happened
> > naturalistically. You do know what the word "agnostic" means, don't you?
>
> I am myself quite agnostic about abiogenesis on earth. My position is
> that we don't know if and how it actually happened, and we likely never
> find it out. Research of abiogenesis is still worth all the money and
> effort since we may find out the space of conditions where it may
> happen and what the probabilities are.

"We" is academic, since I expect many centuries to go by before such
a program really gets anywhere with that. And, given how our manned
space program has floundered for the last forty years, I'm not optimistic
about interest being sustained that long.

> >
> > > > Surely you can find a more convincing demonstration of your
> > > > intelligence.
> > >
> > > Surely it is your business to air your viewpoints not mine. My best
> > > guess stays that there is one of those Flying Spaghetti Monsters
> > > involved. Show me mistaken.
> >
> > If that's your best guess, it sounds like you are a convinced atheist.
> > Are you?
>
> I am convinced. I also consider it *most* *risky* wishful thinking to
> hope that we are not totally on our own here.

You don't hold out any hopes for SETI then, I take it.

> I like fantasy regardless
> if it is fairy tale, religion or "science fiction". People with good
> fantasies are usually humorous as well. However when people start to
> take such fantasies as facts of reality then I'm worried.

By the way, is the character in your name Chinese?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:58:26 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:02:21 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:05:25 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> ><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:28 PM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
> >>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >
> >
> ><snip without further attribution polemics I don't reply to here>
> >
> >
> >>> What is scary here, if I, a mythologist can take the time, those
> >>> pontificating on it won't. & that's based on observation of their claims
> >>> & various tap dances.
> >>> But it doesn't matter. Abiogenists is fact. Once [aprx. 4 billion yrs.
> >>> ago] there was no life. Now there is. Hence, sometime in the past,
> >>> abiogenists occurred.
> >>
> >>Correction: there was no life ON EARTH. Now there is.
> >>
> >>I won't argue with your "Hence" as long as you add the
> >>capitalized qualifier. Without it, you have a *non sequitur*.
> >
> >
> >Incorrect.

Yes, I should have been harder on him, because he made the
wild assumption that the earth was the first place in the
universe where life appeared. This must have given great
encouragement to Bill.

> Even with directed panspermia, the assumption is that life
> >began sometime after the Universe began, therefore walksalone's
> >comment is accurate and relevant.

Do you disagree with what I wrote this time around? If not,
you have blundered.

> > Or do you assume otherwise, that
> >life always existed, even before the Universe began?

Hell, no.

> >>B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
> >>where the origin of life is concerned?
> >>
> >>REPLY: This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
> >>panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
> >>ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
> >>life ON EARTH.
> >
> >
> >Now that's a non sequitur. The default assumption is that abiogenesis
> >ON EARTH was independent of abiogenesis elsewhere. If one assumes
> >otherwise, that life ON EARTH originated somewhere else, then directed
> >panspermia says nothing useful about abiogenesis ON EARTH,

Substitution of "abiogenesis ON EARTH" for "origin of life ON EARTH"
noted. What this has to do with the re-substitution below is
unclear, to say the least.

> > and the
> >question does in fact get kicked down the road to the abiogenesis
> >elsewhere. Dismissing that question moots the entire concept of
> >directed panspermia wrt the origin of life ON EARTH.

There may be some logic in this last paragraph of yours, but it is so
obscure I won't try to divine it.

> >
> >>B2. Aren't origin-of-life experiments showing that life very likely
> >>began on earth?
> >>
> >>REPLY: The experiments have yet to produce even one of the four basic
> >>nucleotides of RNA under simulation of conditions on the early earth,
> >>after over six decades since the original Urey-Miller experiment. In
> >>fact one website that has been approvingly quoted by "evolutionists"
> >>in talk.origins has gone so far to say that scientists aren't trying
> >>to produce life from scratch in the laboratory, at all.
> >
> >
> >Questions about abiogenesis aren't limited to RNA synthesis, nor are
> >the answers to it limited to one website. In this topic, many items
> >were cited, including Wikipedia's article on abiogenesis, which
> >included 47 cites and identified numerous references to additional
> >items for further reading, and included specific references to Jack
> >Szostak's experiments.

All in the basement, or at best the ground floor of the skyscraper
of abiogenesis.

>
> No reply. No surprise.

Get over yourself. You aren't anywhere near as central to talk.origins
as Harshman, who has people like Simpson and Isaak and Norman (and, formerly,
Shrubber) enhancing his effectiveness. You'll just have to get used to having
a lower priority than they.

Now, if you were to really hit Harshman where it hurts, you'd get a
lot more timely attention from me. Are you still following the thread,
"Games Harshman Plays I: Snip-n-Domineer"? He's in trouble there,
although it takes a trained eye to see it.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 20:45:29 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:58:26 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:02:21 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:05:25 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> ><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:28 PM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
>> >>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> >
>> >
>> ><snip without further attribution polemics I don't reply to here>
>> >
>> >
>> >>> What is scary here, if I, a mythologist can take the time, those
>> >>> pontificating on it won't. & that's based on observation of their claims
>> >>> & various tap dances.
>> >>> But it doesn't matter. Abiogenists is fact. Once [aprx. 4 billion yrs.
>> >>> ago] there was no life. Now there is. Hence, sometime in the past,
>> >>> abiogenists occurred.
>> >>
>> >>Correction: there was no life ON EARTH. Now there is.
>> >>
>> >>I won't argue with your "Hence" as long as you add the
>> >>capitalized qualifier. Without it, you have a *non sequitur*.
>> >
>> >
>> >Incorrect.
>
>Yes, I should have been harder on him, because he made the
>wild assumption that the earth was the first place in the
>universe where life appeared. This must have given great
>encouragement to Bill.

I would be very surprised if Bill even noticed. More to the point,
it's reasonable to assume that, on the planets where life exists, it
arose independently on that planet.

>> >Even with directed panspermia, the assumption is that life
>> >began sometime after the Universe began, therefore walksalone's
>> >comment is accurate and relevant.
>
>Do you disagree with what I wrote this time around? If not,
>you have blundered.

I disagree with your assertion that walksalone's reply is a non
sequitur. Are you claiming lack of reading comprehension like your
buddy Steadly?

>> > Or do you assume otherwise, that
>> >life always existed, even before the Universe began?
>
>Hell, no.

Then logic demands that you recant your claim that walksalone's reply
is a non sequitur.

>> >>B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
>> >>where the origin of life is concerned?
>> >>
>> >>REPLY: This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
>> >>panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
>> >>ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
>> >>life ON EARTH.
>> >
>> >
>> >Now that's a non sequitur. The default assumption is that abiogenesis
>> >ON EARTH was independent of abiogenesis elsewhere. If one assumes
>> >otherwise, that life ON EARTH originated somewhere else, then directed
>> >panspermia says nothing useful about abiogenesis ON EARTH,
>
>Substitution of "abiogenesis ON EARTH" for "origin of life ON EARTH"
>noted. What this has to do with the re-substitution below is
>unclear, to say the least.

Explain what you think is the functional differences between
"abiogenesis on earth" and "origin of life on earth".

>> > and the
>> >question does in fact get kicked down the road to the abiogenesis
>> >elsewhere. Dismissing that question moots the entire concept of
>> >directed panspermia wrt the origin of life ON EARTH.
>
>There may be some logic in this last paragraph of yours, but it is so
>obscure I won't try to divine it.

Then I won't try to teach you.

>> >>B2. Aren't origin-of-life experiments showing that life very likely
>> >>began on earth?
>> >>
>> >>REPLY: The experiments have yet to produce even one of the four basic
>> >>nucleotides of RNA under simulation of conditions on the early earth,
>> >>after over six decades since the original Urey-Miller experiment. In
>> >>fact one website that has been approvingly quoted by "evolutionists"
>> >>in talk.origins has gone so far to say that scientists aren't trying
>> >>to produce life from scratch in the laboratory, at all.
>> >
>> >
>> >Questions about abiogenesis aren't limited to RNA synthesis, nor are
>> >the answers to it limited to one website. In this topic, many items
>> >were cited, including Wikipedia's article on abiogenesis, which
>> >included 47 cites and identified numerous references to additional
>> >items for further reading, and included specific references to Jack
>> >Szostak's experiments.
>
>All in the basement, or at best the ground floor of the skyscraper
>of abiogenesis.

You practice the Creationist art of asymmetric demand, where you
handwave away all evidence refuting your assertions, while you accept
without question vague and generalized possibilities from your favored
hypothesis.

>> No reply. No surprise.
>
>Get over yourself. You aren't anywhere near as central to talk.origins
>as Harshman, who has people like Simpson and Isaak and Norman (and, formerly,
>Shrubber) enhancing his effectiveness. You'll just have to get used to having
>a lower priority than they.
>
>Now, if you were to really hit Harshman where it hurts, you'd get a
>lot more timely attention from me. Are you still following the thread,
>"Games Harshman Plays I: Snip-n-Domineer"? He's in trouble there,
>although it takes a trained eye to see it.

My post is a direct reply to your post, and addressed every relevant
point you made. That I refuse to consider your crap elsethread alters
not the veracity of my reply. That you refuse to respond rationally
and honestly to my reply is evidence that you use directed panspermia
just to inject noise into topics and this newsgroup.

[Peter Nyikos]

The boycott continues. You, Sneaky, claim below to have provided specific "examples" of mine. But you continue a pattern you began well before that:
you give no clue as to what they were, nor where your initial reaction
to them can be found. All I can recall from you are reactions that fit the
description of essentially repeating (and, at least once, making even
more vehement) the trumped-up charge that I hate gays.

In reply to some of your other comments: you are, perhaps unwittingly,
a magnet for cyberbullies to whom gay-bashers are great sport. I've
seen how their kind operated against someone charged with being a
Holocaust denier: they never tried to argue with him, but only
flamed him. One of them even posted lots of urls, promising that
they linked to proofs of the charges; but the linked posts did
essentially nothing in that direction.

Potential cyberbully lurkers are why I usually don't explain what the
trumped-up charges are about at the tops of posts like the one to
which I am replying here. This may be the only exception so far.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 12:43:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 20:45:29 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:58:26 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:02:21 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:05:25 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> ><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >>On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:28 PM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
> >> >>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ><snip without further attribution polemics I don't reply to here>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> What is scary here, if I, a mythologist can take the time, those
> >> >>> pontificating on it won't. & that's based on observation of their claims
> >> >>> & various tap dances.
> >> >>> But it doesn't matter. Abiogenists is fact. Once [aprx. 4 billion yrs.
> >> >>> ago] there was no life. Now there is. Hence, sometime in the past,
> >> >>> abiogenists occurred.
> >> >>
> >> >>Correction: there was no life ON EARTH. Now there is.
> >> >>
> >> >>I won't argue with your "Hence" as long as you add the
> >> >>capitalized qualifier. Without it, you have a *non sequitur*.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Incorrect.
> >
> >Yes,

Some people can't take "Yes" for an answer. See below.

> > I should have been harder on him, because he made the
> >wild assumption that the earth was the first place in the
> >universe where life appeared. This must have given great
> >encouragement to Bill.
>
>
> I would be very surprised if Bill even noticed. More to the point,
> it's reasonable to assume that, on the planets where life exists, it
> arose independently on that planet.

It's also reasonable to assume the opposite. Besides directed panspermia,
you have to contend with such popular hypotheses as life arising
first on Mars and then being carried to earth by coments, or the
opposite scenario.

Do you wish to go out on a limb, and post an assumption that if we
find out that there is life on Mars, there will be enough evidence
to conclude that it arose independently?

> >> >Even with directed panspermia, the assumption is that life
> >> >began sometime after the Universe began, therefore walksalone's
> >> >comment is accurate and relevant.
> >
> >Do you disagree with what I wrote this time around? If not,
> >you have blundered.
>
>
> I disagree with your assertion that walksalone's reply is a non
> sequitur.

You are ducking the question, which refers to "this time around,"
not the earlier comment.

The question refers to your "walksalone's comment is accurate and relevant"
in the teeth of his comment,

Once [aprx. 4 billion yrs. ago] there was no life.

> Are you claiming lack of reading comprehension like your
> buddy Steadly?

I said "Yes" up there to your charge of "Incorrect". Be satisfied
with that.

> >> > Or do you assume otherwise, that
> >> >life always existed, even before the Universe began?
> >
> >Hell, no.
>
>
> Then logic demands that you recant your claim that walksalone's reply
> is a non sequitur.

Done with "Yes." And you ducked my question.

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 12:43:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 20:45:29 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:58:26 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:02:21 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:05:25 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
> >> ><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Picking up where I left off in my first reply:

> >> >>B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
> >> >>where the origin of life is concerned?
> >> >>
> >> >>REPLY: This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
> >> >>panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
> >> >>ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
> >> >>life ON EARTH.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Now that's a non sequitur. The default assumption is that abiogenesis
> >> >ON EARTH was independent of abiogenesis elsewhere. If one assumes
> >> >otherwise, that life ON EARTH originated somewhere else, then directed
> >> >panspermia says nothing useful about abiogenesis ON EARTH,
> >
> >Substitution of "abiogenesis ON EARTH" for "origin of life ON EARTH"
> >noted. What this has to do with the re-substitution below is
> >unclear, to say the least.

>
> Explain what you think is the functional differences between
> "abiogenesis on earth" and "origin of life on earth".

Do you have a visceral dislike of directed panspermia? If so,
take note how a comet bringing life to earth from Mars could
have been the origin of life on earth.

> >> > and the
> >> >question does in fact get kicked down the road to the abiogenesis
> >> >elsewhere. Dismissing that question moots the entire concept of
> >> >directed panspermia wrt the origin of life ON EARTH.
> >
> >There may be some logic in this last paragraph of yours, but it is so
> >obscure I won't try to divine it.
>
>
> Then I won't try to teach you.

Good, because your incomprehension of the difference between
"abiogenesis on earth" and "origin of life on earth" shows that
you believe the two things to be synonymous, and so you wasted
time on bafflegab instead of saying something like,

Since "origin of life on earth" has to refer to
abiogenesis on earth, your answer to B1 makes no sense.

Then I wouldn't have had to waste time parsing your bafflegab.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting mode on

But bafflegab is what you do. You can't help yourself.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ jillery posting mode off

>
>
> >> >>B2. Aren't origin-of-life experiments showing that life very likely
> >> >>began on earth?
> >> >>
> >> >>REPLY: The experiments have yet to produce even one of the four basic
> >> >>nucleotides of RNA under simulation of conditions on the early earth,
> >> >>after over six decades since the original Urey-Miller experiment. In
> >> >>fact one website that has been approvingly quoted by "evolutionists"
> >> >>in talk.origins has gone so far to say that scientists aren't trying
> >> >>to produce life from scratch in the laboratory, at all.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Questions about abiogenesis aren't limited to RNA synthesis, nor are
> >> >the answers to it limited to one website. In this topic, many items
> >> >were cited, including Wikipedia's article on abiogenesis, which
> >> >included 47 cites and identified numerous references to additional
> >> >items for further reading, and included specific references to Jack
> >> >Szostak's experiments.
> >
> >All in the basement, or at best the ground floor of the skyscraper
> >of abiogenesis.
>
>
> You practice the Creationist art of asymmetric demand, where you
> handwave away all evidence refuting your assertions,

What makes you think any of what you wrote refuted anything
I wrote in B2? Is this going to devolve into a play on words
like your treatment of B1 did?

> while you accept
> without question vague and generalized possibilities from your favored
> hypothesis.

An allegation without any perceptible referent.

> >> No reply. No surprise.
> >
> >Get over yourself. You aren't anywhere near as central to talk.origins
> >as Harshman, who has people like Simpson and Isaak and Norman (and, formerly,
> >Shrubber) enhancing his effectiveness. You'll just have to get used to having\

> >a lower priority than they.
> >
> >Now, if you were to really hit Harshman where it hurts, you'd get a
> >lot more timely attention from me. Are you still following the thread,
> >"Games Harshman Plays I: Snip-n-Domineer"? He's in trouble there,
> >although it takes a trained eye to see it.
>
>
> My post is a direct reply to your post, and addressed every relevant
> point you made. That I refuse to consider your crap elsethread alters
> not the veracity of my reply. That you refuse to respond rationally
> and honestly to my reply is evidence that you use directed panspermia
> just to inject noise into topics and this newsgroup.

And now we know just WHY you think it is noise: you think the
answer to B1 was self-contradictory, and so of course the whole FAQ
must be pure noise in The World According to Jillery.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS This will probably be the last time before my annual posting
break that I have time to spend on your shenanigans. So go ahead
and post whatever bafflegab and plays on words you want -- you
can bask in it for at least a month.

In fact, you might want to print it out, roll up the printout, and
use it as a suppository.

That last bit was inspired by the way PZM accused us all of
being prudish. I "defended" you up to a point. But you took it
the rest of the way, suggesting that I was a "bluenose wannabe". Well,
now you can see how a "bluenose wannabe" gets messages across
without being gratuitously foul-mouthed.

[solar penguin]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 3:18:07 AM UTC, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>
> But what makes Sneaky's trumped-up charges so dangerous is that they
> accuse me of hating gays, and I cannot prove a negative -- I cannot
> prove that I have never posted anything derogatory about gays in
> general for the simple reason that even if I were to repost every
> single thing I have ever posted on the internet, someone could claim
> that I cannot be trusted to have posted them all.
>

You mean you're _not_ the same Peter Nyikos who posted those derogatory comments
that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it cheapens and weakens the
status of marriage as a speshul privilege for heterosexuals only?

It must be very annoying having someone else with the same name, email address
and ISP posting to the same group as you...

[Öö Tiib]

There has to be device that is capable of traveling and keeping itself and
its cargo in good condition for thousands of years in interstellar space
for such seeding project. Closed and self-sustaining for millennia.
If we can really make such things within few decades then it is perhaps
good time to start mining Saturn rings for building materials. ;)

>
> I've posted reams on this, and will be reposting the huge FAQ I have
> posted in the past, slightly updated, some time next year. And then,
> once the criticism is pretty much addressed, I will submit it to the
> talk.origins FAQ archive, as long as I am reassured that I have
> copyright privileges. Whether that will put an end to the ridicule
> is anybody's guess.

It won't put end to it. If you are really afraid of being ridiculed then
internet forums are wrong place to be. What is interesting is hard to
avoid trying or talking about. Who does anything will inevitably
consider something wrongly and so fail in something. Who fails in
something will be ridiculed by some smart alecky. Who does nothing
will lose the opportunity. Such a choice of poisons.

>
> But can you imagine the ridicule to which I'd be subjected if I dared
> to suggest that an advanced civilization established a colony on
> earth 550-530 mya and engineered the Cambrian explosion from
> protist beginnings?

It must be that the Earth was rather unsuitable (bordering on useless)
for them? Why else to mess with local "little wormy things"? It sounds
more likely that life started to produce enough carbon dioxide by
start of Cambrian, Earth became warmer and more fertile,
supercontinent Pannotia was split and those events did result with
bigger and more separated populations and bigger diversity.

>
> By the way, which effects were *you* thinking of?

I was thinking that almost anything may be doable with help of
advanced enough technologies. Some sound just silly like fruits
that improve mental capabilities or speaking serpents, others
sound also extremely expensive like global floods but all is
likely doable.

>
> > Why I consider it silly is the alleged waste
> > of time, energy and efforts to achieve such questionable effects. I like
> > fiction so why don't they try to write better and more believable
> > books?
>
> Who are the "they" you are thinking of?

People who are backwards. They rarely take the religious scriptures they
have read literally as whole. Something they agree is just allegory but
something they took literally and if that part contradicts with science
then they oppose science, suspect global conspiracies and the like.
However they distance themselves also from attempts to describe what
they think that really happened. Ray Martinez may promise in words
to write a book but he never does.

>
> > >
> > > > > So, if I'm skeptical of claimed knowledge of abiogenesis, it
> > > > > must be because I have some religious alternative?
> > > >
> > > > Either that or epistemological nihilism. I do not understand that
> > > > philosophy either. For me improving our knowledge is always possible.
> > >
> > > But the actual knowledge of abiogenesis is so minuscule that one
> > > can stay in suspended judgment about whether it actually happened
> > > naturalistically. You do know what the word "agnostic" means, don't you?
> >
> > I am myself quite agnostic about abiogenesis on earth. My position is
> > that we don't know if and how it actually happened, and we likely never
> > find it out. Research of abiogenesis is still worth all the money and
> > effort since we may find out the space of conditions where it may
> > happen and what the probabilities are.
>
> "We" is academic, since I expect many centuries to go by before such
> a program really gets anywhere with that. And, given how our manned
> space program has floundered for the last forty years, I'm not optimistic
> about interest being sustained that long.

What is needed and sufficient for self-repairing and self-reproducing?
It is easy to see economic impact of such research, it is also easy to see
risks if such things are made (or modified) carelessly. Current biotechnology
is sometimes applied without deeper understanding of consequences.
It is likely very important to improve our knowledge regardless if we
find out how abiogenesis of such systems can happen or not.

>
> > >
> > > > > Surely you can find a more convincing demonstration of your
> > > > > intelligence.
> > > >
> > > > Surely it is your business to air your viewpoints not mine. My best
> > > > guess stays that there is one of those Flying Spaghetti Monsters
> > > > involved. Show me mistaken.
> > >
> > > If that's your best guess, it sounds like you are a convinced atheist.
> > > Are you?
> >
> > I am convinced. I also consider it *most* *risky* wishful thinking to
> > hope that we are not totally on our own here.
>
> You don't hold out any hopes for SETI then, I take it.

My hopes are indeed very low to find any intelligence with SETI but
SETI is still worth of investments. It can never hurt to look around. :)
Lot of discoveries are made while looking for something else entirely.

>
> > I like fantasy regardless
> > if it is fairy tale, religion or "science fiction". People with good
> > fantasies are usually humorous as well. However when people start to
> > take such fantasies as facts of reality then I'm worried.
>
> By the way, is the character in your name Chinese?

No, when I type it then it is not single character. There are two letters. Latin
capital O with diaeresis "Ö" and latin small letter o with diaeresis "ö". The
combination "Öö" will however often be turned into Chinese character,
zhǔ of Pīnyīn "嘱" by news readers or servers on the way.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:37ddc3dd-3c3d-4265...@googlegroups.com:

> The boycott continues. You, Sneaky, claim below to have provided
> specific "examples" of mine. But you continue a pattern you began well
> before that: you give no clue as to what they were, nor where your
> initial reaction to them can be found. All I can recall from you are
> reactions that fit the description of essentially repeating (and, at
> least once, making even more vehement) the trumped-up charge that I
> hate gays.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/bypd3hSHoFk/TPHBnhvz1YoJ

Here's the text:
---------------
Peter Nyikos has asked me to post some evidence of his bigotry.

Let's take a look at Peter's allusions to Gay Power propaganda.

Peter Nyikos claims that Mark Isaak is one of the 'propagandists for Gay
Power'. From the thread 'Kenneth Miller Laetare Address':

It is the propagandists for Gay Power, like Mark Isaak, who have
their own private definition [of homophobia], which they are
foisting on the world ("today, the blue states; tomorrow, the USA;
next week, the world") by promoting the USAGE that Mark Isaak is
promoting below without ever spelling out a definition.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/XBtzf2VIhMs/NC1ygpGHKIMJ

Peter believes, or affects to believe, that there is a Gay Power
movement that seeks to dominate the world. According to him, this
movement was responsible for New Zealand's approval of gay marriage:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/XBtzf2VIhMs/kGw60wgn1F4J

In fact, he says they 'drove' the entire nation 'into going along with'
their agenda:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/M9ejHUVSdL8/shO4cshGl_gJ

On 12 June 2014, I advised Peter to feel free to post any evidence he
might have that 'Gay Power' is 'the moving force behind a campaign about
which the general public is poorly informed ...'

To date, he has posted no evidence. I advance the hypothesis that there
is no evidence to post.
---------------

Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you honestly forgot
that I posted that six months ago. Are you now willing to retract the
false claim that I've never identified any specific posting of yours
that could have led me to think you hate gays?
--
S.O.P.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:54:02 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 12:43:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 20:45:29 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:58:26 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 12:02:21 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:05:25 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos
>> >> ><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >>On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 8:08:28 PM UTC-5, walksalone wrote:
>> >> >>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> ><snip without further attribution polemics I don't reply to here>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>> What is scary here, if I, a mythologist can take the time, those
>> >> >>> pontificating on it won't. & that's based on observation of their claims
>> >> >>> & various tap dances.
>> >> >>> But it doesn't matter. Abiogenists is fact. Once [aprx. 4 billion yrs.
>> >> >>> ago] there was no life. Now there is. Hence, sometime in the past,
>> >> >>> abiogenists occurred.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Correction: there was no life ON EARTH. Now there is.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I won't argue with your "Hence" as long as you add the
>> >> >>capitalized qualifier. Without it, you have a *non sequitur*.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Incorrect.
>> >
>> >Yes,
>
>Some people can't take "Yes" for an answer. See below.

You're not agreeing with me here.

>> > I should have been harder on him, because he made the
>> >wild assumption that the earth was the first place in the
>> >universe where life appeared. This must have given great
>> >encouragement to Bill.
>>
>>
>> I would be very surprised if Bill even noticed. More to the point,
>> it's reasonable to assume that, on the planets where life exists, it
>> arose independently on that planet.
>
>It's also reasonable to assume the opposite. Besides directed panspermia,
>you have to contend with such popular hypotheses as life arising
>first on Mars and then being carried to earth by coments, or the
>opposite scenario.

You have in the past made much effort to distinguish panspermia from
DP. So one can only wonder why you conflate them here and now.

Your argument for DP is that other stellar systems existed long before
ours, giving possible life there a head start. But that argument
doesn't apply within our solar system, because the planets all formed
essentially at the same time.

Another problem is that you claim abiogenesis is highly unlikely.
Unless you have some specific reason to think that abiogenesis on Mars
is more likely than abiogenesis on Earth, speculating that Mars seeded
life on Earth is pointless. Figuring out how life originated on Mars
is even harder than figuring out how life originated on Earth.

Again, panspermia doesn't help your case. So, your bald assertions
notwithstanding, it's reasonable to assume that life on Earth
originate on Earth, and your claim that walksalone's reply is a non
sequitur is a blatant misrepresentation.

>> >> >Even with directed panspermia, the assumption is that life
>> >> >began sometime after the Universe began, therefore walksalone's
>> >> >comment is accurate and relevant.
>> >
>> >Do you disagree with what I wrote this time around? If not,
>> >you have blundered.
>>
>>
>> I disagree with your assertion that walksalone's reply is a non
>> sequitur.
>
>You are ducking the question,

No I'm not. Since extracting a coherent question out of you is more
trouble than it's worth, I simply made explicit what I answered. Don't
like the answer? Then ask an intelligent question.

> which refers to "this time around,"
>not the earlier comment.
>
>The question refers to your "walksalone's comment is accurate and relevant"
>in the teeth of his comment,
>
> Once [aprx. 4 billion yrs. ago] there was no life.

On what basis do you claim that the above statement is not accurate
and/or relevant?

>> Are you claiming lack of reading comprehension like your
>> buddy Steadly?
>
>I said "Yes" up there to your charge of "Incorrect". Be satisfied
>with that.

Yes, I remain unsatisfied with that. See? Your word games cut both
ways.

>> >> > Or do you assume otherwise, that
>> >> >life always existed, even before the Universe began?
>> >
>> >Hell, no.
>>
>>
>> Then logic demands that you recant your claim that walksalone's reply
>> is a non sequitur.
>
>Done with "Yes." And you ducked my question.

As I demonstrated, you have no reasonable basis for either assertion
above.

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 11:15:00 -0800 (PST), Peter Nyikos

I note your failure to explain any distinction you think exists. From
this, I conclude you have no explanation, and you're just objecting to
make noise.

In fact, I made no substitution. Abiogenesis ON EARTH is one of
several possible explanations for the origin of life ON EARTH. Your
preferred hypothesis is DP. Panspermia is another possibility.
Abiogenesis ON EARTH is the preferred hypothesis, because it leads to
questions whose answers can be found ON EARTH. Assuming DP or
panspermia leads to questions that can't be answered at this time.

My point stands. Unless there's some evidence for DP or panspermia,
they say nothing useful about how life started ON EARTH. You might as
well say Goddidit.

>> >> >>B2. Aren't origin-of-life experiments showing that life very likely
>> >> >>began on earth?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>REPLY: The experiments have yet to produce even one of the four basic
>> >> >>nucleotides of RNA under simulation of conditions on the early earth,
>> >> >>after over six decades since the original Urey-Miller experiment. In
>> >> >>fact one website that has been approvingly quoted by "evolutionists"
>> >> >>in talk.origins has gone so far to say that scientists aren't trying
>> >> >>to produce life from scratch in the laboratory, at all.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Questions about abiogenesis aren't limited to RNA synthesis, nor are
>> >> >the answers to it limited to one website. In this topic, many items
>> >> >were cited, including Wikipedia's article on abiogenesis, which
>> >> >included 47 cites and identified numerous references to additional
>> >> >items for further reading, and included specific references to Jack
>> >> >Szostak's experiments.
>> >
>> >All in the basement, or at best the ground floor of the skyscraper
>> >of abiogenesis.
>>
>>
>> You practice the Creationist art of asymmetric demand, where you
>> handwave away all evidence refuting your assertions,
>
>What makes you think any of what you wrote refuted anything
>I wrote in B2?

What are the points in B2? That experiments haven't produced RNA
nucleotides, and a website allegedly quoted by "evolutionists" says
scientists aren't trying to reproduce life from scratch.

What are my responses? That questions about first life aren't limited
to RNA, and the answers to abiogenesis aren't limited to a single
website, followed by references to many sources for answers.

Are you really so stupid you can't comprehend two simple paragraphs?

>Is this going to devolve into a play on words
>like your treatment of B1 did?

Word games are what you do. You can't help yourself.

>> while you accept
>> without question vague and generalized possibilities from your favored
>> hypothesis.
>
>An allegation without any perceptible referent.

The role of village idiot is already taken by your buddy Steadly. Or
do you really not remember I'm talking about DP?

>> >> No reply. No surprise.
>> >
>> >Get over yourself. You aren't anywhere near as central to talk.origins
>> >as Harshman, who has people like Simpson and Isaak and Norman (and, formerly,
>> >Shrubber) enhancing his effectiveness. You'll just have to get used to having\
>
>> >a lower priority than they.
>> >
>> >Now, if you were to really hit Harshman where it hurts, you'd get a
>> >lot more timely attention from me. Are you still following the thread,
>> >"Games Harshman Plays I: Snip-n-Domineer"? He's in trouble there,
>> >although it takes a trained eye to see it.
>>
>>
>> My post is a direct reply to your post, and addressed every relevant
>> point you made. That I refuse to consider your crap elsethread alters
>> not the veracity of my reply. That you refuse to respond rationally
>> and honestly to my reply is evidence that you use directed panspermia
>> just to inject noise into topics and this newsgroup.
>
>And now we know just WHY you think it is noise: you think the
>answer to B1 was self-contradictory,

I don't think your answer was self-contradictory, it's just pointless
nonsense, like the rest of your FAQ.

>and so of course the whole FAQ
>must be pure noise in The World According to Jillery.

Apparently it's not just me who thinks so.

>PS This will probably be the last time before my annual posting
>break that I have time to spend on your shenanigans. So go ahead
>and post whatever bafflegab and plays on words you want -- you
>can bask in it for at least a month.

I've waited several months for you to give your trademark
noise-filled, self-serving non-answers. I say with certainty one
month will go by all too quickly.

>In fact, you might want to print it out, roll up the printout, and
>use it as a suppository.

That's the kind of answer I expect from a puckered sphincter.

>That last bit was inspired by the way PZM accused us all of
>being prudish. I "defended" you up to a point.

You did nothing that could reasonably be called defending me.

>But you took it
>the rest of the way, suggesting that I was a "bluenose wannabe". Well,
>now you can see how a "bluenose wannabe" gets messages across
>without being gratuitously foul-mouthed.

To the contrary, your comments are at least as dirty-minded as
anything you accuse me of. Of course you don't see it that way,
because you don't apply your rules to yourself.