info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The complexity of the initial Enzymatic and Metabolic network of the first living cells ( progenote/LUCA ) demonstrates the requirent of a intelligent , powerful Creator
160 views
Skip to first unread message
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2016, 3:33:10 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The complexity of the initial Enzymatic and Metabolic network of the first living cells ( progenote/LUCA ) demonstrates the requirent of a intelligent , powerful Creator
Following shows the minimal metabolic network that was required in the first supposed last universal common ancestor. Consider that this extremely complex network could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends that this very own metabolic network was fully operational, beside dna replication, on which evolution depends.
So the only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039912#pone.0039912-Srinivasan1
We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
Following shows the minimal metabolic network that was required in the first supposed last universal common ancestor. Consider that this extremely complex network could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends that this very own metabolic network was fully operational, beside dna replication, on which evolution depends.
So the only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039912#pone.0039912-Srinivasan1
We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
Bill Rogers
Jul 21, 2016, 4:38:10 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You complained that this was a straw man version of your argument. I challenged you to prove that it really was a straw man version, by laying out an argument to show that, for example, the genetic code must have been designed, without relying on the claim that it could not have been produced by evolution (or natural laws, or naturalistic means, or whatever phrase you like). You never produced such an argument.
Now you are back and arguing that "Consider that this extremely complex network could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends that this very own metabolic network was fully operational, beside dna replication, on which evolution depends."
In short, your claim is that the original protogenote is too complex to have been produced by evolution. I guess my summary of your past arguments was not really a straw man at all.
If you have an argument for design supported by positive evidence for a designer, rather than the claim that evolution couldn't do it, please go ahead and make it.
Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2016, 5:13:10 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
Jimbo
Jul 21, 2016, 5:43:09 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
including all intelligent designers, must themselves have been
designed.
>Thats not a entirely negative premise.
But unless you can explain how intelligence itself can exist without
>Thats not a entirely negative premise.
being organized and complex, it is a self-contradictory premise.
Bill Rogers
Jul 21, 2016, 5:58:09 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 5:13:10 PM UTC-4, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
>
> Yawn.
Yes, we know that science bores you. Still, if you want to argue effectively against a position, it's worth the effort to understand the position you disagree with in some detail.
> > Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
>
> Yawn.
>
> We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
>
> Thats not a entirely negative premise.
Your argument assumes that the analogy between electrical circuits and metabolic networks is close enough to infer the existence of a designer for metabolic networks, even in the complete absence of independent evidence that such a designer exists.
And your claim about electrical circuits is itself a lucky accident, since there are in fact evolutionary algorithms (involving "lucky accidents") that have been used to produce functional electrical circuits. It's random mutation and selection translated into electrical engineering, and it, in fact, works, in spite of requiring "lucky accidents."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.109.6208&rep=rep1&type=pdf
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2016, 6:18:10 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
and that evolution therefore could not produce the metabolic accident.
There was no evolution prior life began. The first set of metabolic circuits could not emerge through evolution.
Ernest Major
Jul 21, 2016, 6:28:10 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 21/07/2016 20:28, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> The complexity of the initial Enzymatic and Metabolic network of the first living cells ( progenote/LUCA ) demonstrates the requirent of a intelligent , powerful Creator
Please explain how you know
> The complexity of the initial Enzymatic and Metabolic network of the first living cells ( progenote/LUCA ) demonstrates the requirent of a intelligent , powerful Creator
1) that the LUCA is the same as the progenote and is among the first
living cells?
2) what the enzymatic and metabolic networks of the LUCA were?
3) what the enzymatic and metabolic networks of the progenote wer?
Also by referring to the progenote and LUCA you are tacitly conceding
evolution. Was that intentional? I.e. are you a deistic evolutionist?
>
> Following shows the minimal metabolic network that was required in the first supposed last universal common ancestor. Consider that this extremely complex network could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends that this very own metabolic network was fully operational, beside dna replication, on which evolution depends.
> So the only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
>
>
> The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039912#pone.0039912-Srinivasan1
>
> We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
>
--
> Following shows the minimal metabolic network that was required in the first supposed last universal common ancestor. Consider that this extremely complex network could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends that this very own metabolic network was fully operational, beside dna replication, on which evolution depends.
> So the only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
>
>
> The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039912#pone.0039912-Srinivasan1
>
> We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
>
alias Ernest Major
Jimbo
Jul 21, 2016, 6:28:10 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
produced by random mutation and unintelligent selection. Here are
links to three videos describing Jack Szostak's abiogenesis research.
These videos demonstrate that protocells can form, reproduce and
non-enzymatically create and transmit genetic information to daughter
cells - even before the emergence of natural selection:
The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
Proto-cell Membranes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA&list=PLIotpBG-g_3kU_e0MH6Z6hXJOpD1lzvGr
Non-enzymatic Copying of Nucleic Acids:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU&list=PLIotpBG-g_3kU_e0MH6Z6hXJOpD1lzvGr&index=3
grassoempreen...@gmail.co has previously refused to look at these
videos, or at least to acknowledge that such research exists.
RonO
Jul 21, 2016, 6:28:10 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
intelligent design was required? Give your evidence and compare it to
the evidence that you don't like.
It would be nice to see your alternative, but when will that ever happen?
Ron Okimoto
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2016, 6:58:10 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The irreducible, code-instructed process to make cell factories and machines points to intelligent design
To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis
Evolution has been a central point of the origins debate. Abiogenesis however provides far better elucidation of what mechanisms explain the origin of biological systems better: A intelligent designer, through power, information input, wisdom, will, or natural, non-guided, non-intelligent mechanisms, that is : random chance or physical necessity, long periods of time, mutation and natural selection, or self organisation of matter.
Behes definition of Irreducible complexity can be expanded, and applied not only to biological systems, but also to systems , machines and factories created by man, that require a minimal number of parts to exercise a specific function, and this minimal number of parts cannot be reduced to keep the basic function. The term applies as well to processes, production methods and proceedings of various sorts. To reach a certain goal, a minimal number of manufacturing steps must be gone through. That applies in special to processes in living cells, where a minimal set of basic processes must be fully functional and operational, in order to maintain cells alive.
Following irreducible processes and parts are required to keep cells alive, and illustrate mount improbable to get life a first go:
Reproduction. Reproduction is essential for the survival of all living things.
Metabolism. Enzymatic activity allows a cell to respond to changing environmental demands and regulate its metabolic pathways, both of which are essential to cell survival.
Nutrition. This is closely related to metabolism. Seal up a living organism in a box for long enough and in due course it will cease to function and eventually die. Nutrients are essential for life.
Complexity. All known forms of life are amazingly complex. Even single-celled organisms such as bacteria are veritable beehives of activity involving millions of components.
Organization. Maybe it is not complexity per se that is significant, but organized complexity.
Growth and development. Individual organisms grow and ecosystems tend to spread (if conditions are right).
Information content. In recent years scientists have stressed the analogy between living organisms and computers. Crucially, the information needed to replicate an organism is passed on in the genes from parent to offspring.
Hardware/software entanglement. All life of the sort found on Earth stems from a deal struck between two very different classes of molecules: nucleic acids and proteins.
Permanence and change. A further paradox of life concerns the strange conjunction of permanence and change.
Sensitivity. All organisms respond to stimuli— though not always to the same stimuli in the same ways.
Regulation. All organisms have regulatory mechanisms that coordinate internal processes.
chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,"
Following is the description of parts and processes in a theoretical protocell, which are essential and irreducible:
What Might Be a Protocell’s minimal requirement of parts ?
1. The Cell membrane
2. DNA repair mechanisms
3. Plasma membrane gates
4. The Cytoplasm
5. Proteins of the Krebs cycle for ATP synthesis
6. Left handed Amino Acids
7. Membrane-enclosed vesicles
8. Internal membranes
9. The Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER)
10. The Golgi apparatus
11. Ribosomes
12. tRNA
13. right handed DNA
14. Signal-Recognition Particles (SRP)
15. Kinesin Motors
16. Microtubules
17. Lysosomes
18. A complete transcriptional machinery
19. Protein-processing, -folding, secretion, and degradation functions and two proteases.
20. FtsZ
21. Cation, ABC transporters, a PTS for glucose transport, phosphate transporters
22. Glycolytic substrate-level phosphorylation
23. Ribulose-phosphate epimerase, Ribosephosphate isomerase, and Transketolase
24. Dihydroxyacetone phosphate
25. ATP synthase and a proton gradient for ATP synthesis
The Cell membrane separates the interior of all cells from the outside environment. Thats the exterior factory wall that protects the factory.
The Nucleus ( only in eukaryotic cells ) is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). It controls all cell activity; determines what proteins will be made and controls all cell activity.
DNA repair mechanisms Proofreading enzymes’ to prevent the occurrence of slight changes in sequence when DNA replicates.
Plasma membrane gates Control of Input Flow, Functions of Material Identification and Material Extraction. Regulate what enters and leaves the cell; where cells makes contact with the external environment. That's the Shipping/Receiving Department. It functions also as the communications department because it is where the cell contacts the external environment.
The Cytoplasm includes everything between the cell membrane and the nucleus. It contains various kinds of cell structures and is the site of most cell activity. The cytoplasm is similar to the factory floor where most of the products are assembled, finished, and shipped.
Mitochondria/chloroplasts: Function of Energy Generation /The power plant. Transforms one form of energy into another
Mitochondrial membranes keep protein assembly lines together for efficient energy production.
Membrane-enclosed vesicles form packages for cargo so that they may quickly and efficiently reach their destinations.
Internal membranes divide the cell into specialized compartments, each carrying out a specific function inside the cell. That are the compartments in a manufacturing facility.
The Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) is the compartment where the Assembly lines reside. (where workers do their work)
The Golgi apparatus: What happens to all the products that are built on the assembly line of a factory? The final touches are put on them in the finishing and packing department. Workers in this part of the plant are responsible for making minor adjustments to the finished products.
Ribosomes build the proteins , equal to the Workers in the assembly line.
Signal-Recognition Particles (SRP) and signal receptors provide variety of instructions informing the cell as to what destination and pathway the protein must follow. Thats the address on the parcel where it has to be delivered.
Kinesin Motors: Are the cargo carriers in the cell. That are the forklift carriers in a factory.
Microtubules: They provide platforms for intracellular transport , amongst other things. That are the internal factory highways.
Lysosomes: are capable of breaking down virtually all kinds of biomolecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and cellular debris. Thats the maintainance crew. It gets rid of the trash, and to dismantle and dispose of the outmoded machinery.
A complete transcriptional machinery. including the three subunits of the RNA polymerase, a factor, an RNA helicase, and four transcriptional factors (with elongation, antitermination, and transcription-translation coupling functions)
Protein-processing, -folding, secretion, and degradation functions. GroEL/S and DnaK/DnaJ/GrpE, the signal recognition particle, its receptor, the three essential components of the translocase channel, and a signal peptidase, one endopeptidase, and two proteases.
FtsZ , essential for Cell division
Cation, ABC transporters, a PTS for glucose transport, phosphate transporters. Substrate transport machinery
Glycolytic substrate-level phosphorylation. Required for ATP synthesis
Ribulose-phosphate epimerase, Ribosephosphate isomerase, and Transketolase, allowing the synthesis of pentoses (PRPP) from trioses or hexoses.
Dihydroxyacetone phosphate required for Lipid biosynthesis through phosphatidylethanolamine
This should make it evident that a theoretical natural, non-intelligence requiring transition from a supposed RNA World to a DNA world, to a fully working living cell, even the most simple , is unlikely to the extreme. It reinforces what Urey and many other scientists, origin of life researchers said : Abiogenesis is impossible.
Harold Urey, a founder of origin-of-life research, describes evolution as a faith which seems to defy logic:
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.
Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:
Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1O^40000 to 1. There are indeed a lot of stars—at least ten billion billion in the observable universe. But this number, gigantic as it may appear to us, is nevertheless trivially small compared with the gigantic odds against the random assembly of even a single protein molecule. Though the universe is big, if life formed solely by random agitation in a molecular junkyard, there is scant chance it has happened twice.
1. High instructional coded complex information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of intervention of a (past) intelligent powerful agent.
2. Cells require high genetic and epigenetic information content (or specified complexity) and utilize systems and subsystems that cannot be reduced.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Jimbo
Jul 21, 2016, 7:23:10 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:57:47 -0700 (PDT),
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip claims that protocells can't exist.>
You've been directed repeatedly to research demonstrating conclusively
that protocells can exist and that, in fact, they form spontaneously
under the right conditions. Here again are the links that you snipped.
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip claims that protocells can't exist.>
You've been directed repeatedly to research demonstrating conclusively
that protocells can exist and that, in fact, they form spontaneously
under the right conditions. Here again are the links that you snipped.
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 21, 2016, 9:53:09 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bill Rogers
Jul 21, 2016, 11:43:11 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 6:58:10 PM UTC-4, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> The irreducible, code-instructed process to make cell factories and machines points to intelligent design
>
> To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis
>
>
>
> Evolution has been a central point of the origins debate. Abiogenesis however provides far better elucidation of what mechanisms explain the origin of biological systems better: A intelligent designer, through power, information input, wisdom, will, or natural, non-guided, non-intelligent mechanisms, that is : random chance or physical necessity, long periods of time, mutation and natural selection, or self organisation of matter.
>
> Behes definition of Irreducible complexity can be expanded, and applied not only to biological systems, but also to systems , machines and factories created by man, that require a minimal number of parts to exercise a specific function, and this minimal number of parts cannot be reduced to keep the basic function. The term applies as well to processes, production methods and proceedings of various sorts. To reach a certain goal, a minimal number of manufacturing steps must be gone through. That applies in special to processes in living cells, where a minimal set of basic processes must be fully functional and operational, in order to maintain cells alive.
>
> Following irreducible processes and parts are required to keep cells alive, and illustrate mount improbable to get life a first go:
> Reproduction. Reproduction is essential for the survival of all living things.
> Metabolism. Enzymatic activity allows a cell to respond to changing environmental demands and regulate its metabolic pathways, both of which are essential to cell survival.
> Nutrition. This is closely related to metabolism. Seal up a living organism in a box for long enough and in due course it will cease to function and eventually die. Nutrients are essential for life.
> Complexity. All known forms of life are amazingly complex. Even single-celled organisms such as bacteria are veritable beehives of activity involving millions of components.
> Organization. Maybe it is not complexity per se that is significant, but organized complexity.
> Growth and development. Individual organisms grow and ecosystems tend to spread (if conditions are right).
> Information content. In recent years scientists have stressed the analogy between living organisms and computers. Crucially, the information needed to replicate an organism is passed on in the genes from parent to offspring.
> Hardware/software entanglement. All life of the sort found on Earth stems from a deal struck between two very different classes of molecules: nucleic acids and proteins.
> Permanence and change. A further paradox of life concerns the strange conjunction of permanence and change.
> Sensitivity. All organisms respond to stimuli— though not always to the same stimuli in the same ways.
> Regulation. All organisms have regulatory mechanisms that coordinate internal processes.
>
> chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
> A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,"
>
> Following is the description of parts and processes in a theoretical protocell, which are essential and irreducible:
>
> What Might Be a Protocell’s minimal requirement of parts ?
OK, let's take a look at these minimal requirements.
> The irreducible, code-instructed process to make cell factories and machines points to intelligent design
>
> To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis
>
>
>
> Evolution has been a central point of the origins debate. Abiogenesis however provides far better elucidation of what mechanisms explain the origin of biological systems better: A intelligent designer, through power, information input, wisdom, will, or natural, non-guided, non-intelligent mechanisms, that is : random chance or physical necessity, long periods of time, mutation and natural selection, or self organisation of matter.
>
> Behes definition of Irreducible complexity can be expanded, and applied not only to biological systems, but also to systems , machines and factories created by man, that require a minimal number of parts to exercise a specific function, and this minimal number of parts cannot be reduced to keep the basic function. The term applies as well to processes, production methods and proceedings of various sorts. To reach a certain goal, a minimal number of manufacturing steps must be gone through. That applies in special to processes in living cells, where a minimal set of basic processes must be fully functional and operational, in order to maintain cells alive.
>
> Following irreducible processes and parts are required to keep cells alive, and illustrate mount improbable to get life a first go:
> Reproduction. Reproduction is essential for the survival of all living things.
> Metabolism. Enzymatic activity allows a cell to respond to changing environmental demands and regulate its metabolic pathways, both of which are essential to cell survival.
> Nutrition. This is closely related to metabolism. Seal up a living organism in a box for long enough and in due course it will cease to function and eventually die. Nutrients are essential for life.
> Complexity. All known forms of life are amazingly complex. Even single-celled organisms such as bacteria are veritable beehives of activity involving millions of components.
> Organization. Maybe it is not complexity per se that is significant, but organized complexity.
> Growth and development. Individual organisms grow and ecosystems tend to spread (if conditions are right).
> Information content. In recent years scientists have stressed the analogy between living organisms and computers. Crucially, the information needed to replicate an organism is passed on in the genes from parent to offspring.
> Hardware/software entanglement. All life of the sort found on Earth stems from a deal struck between two very different classes of molecules: nucleic acids and proteins.
> Permanence and change. A further paradox of life concerns the strange conjunction of permanence and change.
> Sensitivity. All organisms respond to stimuli— though not always to the same stimuli in the same ways.
> Regulation. All organisms have regulatory mechanisms that coordinate internal processes.
>
> chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
> A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,"
>
> Following is the description of parts and processes in a theoretical protocell, which are essential and irreducible:
>
> What Might Be a Protocell’s minimal requirement of parts ?
>
> 1. The Cell membrane
OK, but maybe a protein only membrane would do the trick - as in Sidney Fox's old proteinoid microsphere experiments.
> 2. DNA repair mechanisms
Why? The first cells might have tolerated a lot more in the way of lethal mutations, if nothing else in their environment was any better.
> 3. Plasma membrane gates
Maybe, but maybe endocytosis would be enough, again, if nothing else in the environment had anything better.
> 4. The Cytoplasm
Sure, as long as that just means, "whatever's inside the membrane."
> 5. Proteins of the Krebs cycle for ATP synthesis
> 6. Left handed Amino Acids
> 7. Membrane-enclosed vesicles
Once you have a membrane, vesicles form very easily.
> 8. Internal membranes
Why, bacteria alive today do without them.
> 9. The Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER)
> 10. The Golgi apparatus
Why? Bacteria alive today do without it.
> 11. Ribosomes
Well, some system for getting amino acids to polymerize, yes, but no need for modern ribosomes, especially if no competitor has anything better.
> 12. tRNA
See ribosomes
> 13. right handed DNA
OK.
> 14. Signal-Recognition Particles (SRP)
Why? Prokaryotes and Archaea alive today make do without.
> 15. Kinesin Motors
Why?
> 16. Microtubules
Why, some bacteria alive today do fine without them.
> 17. Lysosomes
Prokarotes do fine without them.
> 18. A complete transcriptional machinery
> 19. Protein-processing, -folding, secretion, and degradation functions and two proteases.
> 20. FtsZ
Why? - certainly it helps bacteria divide so that there's one genome in each daughter, but if the competition lacked it, you could do fine with a less precise division that sometimes left a daughter to die for lack of a copy of the genome.
> 21. Cation, ABC transporters, a PTS for glucose transport, phosphate transporters
> 22. Glycolytic substrate-level phosphorylation
> 23. Ribulose-phosphate epimerase, Ribosephosphate isomerase, and Transketolase
> 24. Dihydroxyacetone phosphate
> 25. ATP synthase and a proton gradient for ATP synthesis
Looks to me like the source from whom you copied this list just threw together a bunch of things present in various modern cells without even understanding what they really are or how necessary they might be.
All you need for evolution to act is something that replicates imperfectly - that could be a single enzymatically active RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA polymerization on an RNA template. And you can get enzymatically active RNA molecules by repeated cycles of mutation and selection in the lab.
Jimbo
Jul 21, 2016, 11:53:09 PM7/21/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
experimental techniques in any of these three videos. You did not
respond. You couldn't back up your accusation. I challenge you again.
Why do you claim Szostak's research is "junk science"? By "regurgitate
junk science" you mean that I am reposting videos describing good
experimental science demonstrating that protocells can spontaneously
from by purely physical and chemical means.
Those protocells lack some of the characteristics exhibited by living
cells, but no one claims that the first life-forms would have had all
the characteristics of modern cells. Only creationists claim that
primitive cells couldn't have come into existence unless they were
just like modern cells.
But one of us is ignoring what the other one said. That person is you.
You ignore my request that you explain how intelligence itself can
exist without being organized and complex. I say it's impossible. You
claim it's possible but run away from requests that you explain how
it's possible. Please explain it now, if you can.
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 22, 2016, 12:58:09 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bill Rogers
i think you made your analysis has some points of consideration. Its late now, but i will go over it.
I am reposting videos describing good
> experimental science demonstrating that protocells can spontaneously
> from by purely physical and chemical means.
Paul Davies: the fifth miracle page 62
Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it. 1
We need to explain the origin of both the hardware and software aspects of life, or the job is only half finished. Explaining the chemical substrate of life and claiming it as a solution to life’s origin is like pointing to silicon and copper as an explanation for the goings-on inside a computer. It is this transition where one should expect to see a chemical system literally take-on “a life of its own”, characterized by informational dynamics which become decoupled from the dictates of local chemistry alone (while of course remaining fully consistent with those dictates). Thus the famed chicken-or-egg problem (a solely hardware issue) is not the true sticking point. Rather, the puzzle lies with something fundamentally different, a problem of causal organization having to do with the separation of informational and mechanical aspects into parallel causal narratives. The real challenge of life’s origin is thus to explain how instructional information control systems emerge naturally and spontaneously from mere molecular dynamics.
Software and hardware are irreducible complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa.
Systems of interconnected software and hardware are irreducibly complex. 2
A proposal of the proteome before the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) 1
Results
Among the various metabolic pathways found in modern organisms, some already were present in LUCA and on the progenotes. In this way, we analysed the metabolic pathways, that might be early in the development of the sub-system or progenote. Thus, we analysed similarities of tRNAs that, when translated, had similarity related with pathways to amino acids pathways, glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, lipids pathways, nucleo-tides pathways, translation and transcription or RNA replication. We found similarities with the following proteins orderedby different categories.
Amino acids pathways
Diaminopimelato epimerase, L-asparaginase, ATP phospori-bosyltransferase, histidinol-phosphate aminotransferase,4-aminobutyrate aminotransferase, ornithine decarboxylaseantizyme, N-acetyl-gama-glutamyl-phosphate reductase,homoserine kinase, aromatic-amino acid aminotransferase, or-nithine carbomyltransferase and tryptophan synthase alphachain.
Glycolysis/gluconeogenesis
Putative ribose/galactose/methylgalactose import, glycerate ki-nase, triose phosphate isomerase, Beta-glucosidase A, glucose6-phosphate 1-dehydrogenase 2, glucose 6-phosphate isomer-ase, phosphoglycerate kinase, glycerol 3-phosphate dehydro-genase, transketolase and alpha-galactosidase.
Lipids pathways
Fatty acid synthase, CoA mutase, phosphate acyltransferase,lycopene cyclase and 3-beta-hydroxisteroid dehydrogenase
Nucleotides pathways
Thymidylate kinase, cytidine deaminase, uridylate kinase, or-otidine 5-phosphate decarboxylase, dihydroorotate dehydro-genase, phosporibosyl-formyl-glycinamidine cyclo-ligase andphosporibosyl-glycinamidine synthase.
Translation
Elongation factor-1 alpha, elongation factor 4, initiation factor3, ribosomal protein L3, ribosomal protein L7a, ribosomalprotein L27a-1, ribosomal protein L27a-3/4, ribosomal proteinL27a-3, ribosomal protein L10, ribosomal protein S13,methyl-tRNA formyltransferase, RNA methyltransferase,tRNA uridine 5-carboximethylaminomethyl, glutamate–tRNAsynthetase, lysine–tRNA synthetase, asparagine–tRNA synthe-tase, leucyl–tRNA synthetase, valine–tRNA synthetase, phenyl-alanine–tRNA synthetas e and ribosomal RNA large subunitmethyltransferase F
Transcription or RNA replication
DNA-directed RNA polymerase and RNA-directed RNApolymerase
1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285596875_A_proposal_of_the_proteome_before_the_last_universal_common_ancestor_LUCA#pf5
i think you made your analysis has some points of consideration. Its late now, but i will go over it.
I am reposting videos describing good
> experimental science demonstrating that protocells can spontaneously
> from by purely physical and chemical means.
Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it. 1
We need to explain the origin of both the hardware and software aspects of life, or the job is only half finished. Explaining the chemical substrate of life and claiming it as a solution to life’s origin is like pointing to silicon and copper as an explanation for the goings-on inside a computer. It is this transition where one should expect to see a chemical system literally take-on “a life of its own”, characterized by informational dynamics which become decoupled from the dictates of local chemistry alone (while of course remaining fully consistent with those dictates). Thus the famed chicken-or-egg problem (a solely hardware issue) is not the true sticking point. Rather, the puzzle lies with something fundamentally different, a problem of causal organization having to do with the separation of informational and mechanical aspects into parallel causal narratives. The real challenge of life’s origin is thus to explain how instructional information control systems emerge naturally and spontaneously from mere molecular dynamics.
Software and hardware are irreducible complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa.
Systems of interconnected software and hardware are irreducibly complex. 2
A proposal of the proteome before the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) 1
Results
Among the various metabolic pathways found in modern organisms, some already were present in LUCA and on the progenotes. In this way, we analysed the metabolic pathways, that might be early in the development of the sub-system or progenote. Thus, we analysed similarities of tRNAs that, when translated, had similarity related with pathways to amino acids pathways, glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, lipids pathways, nucleo-tides pathways, translation and transcription or RNA replication. We found similarities with the following proteins orderedby different categories.
Amino acids pathways
Diaminopimelato epimerase, L-asparaginase, ATP phospori-bosyltransferase, histidinol-phosphate aminotransferase,4-aminobutyrate aminotransferase, ornithine decarboxylaseantizyme, N-acetyl-gama-glutamyl-phosphate reductase,homoserine kinase, aromatic-amino acid aminotransferase, or-nithine carbomyltransferase and tryptophan synthase alphachain.
Glycolysis/gluconeogenesis
Putative ribose/galactose/methylgalactose import, glycerate ki-nase, triose phosphate isomerase, Beta-glucosidase A, glucose6-phosphate 1-dehydrogenase 2, glucose 6-phosphate isomer-ase, phosphoglycerate kinase, glycerol 3-phosphate dehydro-genase, transketolase and alpha-galactosidase.
Lipids pathways
Fatty acid synthase, CoA mutase, phosphate acyltransferase,lycopene cyclase and 3-beta-hydroxisteroid dehydrogenase
Nucleotides pathways
Thymidylate kinase, cytidine deaminase, uridylate kinase, or-otidine 5-phosphate decarboxylase, dihydroorotate dehydro-genase, phosporibosyl-formyl-glycinamidine cyclo-ligase andphosporibosyl-glycinamidine synthase.
Translation
Elongation factor-1 alpha, elongation factor 4, initiation factor3, ribosomal protein L3, ribosomal protein L7a, ribosomalprotein L27a-1, ribosomal protein L27a-3/4, ribosomal proteinL27a-3, ribosomal protein L10, ribosomal protein S13,methyl-tRNA formyltransferase, RNA methyltransferase,tRNA uridine 5-carboximethylaminomethyl, glutamate–tRNAsynthetase, lysine–tRNA synthetase, asparagine–tRNA synthe-tase, leucyl–tRNA synthetase, valine–tRNA synthetase, phenyl-alanine–tRNA synthetas e and ribosomal RNA large subunitmethyltransferase F
Transcription or RNA replication
DNA-directed RNA polymerase and RNA-directed RNApolymerase
1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285596875_A_proposal_of_the_proteome_before_the_last_universal_common_ancestor_LUCA#pf5
Rolf
Jul 22, 2016, 1:13:09 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
<grassoempreen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49b77a33-8eed-4cf6...@googlegroups.com...
> The complexity of the initial Enzymatic and Metabolic network of the first
> living cells ( progenote/LUCA ) demonstrates the requirent of a
> intelligent , powerful Creator
>
> Following shows the minimal metabolic network that was required in the
> first supposed last universal common ancestor. Consider that this
> extremely complex network could not emerge through evolution, since
> evolution depends that this very own metabolic network was fully
> operational, beside dna replication, on which evolution depends.
> So the only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is
> chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of
> intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time.
Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
> living cells ( progenote/LUCA ) demonstrates the requirent of a
> intelligent , powerful Creator
>
> Following shows the minimal metabolic network that was required in the
> first supposed last universal common ancestor. Consider that this
> extremely complex network could not emerge through evolution, since
> evolution depends that this very own metabolic network was fully
> operational, beside dna replication, on which evolution depends.
> So the only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is
> chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of
> intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time.
chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
>We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer
>therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first
>living cell was designed.
>
>
> The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039912#pone.0039912-Srinivasan1
>
> We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the
> core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme
> functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one
> lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at
> least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within
> central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino
> acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have
> high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
>
after the first life (cell) xame into existence.
Do you understand the difference?
It is, of course very understandably, very difficult to find out how and why
the first living cell came into existence.
But we know that it did, and regardles of how it got there, unicelllular
life was capable of expanding and evolving into different directions until
the advantages of joining forces, for cells to act in a cooperative manner,
led to the evolution of multicellular life forms.
See, it is not all that difficult to understand what principles might have
been instrumental in setting the show in motion.
It seems to me that a lot of people have a tendency to construe scenarios
for the purpose of making the primary, quasi-biologic processes on earth
into something that can only be interpreted as the work of a divine force.
Isn't that a desperate effort to create proof that there is at least one god
out there, somewhere? Ignoring the testimony of people who have experienced
and realized the fact that God is a spirit, that spirit at the bottom (or
top, if you prefer) of our soul? There is a ghost in the machine, that is
the god you are seeking.
Just as you cant look yourself in the face, you can't see the 'face' of god,
but it is there. We have cataracts in our mental eye.
Mystics at all ages throughout history have testified about their religious
experiences and there is nothing there that should require for the
experience to be evidence of a god outside of our own self.
Knowledge of God cannot be transmitted, you gotta find it on your own. But a
qualified guide may come in handy.
God is an intra-psychic property.
Are the origins of life your only problem, or do you have the same problem
with evolution as well?
Rolf
Jul 22, 2016, 1:33:09 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
<grassoempreen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffcf87f9-b3f8-4bcd...@googlegroups.com...
> Bill Rogers
>
> i think you made your analysis has some points of consideration. Its late
> now, but i will go over it.
>
>
> I am reposting videos describing good
>> experimental science demonstrating that protocells can spontaneously
>> from by purely physical and chemical means.
>
> Paul Davies: the fifth miracle page 62
> Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing
> algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a
> monomolecular system - where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst
>
> i think you made your analysis has some points of consideration. Its late
> now, but i will go over it.
>
>
> I am reposting videos describing good
>> experimental science demonstrating that protocells can spontaneously
>> from by purely physical and chemical means.
>
> Paul Davies: the fifth miracle page 62
> Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing
> algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a
> and informational carrier - is even logically consistent with the
> organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no
> possibility of separating information storage from information processing
> (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such,
> digital-first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form
> possibility of separating information storage from information processing
> (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such,
> synthe-tase, leucyl-tRNA synthetase, valine-tRNA synthetase,
> phenyl-alanine-tRNA synthetas e and ribosomal RNA large
> subunitmethyltransferase F
>
> Transcription or RNA replication
> DNA-directed RNA polymerase and RNA-directed RNApolymerase
>
>
> 1)
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285596875_A_proposal_of_the_proteome_before_the_last_universal_common_ancestor_LUCA#pf5
>
I note the claim that "There is no reason for information processing
>
> Transcription or RNA replication
> DNA-directed RNA polymerase and RNA-directed RNApolymerase
>
>
> 1)
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285596875_A_proposal_of_the_proteome_before_the_last_universal_common_ancestor_LUCA#pf5
>
machinery to exist ..."
Are there any reasons why it couldn't even without a reason for it to exist?
what is the reason for the universe to exist? Or the sun, the moon, anything
at all? Shouldn't we say "it is what it is, it is there, so what?"
Anything can be "information processing machinery". It all depends on what
definitions we make. Just look at how the information processing machinery
makes the solar system work with clock-like precision. Natural forces at
work, with no ghost in that machinery.
solar penguin
Jul 22, 2016, 6:08:08 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:15:08 -0700, grassoempreendimentos.info wrote:
>
> There was no evolution prior life began. The first set of metabolic
> circuits could not emerge through evolution.
And who is claiming that it did?
>
> There was no evolution prior life began. The first set of metabolic
> circuits could not emerge through evolution.
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 22, 2016, 8:43:08 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
> chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
> chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
Adapted from Darwin's Doubt:
One of the most basic principles of engineering is the principle of constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion.
At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping, and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house or the arrangement of houses in a neighborhood. Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit
jillery
Jul 22, 2016, 8:58:09 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
describe above is that living cells reproduce and modify themselves.
That's all the difference living cells need to moot your entire line
of reasoning.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.
Steady Eddie
Jul 22, 2016, 10:43:07 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yes, Darwinists can't handle responding to the information you posted, so they just counter-attack or change the subject.
LOL!
Steady Eddie
Jul 22, 2016, 10:43:08 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
:)
Ernest Major
Jul 22, 2016, 10:53:07 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 22/07/2016 15:42, Steady Eddie wrote:
> LOL!
>
You ought to something about that tell of yours.
--
alias Ernest Major
> LOL!
>
You ought to something about that tell of yours.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bill Rogers
Jul 22, 2016, 11:18:09 AM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:43:08 AM UTC-4, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
> > chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
>
> Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
How do you identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
> > Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
> > chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
>
> Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
How do you identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
The last list you provided of "minimal requirements for a protocell" was full of stuff that is not even required in fully modern bacteria. Why do you trust this guy's claim of eight required metabolic pathways?
If you want to identify minimal requirements for the first protocell, or the first imperfect replicator, the entirely wrong way to do it is to make a list of stuff you find in modern cells. Everybody agrees that the first protocell did not form by the spontaneous assembly of all the components of a modern cell. Everybody agrees that such a thing is utterly impossible.
If you want to generate a list of minimal requirements in the most primitive thing that might be called alive and be subject to evolution, the minimal "imperfect replicator," you have to think far more generally. You need things like:
1. A genome (something to be imperfectly replicated, specific chemistry needn't be specified)
2. Separation from the environment (could be lipid bilayers, could be proteinoid microspheres, could even be microenvironments on an inanimate surface).
3. Source of energy - surely it does not have to begin with ATP, and it's certainly not required to have anything like the Krebs cycle or mitochondrial membrane proton pumps.
If you were interested in generating useful ideas about the minimal requirements for life, you'd start thinking like that, not with a list of sciencey sounding components of modern organisms, chosen in the hopes of showing that life could not have emerged without a designer.
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 22, 2016, 1:03:07 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> >At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber,
> A fundamental difference between living cells and all the examples you
> describe above is that living cells reproduce and modify themselves.
> That's all the difference living cells need to moot your entire line
> of reasoning.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.
Living cells do not reproduce, until the replication mechanism is setup. To be so, the metabolic network in demand must be working and operational. It could not have emerged through evolution.
> describe above is that living cells reproduce and modify themselves.
> That's all the difference living cells need to moot your entire line
> of reasoning.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 22, 2016, 1:28:08 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> How do you identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
>
> Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
I have just taken the ones that were presented in the paper i posted.
>
> Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
Frontiers of Astrobiology page 60
we can be reasonably confident that, by the LUCA, many core metabolic pathways were firmly in place. Furthermore, a functional electron transport chain had emerged by the LUCA, as genes encoding subunits of the enzymes NADH dehydrogenase, succinate dehydrogenase, and the cytochrome b subunit of the cytochrome bc complex are predicted to have been present. The electron transport chain likely carried out its current function of generating an ion gradient across the membrane, since the reconstructed genome of the LUCA encodes several of the subunits of the F0F1 ATP synthase enzyme that uses the energy stored in an ion gradient to drive the synthesis of ATP. Clearly the LUCA captured energy from redox processes, but the specific types of electron donors and acceptors that were used cannot be determined.
Jimbo
Jul 22, 2016, 1:43:07 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
claimed as minimal metabolic requirements by the creationist site you
cut-and-past your responses from. You continue with the cut-and-pastes
containing the same claims even after being told about these living
organisms. Do you not think that's a rather ridiculous thing to do?
Ernest Major asked you to explain how you know what the enzymatic and
metabolic networks of the progenote were. Are you ever going to answer
that question? Probably not, because the truth is that you do not know
and are unwilling to correct or disavow claims that you know (if
you're paying any attention at all) are demonstrably incorrect.
You also have not supported your claim that Jack Szostak's abiogenesis
research is "junk science." You haven't even attempted to do so. Do
you really believe that you are engaging in open and honest inquiry
when you continue to cut-and-paste demonstrably false claims and
refuse to support your own assertion that genuine experimental
Bob Casanova
Jul 22, 2016, 1:48:07 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:02:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
grassoempreen...@gmail.com:
>> It could not have emerged through evolution.
All your posts boil down to this claim, which is nothing
more than a bald assertion based on your personal
incredulity and/or ignorance. How about some evidence to
support it?
--
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
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
grassoempreen...@gmail.com:
>> It could not have emerged through evolution.
more than a bald assertion based on your personal
incredulity and/or ignorance. How about some evidence to
support it?
--
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
Bill Rogers
Jul 22, 2016, 1:48:07 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 1:28:08 PM UTC-4, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > How do you identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
> >
> > Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
>
> I have just taken the ones that were presented in the paper i posted.
Right, so you did not think about them too carefully.
> > How do you identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
> >
> > Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
>
> I have just taken the ones that were presented in the paper i posted.
Perhaps it's not clear to you that the LUCA is not "the first cell," it's a hypothetical construct made by extrapolating back from existing cells. It is not "the first living thing." Nobody thinks that the LUCA appeared ex nihilo.
jillery
Jul 22, 2016, 5:28:06 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Jul 22, 2016, 5:28:06 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:02:11 -0700 (PDT),
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber,
>> A fundamental difference between living cells and all the examples you
>> describe above is that living cells reproduce and modify themselves.
>> That's all the difference living cells need to moot your entire line
>> of reasoning.
>
>> >At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber,
>> A fundamental difference between living cells and all the examples you
>> describe above is that living cells reproduce and modify themselves.
>> That's all the difference living cells need to moot your entire line
>> of reasoning.
>
>Living cells do not reproduce, until the replication mechanism is setup. To be so, the metabolic network in demand must be working and operational. It could not have emerged through evolution.
Even if your statement above were correct, which it isn't, it still
wouldn't matter. Your examples don't *ever* reproduce.
grassoempreen...@gmail.com
Jul 22, 2016, 5:28:06 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:43:07 PM UTC-3, Jimbo wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:02:11 -0700 (PDT),
> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber,
> >> A fundamental difference between living cells and all the examples you
> >> describe above is that living cells reproduce and modify themselves.
> >> That's all the difference living cells need to moot your entire line
> >> of reasoning.
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> >Living cells do not reproduce, until the replication mechanism is setup. To be so, the metabolic network in demand must be working and operational. It could not have emerged through evolution.
>
> Bill Rogers pointed out that living bacteria lack some of the features
> claimed as minimal metabolic requirements by the creationist site you
> cut-and-past your responses from. You continue with the cut-and-pastes
> containing the same claims even after being told about these living
> organisms. Do you not think that's a rather ridiculous thing to do?
You are not entitled to tell me when i will correct it.
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:02:11 -0700 (PDT),
> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber,
> >> A fundamental difference between living cells and all the examples you
> >> describe above is that living cells reproduce and modify themselves.
> >> That's all the difference living cells need to moot your entire line
> >> of reasoning.
> >> --
> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
> >
> >Living cells do not reproduce, until the replication mechanism is setup. To be so, the metabolic network in demand must be working and operational. It could not have emerged through evolution.
>
> Bill Rogers pointed out that living bacteria lack some of the features
> claimed as minimal metabolic requirements by the creationist site you
> cut-and-past your responses from. You continue with the cut-and-pastes
> containing the same claims even after being told about these living
> organisms. Do you not think that's a rather ridiculous thing to do?
>
> Ernest Major asked you to explain how you know what the enzymatic and
> metabolic networks of the progenote were.
The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life 2
We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
Sphingolipid metabolism
Galactose metabolism
Drug metabolism - other enzymes
Starch and sucrose metabolism
fructose and mannose metabolism
pentose and glucuronate interconversions
Lipopolysaccaride biosynthesis
cyanoamino acid metabolism
Even if it were less than that, proponents of naturalism have still a hudge problem to solve.
Adapted from Darwin's Doubt:
One of the most basic principles of engineering is the principle of constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion.
In particular, the cause must be capable of constructing, not merely modifying, complex integrated metabolic circuits. The requirements for constructing the first living cells de novo cannot be accommodated by microevolutionary or macroevolutionary theory, since evolution depends on these networks fully operational. And since there is no function for a unfinished metabolic network, then how would new metabolic and catabolic networks ever arise?
Integrated circuits in electronics are systems of individually functional components such as transistors, resistors, and capacitors that are connected together to perform an overarching function. Likewise, the functional enzymes and proteins of metabolic and anabolic networks, also form an integrated circuit, one that contributes to accomplishing the overall function of producing a working functional cell.
> You also have not supported your claim that Jack Szostak's abiogenesis
> research is "junk science."
It wont gonna happen. Cell membrance HAVE TO BE COMPLEX, and the E.R. is required to synthesize them.
NO cell membrane, no E.R. No E.R., no cell membrane.
jillery
Jul 22, 2016, 5:28:07 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Jimbo
Jul 22, 2016, 6:13:07 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:24:48 -0700 (PDT),
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:43:07 PM UTC-3, Jimbo wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:02:11 -0700 (PDT),
>> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber,
>> >> A fundamental difference between living cells and all the examples you
>> >> describe above is that living cells reproduce and modify themselves.
>> >> That's all the difference living cells need to moot your entire line
>> >> of reasoning.
>> >> --
>> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
>> >
>> >Living cells do not reproduce, until the replication mechanism is setup. To be so, the metabolic network in demand must be working and operational. It could not have emerged through evolution.
>>
>> Bill Rogers pointed out that living bacteria lack some of the features
>> claimed as minimal metabolic requirements by the creationist site you
>> cut-and-past your responses from. You continue with the cut-and-pastes
>> containing the same claims even after being told about these living
>> organisms. Do you not think that's a rather ridiculous thing to do?
>
>
>You are not entitled to tell me when i will correct it.
Am I entitled to ask you why you *don't* correct claims that are
grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:43:07 PM UTC-3, Jimbo wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:02:11 -0700 (PDT),
>> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber,
>> >> A fundamental difference between living cells and all the examples you
>> >> describe above is that living cells reproduce and modify themselves.
>> >> That's all the difference living cells need to moot your entire line
>> >> of reasoning.
>> >> --
>> >> This space is intentionally not blank.
>> >
>> >Living cells do not reproduce, until the replication mechanism is setup. To be so, the metabolic network in demand must be working and operational. It could not have emerged through evolution.
>>
>> Bill Rogers pointed out that living bacteria lack some of the features
>> claimed as minimal metabolic requirements by the creationist site you
>> cut-and-past your responses from. You continue with the cut-and-pastes
>> containing the same claims even after being told about these living
>> organisms. Do you not think that's a rather ridiculous thing to do?
>
>
>You are not entitled to tell me when i will correct it.
obviously false? We *KNOW* that primitive life didn't need all the
metabolic systems that you claim it needed. We know this because some
forms of life today don't need all those systems. Are you really
saying that you won't disavow your false statements because you are
somehow *entitled* to make demonstrably false statements about the
origins of life?
>> Ernest Major asked you to explain how you know what the enzymatic and
>> metabolic networks of the progenote were.
>
>I assume the scientific paper i quoted made the relevant research to come to a informed conclusion.
>
>The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life 2
>
>We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
last universal common ancestor was the first life-form. Why do you
pretend that anyone is making that claim? Do you really believe that
you are somehow entitled to repeat the same lie after being informed
that it is a lie?
>Link to the respective Keggs database
>
>Sphingolipid metabolism
>Galactose metabolism
>Drug metabolism - other enzymes
>Starch and sucrose metabolism
>fructose and mannose metabolism
>pentose and glucuronate interconversions
>Lipopolysaccaride biosynthesis
>cyanoamino acid metabolism
>
>Even if it were less than that, proponents of naturalism have still a hudge problem to solve.
>Adapted from Darwin's Doubt:
>One of the most basic principles of engineering is the principle of constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion.
>
>At a construction site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping, and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house or the arrangement of houses in a neighborhood. Similarly, electronic circuits are composed of many components, such as resistors, capacitors, and transistors. But such lower-level components do not determine their own arrangement in an integrated circuit (see Fig. 14.2).
>
>
>
>In particular, the cause must be capable of constructing, not merely modifying, complex integrated metabolic circuits. The requirements for constructing the first living cells de novo cannot be accommodated by microevolutionary or macroevolutionary theory, since evolution depends on these networks fully operational. And since there is no function for a unfinished metabolic network, then how would new metabolic and catabolic networks ever arise?
>
>Integrated circuits in electronics are systems of individually functional components such as transistors, resistors, and capacitors that are connected together to perform an overarching function. Likewise, the functional enzymes and proteins of metabolic and anabolic networks, also form an integrated circuit, one that contributes to accomplishing the overall function of producing a working functional cell.
>
>> You also have not supported your claim that Jack Szostak's abiogenesis
>> research is "junk science."
>
>Are they not claiming that cell membranes could be simple and form naturally ? Thats just nonsense, just to satisfy the public, that eagerly waits to see their prejudices confirmed.
statement. The research is depicted in the videos for which I provided
links:
The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
Proto-cell Membranes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA&list=PLIotpBG-g_3kU_e0MH6Z6hXJOpD1lzvGr
Non-enzymatic Copying of Nucleic Acids:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU&list=PLIotpBG-g_3kU_e0MH6Z6hXJOpD1lzvGr&index=3
observational evidence of the spontaneous formation of lipid-bilayer
bounded vesicles? If so you have no more credibility than people who
deny the moon landings or claim that the earth is flat.
>It wont gonna happen. Cell membrance HAVE TO BE COMPLEX, and the E.R. is required to synthesize them.
>
>NO cell membrane, no E.R. No E.R., no cell membrane.
observations of the spontaneous formation of vesicles bounded by
lipid-bilayer membranes. You were provided with links to that video
probably more than a year ago. And here you are again denying reality.
What is the matter with you? You are like a man covering his eyes and
then proclaiming that nothing's there because you can't see anything.
Steady Eddie
Jul 22, 2016, 7:33:08 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Jul 22, 2016, 10:58:06 PM7/22/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
discussion. Is anybody surprised?
Mark Isaak
Jul 23, 2016, 1:28:05 AM7/23/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 7/21/16 2:11 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
>
> Yawn.
>
> We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
>
> Thats not a entirely negative premise.
First, evolution is a designer.
Second, complexity is evidence *against* intelligent design.
When you understand those two facts, you might want to rethink your
arguments.
(And that is before the obvious fact that the metabolic network is not
an electric circuit, nor even much like one.)
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_
>
>> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
>
> Yawn.
>
> We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
>
> Thats not a entirely negative premise.
First, evolution is a designer.
Second, complexity is evidence *against* intelligent design.
When you understand those two facts, you might want to rethink your
arguments.
(And that is before the obvious fact that the metabolic network is not
an electric circuit, nor even much like one.)
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_
Ernest Major
Jul 23, 2016, 4:53:06 AM7/23/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
least try to make it less crude.
--
alias Ernest Major
Rolf
Jul 23, 2016, 5:03:06 AM7/23/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
<grassoempreen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:520bc386-a193-44e3...@googlegroups.com...
> > Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
>> chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
>
> Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but
> new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make
> life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded
> anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and
> individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them
> are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to
> provide function, internal and external communication, and the
> biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits
> or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a
> circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation
> of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information
> in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
>
> Adapted from Darwin's Doubt:
> One of the most basic principles of engineering is the principle of
> constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally
> integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it
> without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. The biological
> metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant
> alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion.
>
Is that an estabished fact?
>> chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
>
> Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but
> new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make
> life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded
> anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and
> individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them
> are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to
> provide function, internal and external communication, and the
> biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits
> or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a
> circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation
> of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information
> in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
>
> Adapted from Darwin's Doubt:
> One of the most basic principles of engineering is the principle of
> constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally
> integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it
> without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. The biological
> metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant
> alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion.
>
What if the function changes, for better (or worse). Impossible?
We have to deal with biology in the paradigm of chemistry.
Why not keep it there?
You probably find it is easier to make arguments with mechanical or
electronic devices.
So would I, but it wouldn't be relevant.
Atoms or molecules are not hard-wired into a circuit. They are units of
condensed matter with special properties.
I suppose you prefer to think in terms like Behe's mousetrap.
Behe's DBB is the worst book I've ever read, and I have read mountains of
books.
I don't know about you but I think creationists aren't too fond of books,
the Bible may be an exception.
Jonathan
Jul 23, 2016, 6:28:05 AM7/23/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 7/23/2016 1:27 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/21/16 2:11 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it
>>> got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA.
>>> You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides
>>> argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone
>>> on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to
>>> be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
>>
>> Yawn.
>>
>> We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all
>> the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We
>> can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create
>> the first living cell was designed.
>>
>> Thats not a entirely negative premise.
>
> First, evolution is a designer.
>
Let's be clear about that statement.
> On 7/21/16 2:11 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it
>>> got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA.
>>> You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides
>>> argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone
>>> on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to
>>> be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
>>
>> Yawn.
>>
>> We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all
>> the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We
>> can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create
>> the first living cell was designed.
>>
>> Thats not a entirely negative premise.
>
> First, evolution is a designer.
>
The emergent properties of a self organized
system produces goals, or preferred states.
Perhaps nothing more than a group of amoebas
moving in the same direction instead of
each moving randomly. But that goal creates
a 'designed' result, not random.
Design from within, from the emergent
intelligence of complex systems.
So if one merely moves the intelligent
designer from the straw man vision of
some wise old man out there waving a
magic wand, to an internal evolved
intelligence producing goals where
systems design themselves, then the
notion of Intelligent Design is given
a solid scientific foundation.
Just as humans design dogs, or societies.
A simple frame of reference error separates
the two sides of the debates, not the
basic concept.
Emergent properties give a system the ability
to act on their own behalf.
And like human societies, their future states
are almost ENTIRELY dependent on goals, such
as our hopes, fears, dreams and so on.
Not just random interactions with the environment.
Emergence is the driving force behind evolution
not natural selection. Selection fine tunes
what emergence produces, emergence is the
core process.
But emergence is a subjective property and that
just doesn't compute in a world 'designed' around
objective certainty. Objective mindsets can't
admit an intelligence intervenes in the process
of evolution.
It's so obvious too, life on Earth took an
extraordinarily long time to go from single
celled to multi celled life, but then life
exploded, the pace of evolution dramatically
increased as the level of complexity increased.
The emergent ability of life to act on it's
own behalf essentially changed the evolution
of life from a linear pace to an exponential
rate of change.
And that rate converges to the ideal in short order.
And I won't even go into the contradiction of
a world fixated on objective certainty resting
it's most cherished belief on the RANDOM PROCESS
of natural selection.
The objective mindset confuses certainty with truth.
Uncertainty, or complexity, is the source of
all reality.
> Second, complexity is evidence *against* intelligent design.
>
from complexity flows emergence, or intelligent design.
> When you understand those two facts, you might want to rethink your
> arguments.
>
> (And that is before the obvious fact that the metabolic network is not
> an electric circuit, nor even much like one.)
>
limited merely to biological systems. If a circuit
is designed by evolving processes they differ in
their levels of complexity, not in the source
of creation.
Otangelo Grasso
Jul 23, 2016, 8:08:05 AM7/23/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
Robert Camp
Jul 23, 2016, 10:28:04 AM7/23/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You want to prove me wrong? Offer evidence *other than* an assumption of
your conclusion. Gap arguments and circular reasoning count for nothing.
> 2. Biological systems have a high information
> content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that
> manifest irreducible complexity.
position. If you disagree, give us the exact definition of "information"
you are using in this context, and provide an example of IC that doesn't
assume your conclusion.
> 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or
> undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information
> (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
it with, "THE FOLLOWING ASSUMES MY CONCLUSION!"
Sensing a theme here?
> 4. Therefore,
> intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin
> of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
to you quite often but let me give it one more go - an explanation
offers clarification, it illuminates things that were previously
unclear. Thus, an explanation of the origin of life would elucidate the
processes by which life appeared. "God did it" is not an explanation.
Second, go look up the word syllogism. Try to understand how valid
conclusions from incorrect premises are useless when discussing reality.
Then, try some self-reflection by applying what you have learned to your
own arguments - especially the ones directly above.
Bill Rogers
Jul 23, 2016, 11:28:05 AM7/23/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:08:05 AM UTC-4, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> Em sábado, 23 de julho de 2016 02:28:05 UTC-3, Mark Isaak escreveu:
> > On 7/21/16 2:11 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
> > >
> > > Yawn.
> > >
> > > We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
> > >
> > > Thats not a entirely negative premise.
> >
> > First, evolution is a designer.
> >
> > Second, complexity is evidence *against* intelligent design.
> >
> > When you understand those two facts, you might want to rethink your
> > arguments.
> >
> > (And that is before the obvious fact that the metabolic network is not
> > an electric circuit, nor even much like one.)
> >
> > --
> > Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> > "The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
> > intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
> > understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_
>
> First, evolution has no mental capabilities, to be a designer. Second, chaos is evidence of natural non guided forces.
Many non-chaotic things are also the result of natural, non-guided forces.
> Em sábado, 23 de julho de 2016 02:28:05 UTC-3, Mark Isaak escreveu:
> > On 7/21/16 2:11 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
> > >
> > > Yawn.
> > >
> > > We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
> > >
> > > Thats not a entirely negative premise.
> >
> > First, evolution is a designer.
> >
> > Second, complexity is evidence *against* intelligent design.
> >
> > When you understand those two facts, you might want to rethink your
> > arguments.
> >
> > (And that is before the obvious fact that the metabolic network is not
> > an electric circuit, nor even much like one.)
> >
> > --
> > Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> > "The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
> > intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
> > understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_
>
> First, evolution has no mental capabilities, to be a designer. Second, chaos is evidence of natural non guided forces.
>
> 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
> 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
> 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
> 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Bob Casanova
Jul 23, 2016, 2:23:03 PM7/23/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:
At what? Her statement is correct. The LUCA was the *last*
universal common ancestor and may have had very little in
common with the first life. What did you think "last" might
mean in this context?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:
universal common ancestor and may have had very little in
common with the first life. What did you think "last" might
mean in this context?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor
Mark Isaak
Jul 24, 2016, 12:28:02 AM7/24/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 7/23/16 5:07 AM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> Em sábado, 23 de julho de 2016 02:28:05 UTC-3, Mark Isaak escreveu:
>> On 7/21/16 2:11 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
>>>
>>> Yawn.
>>>
>>> We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
>>>
>>> Thats not a entirely negative premise.
>>
>> First, evolution is a designer.
>>
>> Second, complexity is evidence *against* intelligent design.
>>
>> When you understand those two facts, you might want to rethink your
>> arguments.
>>
>> (And that is before the obvious fact that the metabolic network is not
>> an electric circuit, nor even much like one.)
>>
>
>> On 7/21/16 2:11 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
>>>
>>> Yawn.
>>>
>>> We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
>>>
>>> Thats not a entirely negative premise.
>>
>> First, evolution is a designer.
>>
>> Second, complexity is evidence *against* intelligent design.
>>
>> When you understand those two facts, you might want to rethink your
>> arguments.
>>
>> (And that is before the obvious fact that the metabolic network is not
>> an electric circuit, nor even much like one.)
>>
>
> First, evolution has no mental capabilities, to be a designer.
True. I would have been more accurate to say that evolution does what
designers do. It merely does the same sorts of processing outside of a
brain.
> Second, chaos is evidence of natural non guided forces.
> 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and
> irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or
> hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
evolution. Specified complexity arises naturally all the time. And I
mean *literally* all the time.
> 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or
> specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest
> irreducible complexity.
> 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice
> to explain the origin of information (specified complexity)
> or irreducible complexity.
does not prevent it from happening. Who died and made you god?
> 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best
> explanations for the origin of information and irreducible
> complexity in biological systems.
absurdity. Natural processes routinely create complexity, whether it be
specified, irreducible, or generic. Intelligent designers, on the other
hand, work to minimize complexity. Therefore, lots of complexity is
evidence against design.
Otangelo Grasso
Jul 24, 2016, 10:33:06 AM7/24/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but at least nine different metabolic networks which are essential, and irreducible: These are highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic, metabolic and catabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually are not able to make turn a cell alive. Metabolism has been divided into discrete pathways, but we know now that it operates as a highly integrated network (Sweetlove et al., 2008). Metabolites are not synthesized in isolation from each other; rather, large sets of metabolites must often be synthesized simultaneously, for example, diverse lipids and pigments during the formation of the photosynthetic thylakoid membranes. Metabolites can only be synthesized if carbon, nitrogen, phosphor, and sulfur and the basic building blocks generated from them in central metabolism are available. This implies that regulatory networks gear metabolic activities to the availability of these basic resources. 4 So one metabolic circuit depends on the product of other products, coming from other, central metabolic pathways, in a casacade manner. Further noteworthy is that Feedback loops are required to regulate metabolic flux. One of the most basic principles of engineering is the principle of constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion. ( S.C.Meyer, Darwin's Doubt ) Changes in flux often require changes in the activities of multiple enzymes in a metabolic sequence. Synthesis of one metabolite typically requires the operation of many pathways.All of them have to be present in the first living cell, correctly interconnected and noded to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995). Life could not emerge without it, nor without dna replication. The cause must be capable of constructing, not merely modifying, complex integrated metabolic circuits. The requirements for constructing the first living cells de novo cannot be done through evolution, since evolution depends on these networks and dna replication, fully operational. And since there is no function for a unfinished metabolic network and dna replication, then how could it ever emerge ? The only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time, and even self replicating machines ( even if only experimentally , since extremely complex ). We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the origin of metabolic networks to create the first living cell was most probably designed.
To setup of a cell metabolic network, many different proteins/enzymes are required, correctly interconnected to provide function. Yet the individual enzymes or physical/chemical laws do not contain by themself the information of how to connect and interwine in the correct order that result in a functional metabolic circuit. Furthermore, the mechanism must be capable of construct from zero, not merely modifying, complex integrated circuits. The requirements for constructing the first living cells cannot be explained through evolution, since evolution depends on these networks fully operational. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits. The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions. We know intelligence is able to setup circuit boards. There is no function for a unfinished metabolic network, which makes it extremely unlikely that new metabolic and catabolic networks would arise naturally, in non-guided manner.
1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Cellular metabolic and enzymatic networks require high instructional information to setup the network (or specified complexity) and utilize proteins and enzymes that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (instructed complex information) and irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in metabolic biological circuits.
To setup of a cell metabolic network, many different proteins/enzymes are required, correctly interconnected to provide function. Yet the individual enzymes or physical/chemical laws do not contain by themself the information of how to connect and interwine in the correct order that result in a functional metabolic circuit. Furthermore, the mechanism must be capable of construct from zero, not merely modifying, complex integrated circuits. The requirements for constructing the first living cells cannot be explained through evolution, since evolution depends on these networks fully operational. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits. The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions. We know intelligence is able to setup circuit boards. There is no function for a unfinished metabolic network, which makes it extremely unlikely that new metabolic and catabolic networks would arise naturally, in non-guided manner.
1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (instructed complex information) and irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in metabolic biological circuits.
Bill Rogers
Jul 24, 2016, 11:23:01 AM7/24/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 10:33:06 AM UTC-4, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but at least nine different metabolic networks which are essential, and irreducible: These are highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic, metabolic and catabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually are not able to make turn a cell alive. Metabolism has been divided into discrete pathways, but we know now that it operates as a highly integrated network (Sweetlove et al., 2008). Metabolites are not synthesized in isolation from each other; rather, large sets of metabolites must often be synthesized simultaneously, for example, diverse lipids and pigments during the formation of the photosynthetic thylakoid membranes. Metabolites can only be synthesized if carbon, nitrogen, phosphor, and sulfur and the basic building blocks generated from them in central metabolism are available. This implies that regulatory networks gear metabolic activities to the availability of these basic resources. 4 So one metabolic circuit depends on the product of other products, coming from other, central metabolic pathways, in a casacade manner. Further noteworthy is that Feedback loops are required to regulate metabolic flux. One of the most basic principles of engineering is the principle of constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion. ( S.C.Meyer, Darwin's Doubt ) Changes in flux often require changes in the activities of multiple enzymes in a metabolic sequence. Synthesis of one metabolite typically requires the operation of many pathways.All of them have to be present in the first living cell, correctly interconnected and noded to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995). Life could not emerge without it, nor without dna replication. The cause must be capable of constructing, not merely modifying, complex integrated metabolic circuits. The requirements for constructing the first living cells de novo cannot be done through evolution, since evolution depends on these networks and dna replication, fully operational. And since there is no function for a unfinished metabolic network and dna replication, then how could it ever emerge ? The only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time, and even self replicating machines ( even if only experimentally , since extremely complex ). We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the origin of metabolic networks to create the first living cell was most probably designed.
>
> To setup of a cell metabolic network, many different proteins/enzymes are required, correctly interconnected to provide function. Yet the individual enzymes or physical/chemical laws do not contain by themself the information of how to connect and interwine in the correct order that result in a functional metabolic circuit. Furthermore, the mechanism must be capable of construct from zero, not merely modifying, complex integrated circuits. The requirements for constructing the first living cells cannot be explained through evolution, since evolution depends on these networks fully operational. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits. The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions. We know intelligence is able to setup circuit boards. There is no function for a unfinished metabolic network, which makes it extremely unlikely that new metabolic and catabolic networks would arise naturally, in non-guided manner.
We all agree that a modern cell did not form spontaneously with all its systems complete. Now we're back to the "not a straw man at all" argument which your sources constantly use - "evolution could not possibly explain it."
> Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but at least nine different metabolic networks which are essential, and irreducible: These are highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic, metabolic and catabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually are not able to make turn a cell alive. Metabolism has been divided into discrete pathways, but we know now that it operates as a highly integrated network (Sweetlove et al., 2008). Metabolites are not synthesized in isolation from each other; rather, large sets of metabolites must often be synthesized simultaneously, for example, diverse lipids and pigments during the formation of the photosynthetic thylakoid membranes. Metabolites can only be synthesized if carbon, nitrogen, phosphor, and sulfur and the basic building blocks generated from them in central metabolism are available. This implies that regulatory networks gear metabolic activities to the availability of these basic resources. 4 So one metabolic circuit depends on the product of other products, coming from other, central metabolic pathways, in a casacade manner. Further noteworthy is that Feedback loops are required to regulate metabolic flux. One of the most basic principles of engineering is the principle of constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion. ( S.C.Meyer, Darwin's Doubt ) Changes in flux often require changes in the activities of multiple enzymes in a metabolic sequence. Synthesis of one metabolite typically requires the operation of many pathways.All of them have to be present in the first living cell, correctly interconnected and noded to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995). Life could not emerge without it, nor without dna replication. The cause must be capable of constructing, not merely modifying, complex integrated metabolic circuits. The requirements for constructing the first living cells de novo cannot be done through evolution, since evolution depends on these networks and dna replication, fully operational. And since there is no function for a unfinished metabolic network and dna replication, then how could it ever emerge ? The only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time, and even self replicating machines ( even if only experimentally , since extremely complex ). We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the origin of metabolic networks to create the first living cell was most probably designed.
>
> To setup of a cell metabolic network, many different proteins/enzymes are required, correctly interconnected to provide function. Yet the individual enzymes or physical/chemical laws do not contain by themself the information of how to connect and interwine in the correct order that result in a functional metabolic circuit. Furthermore, the mechanism must be capable of construct from zero, not merely modifying, complex integrated circuits. The requirements for constructing the first living cells cannot be explained through evolution, since evolution depends on these networks fully operational. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits. The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions. We know intelligence is able to setup circuit boards. There is no function for a unfinished metabolic network, which makes it extremely unlikely that new metabolic and catabolic networks would arise naturally, in non-guided manner.
You should not trust your sources. Remember the alleged list of the minimum requirements for a protocell. You know, the one that contain a bunch of things that not all cells use, even today. That your source did not think his argument through carefully enough to notice that obvious flaw should be a warning that your source is not that competent. That, in itself, does not mean that no argument can be made that evolution cannot explain the emergence of life, only that the sources you are relying on are not very good.
>
> 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
> 2. Cellular metabolic and enzymatic networks require high instructional information to setup the network (or specified complexity) and utilize proteins and enzymes that manifest irreducible complexity.
> 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (instructed complex information) and irreducible complexity.
> 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in metabolic biological circuits.
It's not a good sign that when other folks here have engaged with the argument that you posted and raised a variety of counterarguments that you cannot respond yourself, but are reduced to just recopying and repasting the original argument you copied and pasted from your source.
Otangelo Grasso
Jul 24, 2016, 11:18:00 PM7/24/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
My sources, thats basically me. LOL. And i trust myself more than you Bill. Even if sometimes i dont get things 100% right. I can still correct myself. As i did.
And , just because i mentioned a few parts that belong to eukaryotes, does not take away the point that was made.
But today i got another interesting paper under my fingers....
Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism 1
By integrating data from comparative genomics and large-scale deletion studies, the paper "Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism" proposes a minimal gene set comprising 206 protein-coding genes for the hypothetical minimal cell. As they explain, variations in the hypothetical set of substrates provided by the environment could lead to alternative, perhaps smaller, minimal metabolism set. Fact remains however, even if this hypothetical minimal set could be reduced further, there is a threshold that cannot be surpassed. Listed below are 50 enzymes/proteins required to create a metabolic network implemented by a hypothetical minimal genome for the hypothetical minimal cell.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2442391/
High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
This is where you assume your conclusion. //// nope. thats the observation.
The argument of a intelligent designer required to setup the Metabolic Networks for the origin of life.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2371-how-cellular-enzymatic-and-metabolic-networks-point-to-design
Observation: The existence of metabolic pathways is crucial for molecular and cellular function. Although bacterial genomes differ vastly in their sizes and gene repertoires, no matter how small, they must contain all the information to allow the cell to perform many essential (housekeeping) functions that give the cell the ability to maintain metabolic homeostasis, reproduce, and evolve, the three main properties of living cells. Gil et al. (2004) In fact, metabolism is one of the most conserved cellular processes. By integrating data from comparative genomics and large-scale deletion studies, the paper "Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism" proposes a minimal gene set comprising 206 protein-coding genes for a hypothetical minimal cell. The paper lists 50 enzymes/proteins required to create a metabolic network implemented by a hypothetical minimal genome for the hypothetical minimal cell. The 50 enzymes/proteins , and the metabolic network, must be fully implemented to permit a cell to keep its basic functions.
Hypothesis (Prediction): The origin of biological irreducible metabolic pathways which also require regulation and and which are structured like a cascade, similar to electronic circuit boards, are best explained by the creative action of an intelligent agent.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of metabolic networks indicate that they are full of nodes with enzymes/proteins, that require for their synthesis information rich, language-based codes stored in DNA . Hierarchical structures have been proved to be best suited for capturing most of the features of metabolic networks (Ravasz et al, 2002). It has been found that metabolites can only be synthesized if carbon, nitrogen, phosphor, and sulfur and the basic building blocks generated from them in central metabolism are available. This implies that regulatory networks gear metabolic activities to the availability of these basic resources. So one metabolic circuit depends on the product of other products, coming from other, central metabolic pathways, one depending from the other, like in a casacade. Further noteworthy is that Feedback loops have been found to be required to regulate metabolic flux, and the activities of many or all of the enzymes in a pathway. In many cases, metabolic pathways are highly branched, in which case it is often necessary to alter fluxes through part of the network while leaving them unaltered or decreasing them in other parts of the network (Curien et al., 2009). These are interconnected in a functional way, resulting in a living cell. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion. Changes in flux often require changes in the activities of multiple enzymes in a metabolic sequence. Synthesis of one metabolite typically requires the operation of many pathways.
Conclusion: Regardless of its initial complexity, self-maintaining chemical-based metabolic life could not have emerged in the absence of a genetic replicating mechanism insuring the maintenance, stability, and diversification of its components. In the absence of any hereditary mechanisms, autotrophic reaction chains would have come and gone without leaving any direct descendants able to resurrect the process. Life as we know it consists of both chemistry and information. If metabolic life ever did exist on the early Earth, to convert it to life as we know it would have required the emergence of some type of information system under conditions that are favorable for the survival and maintenance of genetic informational molecules. ( Ribas de Poupkna, Ph.D.)
Intelligent agents have frequently end goals in mind, and use high levels of instructional complex information to met the goal. In our experience, systems storing large amounts of specified/instructional complex information through codes and languages -- invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, circuits or networks of coordinated interaction as for example of analog electronic devices can always be traced back to a intelligent causal agent. The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions of metabolic pathways (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995). A proposed mechanism to make metabolical networks must be capable of construct de novo, not merely modifying, a minimal set of 50 enzymes, and complex integrated metabolic circuits with the end goal to create life. A metabolic network that is not fully operational, will not permit life. We know in our experience that intelligence is able to setup circuit boards, like discrete electronic boards, and is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines. Since evolution depends on metabolic circuits fully setup, its excluded as possible mechanism. The only two alternatives, chance/luck or physical necessity have never been observed to be able to setup circuit boards and irreducible complex systems. The origin of the basic metabolical network of the first cells is therefore best explained through the action of a intelligent agency.
And , just because i mentioned a few parts that belong to eukaryotes, does not take away the point that was made.
But today i got another interesting paper under my fingers....
Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism 1
By integrating data from comparative genomics and large-scale deletion studies, the paper "Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism" proposes a minimal gene set comprising 206 protein-coding genes for the hypothetical minimal cell. As they explain, variations in the hypothetical set of substrates provided by the environment could lead to alternative, perhaps smaller, minimal metabolism set. Fact remains however, even if this hypothetical minimal set could be reduced further, there is a threshold that cannot be surpassed. Listed below are 50 enzymes/proteins required to create a metabolic network implemented by a hypothetical minimal genome for the hypothetical minimal cell.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2442391/
High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
The argument of a intelligent designer required to setup the Metabolic Networks for the origin of life.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2371-how-cellular-enzymatic-and-metabolic-networks-point-to-design
Observation: The existence of metabolic pathways is crucial for molecular and cellular function. Although bacterial genomes differ vastly in their sizes and gene repertoires, no matter how small, they must contain all the information to allow the cell to perform many essential (housekeeping) functions that give the cell the ability to maintain metabolic homeostasis, reproduce, and evolve, the three main properties of living cells. Gil et al. (2004) In fact, metabolism is one of the most conserved cellular processes. By integrating data from comparative genomics and large-scale deletion studies, the paper "Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism" proposes a minimal gene set comprising 206 protein-coding genes for a hypothetical minimal cell. The paper lists 50 enzymes/proteins required to create a metabolic network implemented by a hypothetical minimal genome for the hypothetical minimal cell. The 50 enzymes/proteins , and the metabolic network, must be fully implemented to permit a cell to keep its basic functions.
Hypothesis (Prediction): The origin of biological irreducible metabolic pathways which also require regulation and and which are structured like a cascade, similar to electronic circuit boards, are best explained by the creative action of an intelligent agent.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of metabolic networks indicate that they are full of nodes with enzymes/proteins, that require for their synthesis information rich, language-based codes stored in DNA . Hierarchical structures have been proved to be best suited for capturing most of the features of metabolic networks (Ravasz et al, 2002). It has been found that metabolites can only be synthesized if carbon, nitrogen, phosphor, and sulfur and the basic building blocks generated from them in central metabolism are available. This implies that regulatory networks gear metabolic activities to the availability of these basic resources. So one metabolic circuit depends on the product of other products, coming from other, central metabolic pathways, one depending from the other, like in a casacade. Further noteworthy is that Feedback loops have been found to be required to regulate metabolic flux, and the activities of many or all of the enzymes in a pathway. In many cases, metabolic pathways are highly branched, in which case it is often necessary to alter fluxes through part of the network while leaving them unaltered or decreasing them in other parts of the network (Curien et al., 2009). These are interconnected in a functional way, resulting in a living cell. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion. Changes in flux often require changes in the activities of multiple enzymes in a metabolic sequence. Synthesis of one metabolite typically requires the operation of many pathways.
Conclusion: Regardless of its initial complexity, self-maintaining chemical-based metabolic life could not have emerged in the absence of a genetic replicating mechanism insuring the maintenance, stability, and diversification of its components. In the absence of any hereditary mechanisms, autotrophic reaction chains would have come and gone without leaving any direct descendants able to resurrect the process. Life as we know it consists of both chemistry and information. If metabolic life ever did exist on the early Earth, to convert it to life as we know it would have required the emergence of some type of information system under conditions that are favorable for the survival and maintenance of genetic informational molecules. ( Ribas de Poupkna, Ph.D.)
Intelligent agents have frequently end goals in mind, and use high levels of instructional complex information to met the goal. In our experience, systems storing large amounts of specified/instructional complex information through codes and languages -- invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, circuits or networks of coordinated interaction as for example of analog electronic devices can always be traced back to a intelligent causal agent. The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions of metabolic pathways (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995). A proposed mechanism to make metabolical networks must be capable of construct de novo, not merely modifying, a minimal set of 50 enzymes, and complex integrated metabolic circuits with the end goal to create life. A metabolic network that is not fully operational, will not permit life. We know in our experience that intelligence is able to setup circuit boards, like discrete electronic boards, and is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines. Since evolution depends on metabolic circuits fully setup, its excluded as possible mechanism. The only two alternatives, chance/luck or physical necessity have never been observed to be able to setup circuit boards and irreducible complex systems. The origin of the basic metabolical network of the first cells is therefore best explained through the action of a intelligent agency.
Bill Rogers
Jul 25, 2016, 8:02:58 AM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 11:18:00 PM UTC-4, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> My sources, thats basically me. LOL. And i trust myself more than you Bill. Even if sometimes i dont get things 100% right. I can still correct myself. As i did.
>
> And , just because i mentioned a few parts that belong to eukaryotes, does not take away the point that was made.
But it does point out that simply listing a bunch of complex stuff found in modern cells is no way to identify the mechanisms that were present in the first life.
> My sources, thats basically me. LOL. And i trust myself more than you Bill. Even if sometimes i dont get things 100% right. I can still correct myself. As i did.
>
> And , just because i mentioned a few parts that belong to eukaryotes, does not take away the point that was made.
>
> But today i got another interesting paper under my fingers....
>
> Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism 1
>
> By integrating data from comparative genomics and large-scale deletion studies, the paper "Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism" proposes a minimal gene set comprising 206 protein-coding genes for the hypothetical minimal cell. As they explain, variations in the hypothetical set of substrates provided by the environment could lead to alternative, perhaps smaller, minimal metabolism set. Fact remains however, even if this hypothetical minimal set could be reduced further, there is a threshold that cannot be surpassed. Listed below are 50 enzymes/proteins required to create a metabolic network implemented by a hypothetical minimal genome for the hypothetical minimal cell.
The other is a top-down approach in which "On the other side, the top-down approach aims at constructing a living cell by simplifying existing small genomes, taking the information about minimal genomes already obtained from computational and experimental studies as a start." That's the approach the authors of this paper are taking.
They also point out a limitation of their top down approach "It is generally admitted that a top-down approach will not achieve the construction of the minimal possible cell in chemical terms, since all extant cells have very complex transcription and translation systems, and it seems unrealistic that the simplest living chemical system would require such components. However, this approach is helping to understand which functions are essential for modern cells, an information that can be applied to the synthesis of modern living cells. "
In short the authors of the article point out that the top-down approach is a poor way to understand the first life, but a reasonable way to understand the minimal requirements for modern life. You might even say that they agree with my criticism of your approach of just listing complicated stuff from modern cells and complaining that it could not all have evolved at once.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2442391/
>
> High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
>
> This is where you assume your conclusion. //// nope. thats the observation.
>
> The argument of a intelligent designer required to setup the Metabolic Networks for the origin of life.
If you are comfortable reading scientific papers, then you should perhaps try to read some papers by people who work on the origin of life and think it did not require an intelligent designer. Understanding the other side's argument is pretty much a requirement to win any debate. So here are a couple of papers on understanding the first life:
http://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/S62.12/docs/Szostak_life.pdf
This is a discussion of chemical synthesis of a minimal chemically possible cell. Not necessarily a claim that it was on the path to life on earth, but a bottom-up approach to thinking about minimal requirements. Certainly far easier to see how something like it could have arisen than hoping that a basically modern cell would poof into existence
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Penny/publication/225516343_An_Interpretive_Review_of_the_Origin_of_Life_Research/links/0deec52b79ccbdc24c000000.pdf
This is a fairly lengthy review of origin of life research which again mentions the difference between top-down and bottom-up approaches
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Anet/publication/8171719_The_place_of_metabolism_in_the_origin_of_life._Curr_Op_Chem_Biol/links/5632509a08ae911fcd490b48.pdf
This is a review of the "metabolism first" view of the origin of life.
http://www.bgu.ac.il/chem/people/Pross/PDF-3%20(OLEB1).pdf
And this is a review of metabolism first and replicators first that comes down on the side of replicators.
You could read these to learn something about what's actually going on in the field (and see why just listing a lot of complex stuff from modern cells is sort of beside the point).
Or you could use it as a source of anti-evolution quotes - here's how to do that. The metabolism first guys are full of reasons why replicators first won't work. So use their quotes to show why replicators first is impossible. The replicators first guys are full of reasons why metabolism first won't work, so use their quotes, too. That way you have quotes from scientists showing that all approaches are impossible........ Anybody with any sense will know that you can find such quotes because the field is active, the problem difficult and the solution unknown as yet (you could find such dueling quotes in any area of active research). But the people you are writing for won't know any better. They'll think you've found scientific proof from the mouths of origin of life researchers that the origin of life by naturalistic means is impossible. You'll be a hero to the faithful.
Seriously, the more you understand about the science of the origin of life, the better arguments against it you'll be able to make. But don't just read ID literature. Read the opposing side and try to understand it. I didn't learn about Christianity by reading Dawkins and Hitchens. You shouldn't try to learn about evolution just by reading its critics.
Mark Isaak
Jul 25, 2016, 10:32:59 AM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 7/24/16 7:30 AM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
[snip cut-and-past plagiarism that Grasso does not understand anyway.]
> 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and
> irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or
> hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
You keep saying that. God keeps saying it is wrong. Which should I
believe?
> 2. Cellular metabolic and enzymatic networks require high
> instructional information to setup the network (or specified
> complexity) and utilize proteins and enzymes that manifest
> irreducible complexity.
So? That's just what you would expect from evolution, not from creation.
> 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice
> to explain the origin of information (instructed complex
> information) and irreducible complexity.
Why should I believe someone who thinks that repeating a falsehood
multiple times makes it true?
[snip cut-and-past plagiarism that Grasso does not understand anyway.]
> 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and
> irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or
> hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
believe?
> 2. Cellular metabolic and enzymatic networks require high
> instructional information to setup the network (or specified
> complexity) and utilize proteins and enzymes that manifest
> irreducible complexity.
> 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice
> to explain the origin of information (instructed complex
> information) and irreducible complexity.
multiple times makes it true?
Mark Isaak
Jul 25, 2016, 10:37:59 AM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 7/24/16 8:17 PM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> My sources, thats basically me. LOL.
Yup, I noticed that. It is a common symptom of creationists that they
> My sources, thats basically me. LOL.
end up believing, as Grasso does, that they are superior to God.
Bob Casanova
Jul 25, 2016, 1:52:58 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 20:17:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Otangelo Grasso
<audiov...@gmail.com>:
>My sources, thats basically me.
It shows. You and The Donald were made for each other.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Otangelo Grasso
<audiov...@gmail.com>:
>My sources, thats basically me.
Bob Casanova
Jul 25, 2016, 1:52:58 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 11:18:04 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Did you read it? Did you understand it?
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Jimbo
Jul 25, 2016, 5:07:58 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:48:56 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
The Wiki article could probably use some editing. It treats LUCA and
progenote as equivalent terms but it appears that the meaning of
progenote can differ according to the context in which it's used.
http://web.uconn.edu/gogarten/progenote/progenote.htm
I don't think we can assume that all living organisms are genetically
descended from the first self-replicating organism - not, at least, if
"genetically descended" is taken to mean that we inherited our RNA and
DNA based genetic system directly from it. It might have used some
other form of nucleic-acid, lacked repair mechanisms and been a lot
more prone to genetic errors. But it also had no predators or
competition, so it could be inefficient and still survive. Our own
efficient genetic system could have evolved millions of years later.
Jack Szostak discussed this. I don't remember exactly where, but I
think it was mostly in his third video:
wrote:
progenote as equivalent terms but it appears that the meaning of
progenote can differ according to the context in which it's used.
http://web.uconn.edu/gogarten/progenote/progenote.htm
I don't think we can assume that all living organisms are genetically
descended from the first self-replicating organism - not, at least, if
"genetically descended" is taken to mean that we inherited our RNA and
DNA based genetic system directly from it. It might have used some
other form of nucleic-acid, lacked repair mechanisms and been a lot
more prone to genetic errors. But it also had no predators or
competition, so it could be inefficient and still survive. Our own
efficient genetic system could have evolved millions of years later.
Jack Szostak discussed this. I don't remember exactly where, but I
think it was mostly in his third video:
jillery
Jul 25, 2016, 6:22:58 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"progenote" doesn't refer to first life, but to a stage somewhere
between prokaryotic life and RNA-world. And even RNA-world might not
be the same as first life.
Jimbo
Jul 25, 2016, 6:52:57 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:20:04 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
Unfortunately it appears that some sources other than Wikipedia also
treat "progenote" as equivalent to LUCA. Here's a definition from _A
Dictionary of Ecology_ by Michael Allaby:
"progenote
The first organism to evolve on Earth and, therefore, the ancestor of
all subsequent organisms."
In this particular case it seems that creationists aren't the only
ones to assume their conclusions.
treat "progenote" as equivalent to LUCA. Here's a definition from _A
Dictionary of Ecology_ by Michael Allaby:
"progenote
The first organism to evolve on Earth and, therefore, the ancestor of
all subsequent organisms."
In this particular case it seems that creationists aren't the only
ones to assume their conclusions.
Steady Eddie
Jul 25, 2016, 9:42:57 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, 22 July 2016 09:18:09 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> How do you identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
How do YOU identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
You are the one that believes a "minimal imperfect replicator" actually existed.
> How do you identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
How do YOU identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
You are the one that believes first life could have evolved via said "minimum metabolism".
So what is this "minimum metabolism" that you believe existed?
> Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
Surely you have a better answer, right?
> The last list you provided of "minimal requirements for a protocell" was full of stuff that is not even required in fully modern bacteria. Why do you trust this guy's claim of eight required metabolic pathways?
>
> If you want to identify minimal requirements for the first protocell, or the first imperfect replicator, the entirely wrong way to do it is to make a list of stuff you find in modern cells. Everybody agrees that the first protocell did not form by the spontaneous assembly of all the components of a modern cell. Everybody agrees that such a thing is utterly impossible.
So what is your explanation?
Does everybody know?
> If you want to generate a list of minimal requirements in the most primitive thing that might be called alive and be subject to evolution, the minimal "imperfect replicator," you have to think far more generally. You need things like:
>
> 1. A genome (something to be imperfectly replicated, specific chemistry needn't be specified)
How do you propose said genome developed without intelligent design?
> 2. Separation from the environment (could be lipid bilayers, could be proteinoid microspheres, could even be microenvironments on an inanimate surface).
> 3. Source of energy - surely it does not have to begin with ATP, and it's certainly not required to have anything like the Krebs cycle or mitochondrial membrane proton pumps.
>
> If you were interested in generating useful ideas about the minimal requirements for life, you'd start thinking like that, not with a list of sciencey sounding components of modern organisms, chosen in the hopes of showing that life could not have emerged without a designer.
So please fill us in - what are the results of your 'proper thinking'?
Anything plausible yet?
After all, if life arose by predictable unintelligent processes, these processes should be easy to reverse-engineer.
> > Adapted from Darwin's Doubt:
> > One of the most basic principles of engineering is the principle of constraints. Engineers have long understood that the more functionally integrated a system is, the more difficult it is to change any part of it without damaging or destroying the system as a whole. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion.
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:43:08 AM UTC-4, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
> > > chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
> >
> > Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
> > > Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
> > > chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
> >
>
> How do you identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
How do YOU identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
You are the one that believes a "minimal imperfect replicator" actually existed.
> How do you identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
You are the one that believes first life could have evolved via said "minimum metabolism".
So what is this "minimum metabolism" that you believe existed?
> Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
> The last list you provided of "minimal requirements for a protocell" was full of stuff that is not even required in fully modern bacteria. Why do you trust this guy's claim of eight required metabolic pathways?
>
> If you want to identify minimal requirements for the first protocell, or the first imperfect replicator, the entirely wrong way to do it is to make a list of stuff you find in modern cells. Everybody agrees that the first protocell did not form by the spontaneous assembly of all the components of a modern cell. Everybody agrees that such a thing is utterly impossible.
So what is your explanation?
Does everybody know?
> If you want to generate a list of minimal requirements in the most primitive thing that might be called alive and be subject to evolution, the minimal "imperfect replicator," you have to think far more generally. You need things like:
>
> 1. A genome (something to be imperfectly replicated, specific chemistry needn't be specified)
How do you propose said genome developed without intelligent design?
> 2. Separation from the environment (could be lipid bilayers, could be proteinoid microspheres, could even be microenvironments on an inanimate surface).
> 3. Source of energy - surely it does not have to begin with ATP, and it's certainly not required to have anything like the Krebs cycle or mitochondrial membrane proton pumps.
>
> If you were interested in generating useful ideas about the minimal requirements for life, you'd start thinking like that, not with a list of sciencey sounding components of modern organisms, chosen in the hopes of showing that life could not have emerged without a designer.
So please fill us in - what are the results of your 'proper thinking'?
Anything plausible yet?
After all, if life arose by predictable unintelligent processes, these processes should be easy to reverse-engineer.
> > Adapted from Darwin's Doubt:
Steady Eddie
Jul 25, 2016, 9:52:57 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, 22 July 2016 23:28:05 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 7/21/16 2:11 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
> >
> > Yawn.
> >
> > We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
> >
> > Thats not a entirely negative premise.
>
> First, evolution is a designer.
...In your imagination.
> On 7/21/16 2:11 PM, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Nobody who works in the field of the origin of life thinks that it got started with something as metabolically complex as the LUCA. You'd know that it you had enough interest in the other sides argument to read up on the research in the origin of life that's gone on in the 60+ years since the Miller-Urey experiment (which seems to be the most recent thing most creationist websites are aware of).
> >
> > Yawn.
> >
> > We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
> >
> > Thats not a entirely negative premise.
>
> First, evolution is a designer.
> Second, complexity is evidence *against* intelligent design.
Steady Eddie
Jul 25, 2016, 9:57:57 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, 22 July 2016 15:28:07 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:24:16 -0700 (PDT),
> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:24:16 -0700 (PDT),
> grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > How do you identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
> >>
> >>
> >> Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
> >
> >
> >I have just taken the ones that were presented in the paper i posted.
> >
> >Frontiers of Astrobiology page 60
> >
> >we can be reasonably confident that, by the LUCA, many core metabolic pathways were firmly in place. Furthermore, a functional electron transport chain had emerged by the LUCA, as genes encoding subunits of the enzymes NADH dehydrogenase, succinate dehydrogenase, and the cytochrome b subunit of the cytochrome bc complex are predicted to have been present. The electron transport chain likely carried out its current function of generating an ion gradient across the membrane, since the reconstructed genome of the LUCA encodes several of the subunits of the F0F1 ATP synthase enzyme that uses the energy stored in an ion gradient to drive the synthesis of ATP. Clearly the LUCA captured energy from redox processes, but the specific types of electron donors and acceptors that were used cannot be determined.
>
>
> You conflate LUCA with first life. They're not the same.
Is that an established fact?
> >
> >Frontiers of Astrobiology page 60
> >
> >we can be reasonably confident that, by the LUCA, many core metabolic pathways were firmly in place. Furthermore, a functional electron transport chain had emerged by the LUCA, as genes encoding subunits of the enzymes NADH dehydrogenase, succinate dehydrogenase, and the cytochrome b subunit of the cytochrome bc complex are predicted to have been present. The electron transport chain likely carried out its current function of generating an ion gradient across the membrane, since the reconstructed genome of the LUCA encodes several of the subunits of the F0F1 ATP synthase enzyme that uses the energy stored in an ion gradient to drive the synthesis of ATP. Clearly the LUCA captured energy from redox processes, but the specific types of electron donors and acceptors that were used cannot be determined.
>
>
> You conflate LUCA with first life. They're not the same.
Citation, please.
jillery
Jul 25, 2016, 11:32:56 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Instead of posting your mindless spam and infantile questions, and
instead of evading Bob Casanova's Wikipedia cite, try actually
responding to the answers already given. For example, what do you
think the Wiki article doesn't explain?
jillery
Jul 25, 2016, 11:32:56 PM7/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
equivalent to first life. That's a separate and unrelated issue from
Steadly's mindless LOL.
Allaby can define progenote and LUCA and first life as the same, but
that doesn't mean the organisms to which these words refer were
actually the same.
If one assumes LUCA to have the features as described by Wiki, as
including DNA and supporting proteins and the extant genetic code,
that's too complex a process to have assembled spontaneously. So
unless one assumes the intervention of intelligence, a simpler but
reproducing and therefore evolving form of life must have existed
prior to LUCA, without DNA and all that it requires.
Öö Tiib
Jul 26, 2016, 1:07:58 AM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, 26 July 2016 04:42:57 UTC+3, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 22 July 2016 09:18:09 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:43:08 AM UTC-4, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
> > > > chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
> > >
> > > Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
> >
> > How do you identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
> On Friday, 22 July 2016 09:18:09 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:43:08 AM UTC-4, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
> > > > chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
> > >
> > > Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
> >
> > How do you identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
> > How do you identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
> > Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
>
>
> How do YOU identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for
> a minimal imperfect replicator?
> You are the one that believes a "minimal imperfect replicator" actually
> existed.
> a minimal imperfect replicator?
> You are the one that believes a "minimal imperfect replicator" actually
> existed.
> How do YOU identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
> You are the one that believes first life could have evolved via said
> "minimum metabolism".
> So what is this "minimum metabolism" that you believe existed?
> You are the one that believes first life could have evolved via said
> "minimum metabolism".
> So what is this "minimum metabolism" that you believe existed?
> Surely you have a better answer, right?
Isn't it elementary? When we want to know if something does really work
then we can calculate and predict it somewhat but ultimately we need to
make it and try it out. That is how. On any case lot of big mouth noise
does not help there.
>
> > The last list you provided of "minimal requirements for a protocell" was full of stuff that is not even required in fully modern bacteria. Why do you trust this guy's claim of eight required metabolic pathways?
> >
> > If you want to identify minimal requirements for the first protocell, or the first imperfect replicator, the entirely wrong way to do it is to make a list of stuff you find in modern cells. Everybody agrees that the first protocell did not form by the spontaneous assembly of all the components of a modern cell. Everybody agrees that such a thing is utterly impossible.
>
> So what is your explanation?
> Does everybody know?
>
> > If you want to generate a list of minimal requirements in the most primitive thing that might be called alive and be subject to evolution, the minimal "imperfect replicator," you have to think far more generally. You need things like:
> >
> > 1. A genome (something to be imperfectly replicated, specific chemistry needn't be specified)
>
> How do you propose said genome developed without intelligent design?
>
> > 2. Separation from the environment (could be lipid bilayers, could be proteinoid microspheres, could even be microenvironments on an inanimate surface).
> > 3. Source of energy - surely it does not have to begin with ATP, and it's certainly not required to have anything like the Krebs cycle or mitochondrial membrane proton pumps.
> >
> > If you were interested in generating useful ideas about the minimal requirements for life, you'd start thinking like that, not with a list of sciencey sounding components of modern organisms, chosen in the hopes of showing that life could not have emerged without a designer.
>
> So please fill us in - what are the results of your 'proper thinking'?
> Anything plausible yet?
> After all, if life arose by predictable unintelligent processes, these processes should be easy to reverse-engineer.
happened billions of years ago should be easy to reverse-engineer? People
can not even forecast weather from right now for only next week accurately.
Jimbo
Jul 26, 2016, 11:32:54 AM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 22 July 2016 09:18:09 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:43:08 AM UTC-4, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
>> > > chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
>> >
>> > Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
>>
>> How do you identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
>
>How do YOU identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
>You are the one that believes a "minimal imperfect replicator" actually existed.
The lipid-bilayer bounded vesicles studied by Jack Szostak aren't
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 22 July 2016 09:18:09 UTC-6, Bill Rogers wrote:
>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 8:43:08 AM UTC-4, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > Yes, that we know. But life is not about electric circuits, it is about
>> > > chemistry. Do you understand the difference?
>> >
>> > Building a new living cell requires not just new genes and proteins, but new metabolic networks. The minimal set of Metabolic pathways to make life possible requires at least eight highly complex multibranched, noded anabolic and metabolic systems, which are functionally critical, and individually do not confer any advantage of survival, unless all of them are present in the first living cell, and correctly interconnected to provide function, internal and external communication, and the biosynthesis of various essential products and parts. These are circuits or networks of coordinated interaction, much like integrated circuits on a circuitboard. Metabolic networks work like electric circuits.The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995).
>>
>> How do you identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
>
>How do YOU identify the minimal set of metabolic pathways required for a minimal imperfect replicator?
>You are the one that believes a "minimal imperfect replicator" actually existed.
alive in the manner of modern cells but exhibit some properties of
life. They can incorporate fatty 'food' particles, grow and replicate
and transmit genetic material from "mother" vesicles to "daughter"
vesicles. This is accomplished by means of purely mechanical and
chemical processes as detailed in this video:
The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
Proto-cell Membranes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA&list=PLIotpBG-g_3kU_e0MH6Z6hXJOpD1lzvGr
Non-enzymatic Copying of Nucleic Acids:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU&list=PLIotpBG-g_3kU_e0MH6Z6hXJOpD1lzvGr&index=3
answer a number of your questions. The second video, for example,
shows the actual division process. As vesicles incorporate food, they
grow and elongate into strands that break apart into daughter
vesicles. Since this is a purely mechanical process it doesn't require
a complex cellular machinery to accomplish. One of the things learned
in these experiments is that genetic information can accumulate and be
transmitted even in the absence of any sort of determinate genome.
>> How do you identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
>
>How do YOU identify the minimum metabolism required for the first life?
>You are the one that believes first life could have evolved via said "minimum metabolism".
>So what is this "minimum metabolism" that you believe existed?
>
>> Surely not by making a list of the metabolic pathways present in organisms that have had billions of years to refine them, right?
>
>Surely you have a better answer, right?
processes may have been. For example clay particles incorporated into
these vesicles can catalyze reactions including nucleic acid
polymerization. It's also possible that micro-channels and chambers
within "white smokers" or other such natural structures could have
provided some of the materials and structures that modern evolved life
forms manufacture for themselves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_City_Hydrothermal_Field
>> The last list you provided of "minimal requirements for a protocell" was full of stuff that is not even required in fully modern bacteria. Why do you trust this guy's claim of eight required metabolic pathways?
>>
>> If you want to identify minimal requirements for the first protocell, or the first imperfect replicator, the entirely wrong way to do it is to make a list of stuff you find in modern cells. Everybody agrees that the first protocell did not form by the spontaneous assembly of all the components of a modern cell. Everybody agrees that such a thing is utterly impossible.
>
>So what is your explanation?
>Does everybody know?
Through patient research, knowledge accumulates. For several hundred
years researchers have been inquiring deeper and deeper into the
mysteries of nature and now they are beginning to unravel one of the
deepest mysteries of all, the secrets of life's beginnings.
>> If you want to generate a list of minimal requirements in the most primitive thing that might be called alive and be subject to evolution, the minimal "imperfect replicator," you have to think far more generally. You need things like:
>>
>> 1. A genome (something to be imperfectly replicated, specific chemistry needn't be specified)
>
>How do you propose said genome developed without intelligent design?
replicated and transmitted from mother-cells to daughter-cells without
benefit of enzymes or protein-based structures. Those experimental
results provide clues as to how the process may have begun. But you
guys are apparently unwilling to read scientific papers or even look
at videos detailing experimental research that arrives at results you
don't like.
John Stockwell
Jul 26, 2016, 12:12:56 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-6, grassoempreen...@gmail.com wrote:
> The complexity of the initial Enzymatic and Metabolic network of the first living cells ( progenote/LUCA ) demonstrates the requirent of a intelligent , powerful Creator
>
> Following shows the minimal metabolic network that was required in the first supposed last universal common ancestor. Consider that this extremely complex network could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends that this very own metabolic network was fully operational, beside dna replication, on which evolution depends.
> So the only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
>
>
> The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039912#pone.0039912-Srinivasan1
>
> We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
A good rule of thumb is that if you find yourself invoking supernatural
agencies, you likely don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
-John
> The complexity of the initial Enzymatic and Metabolic network of the first living cells ( progenote/LUCA ) demonstrates the requirent of a intelligent , powerful Creator
>
> Following shows the minimal metabolic network that was required in the first supposed last universal common ancestor. Consider that this extremely complex network could not emerge through evolution, since evolution depends that this very own metabolic network was fully operational, beside dna replication, on which evolution depends.
> So the only two mechanisms that remain to explain its origin is chance/luck/self organisation, or physical necessity. We know of intelligence being able to construct electric circuits all the time. We do not know of lucky accidents with the same capacity. We can infer therefore confidently, that the metabolic network to create the first living cell was designed.
>
>
> The Enzymatic and Metabolic Capabilities of Early Life
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039912#pone.0039912-Srinivasan1
>
> We reconstruct a representative metabolic network that may reflect the core metabolism of early life forms. Our results show that ten enzyme functions, four hydrolases, three transferases, one oxidoreductase, one lyase, and one ligase, are determined by metaconsensus to be present at least as late as the last universal common ancestor. Subnetworks within central metabolic processes related to sugar and starch metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, phospholipid metabolism, and CoA biosynthesis, have high frequencies of these enzyme functions.
A good rule of thumb is that if you find yourself invoking supernatural
agencies, you likely don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
-John
Bob Casanova
Jul 26, 2016, 2:22:55 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:05:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jimbo <ji...@abyz.com>:
OK, thanks for the clarification.
>I don't think we can assume that all living organisms are genetically
>descended from the first self-replicating organism - not, at least, if
>"genetically descended" is taken to mean that we inherited our RNA and
>DNA based genetic system directly from it. It might have used some
>other form of nucleic-acid, lacked repair mechanisms and been a lot
>more prone to genetic errors. But it also had no predators or
>competition, so it could be inefficient and still survive. Our own
>efficient genetic system could have evolved millions of years later.
>Jack Szostak discussed this. I don't remember exactly where, but I
>think it was mostly in his third video:
>
>Non-enzymatic Copying of Nucleic Acids:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU&list=PLIotpBG-g_3kU_e0MH6Z6hXJOpD1lzvGr&index=3
All granted (as well as a layman understands it), but my
specific original comment was solely in response to Eddie's
apparent belief (expressed as his usual mindless giggle)
that "LUCA" and "first life" were synonyms, which they
aren't.
in talk.origins, posted by Jimbo <ji...@abyz.com>:
>I don't think we can assume that all living organisms are genetically
>descended from the first self-replicating organism - not, at least, if
>"genetically descended" is taken to mean that we inherited our RNA and
>DNA based genetic system directly from it. It might have used some
>other form of nucleic-acid, lacked repair mechanisms and been a lot
>more prone to genetic errors. But it also had no predators or
>competition, so it could be inefficient and still survive. Our own
>efficient genetic system could have evolved millions of years later.
>Jack Szostak discussed this. I don't remember exactly where, but I
>think it was mostly in his third video:
>
>Non-enzymatic Copying of Nucleic Acids:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU&list=PLIotpBG-g_3kU_e0MH6Z6hXJOpD1lzvGr&index=3
specific original comment was solely in response to Eddie's
apparent belief (expressed as his usual mindless giggle)
that "LUCA" and "first life" were synonyms, which they
aren't.
Jimbo
Jul 26, 2016, 3:47:56 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:19:44 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
I know you were just correcting his misunderstanding, but then I
noticed that the Wiki article on the LUCA seems to equate the terms
"last universal common ancestor" and "progenote" which might seem to
imply that the LUCA was the first organism. It would be less ambiguous
if the article didn't mention the term "progenote." It might also be
useful to note that the LUCA would have existed long after the first
replicator.
The problem with terms such as "progenote" and "UR organism" is that
they don't make clear that the first replicator might have had a
genetic system distinctly different from RNA and DNA based systems of
existing organisms. We shouldn't assume that the first replicator was
merely a very simple version of some existing microbe.
Even if it were mostly like modern organisms genetically or in terms
of its membrane systems, we can't assume it would be as
'self-contained' as most modern organisms. It might have been like one
of those old-timey cars that had to be hand-cranked to get it started.
If you assume it's a completely self-contained unit it's obviously
non-functional. Yet modern cars are "descended" from such
'unstartable' ancestors.
Sorry 'bout the rant. I probably should try editing the Wiki article
myself. I haven't done that in a long time and don't even know if it's
still possible to do minor edits without going through the talk page
and suggesting the change for discussion.
noticed that the Wiki article on the LUCA seems to equate the terms
"last universal common ancestor" and "progenote" which might seem to
imply that the LUCA was the first organism. It would be less ambiguous
if the article didn't mention the term "progenote." It might also be
useful to note that the LUCA would have existed long after the first
replicator.
The problem with terms such as "progenote" and "UR organism" is that
they don't make clear that the first replicator might have had a
genetic system distinctly different from RNA and DNA based systems of
existing organisms. We shouldn't assume that the first replicator was
merely a very simple version of some existing microbe.
Even if it were mostly like modern organisms genetically or in terms
of its membrane systems, we can't assume it would be as
'self-contained' as most modern organisms. It might have been like one
of those old-timey cars that had to be hand-cranked to get it started.
If you assume it's a completely self-contained unit it's obviously
non-functional. Yet modern cars are "descended" from such
'unstartable' ancestors.
Sorry 'bout the rant. I probably should try editing the Wiki article
myself. I haven't done that in a long time and don't even know if it's
still possible to do minor edits without going through the talk page
and suggesting the change for discussion.
Jimbo
Jul 26, 2016, 4:57:54 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
shouldn't be assumed to be the first living organism. This was
probably already apparent if one read the article carefully, but it
probably won't hurt to say it clearly.
Öö Tiib
Jul 26, 2016, 5:27:55 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
are different things that should not be confused. It is a long article.
Jimbo
Jul 26, 2016, 6:37:54 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:26:10 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:
It does link to an article on the Ur-organism. That article defines
the Ur-organism as the first common ancestor to all currently existing
life and the LUA as the last common ancestor to all life, but this
elides the whole question of whether first living organism necessarily
contributed genetically to modern life forms. It may have used
completely different nucleic acids or a different genetic code that
enabled the emergence of natural selection and the eventual shift to
modern type genetic transmission and membrane systems. The earlier
systems may have then been discarded. The Wikipedia article on the LUA
probably isn't the place to try to make that point, however. If the
editors want to discard my edit it might eliminate a bit of
redundancy.
wrote:
the Ur-organism as the first common ancestor to all currently existing
life and the LUA as the last common ancestor to all life, but this
elides the whole question of whether first living organism necessarily
contributed genetically to modern life forms. It may have used
completely different nucleic acids or a different genetic code that
enabled the emergence of natural selection and the eventual shift to
modern type genetic transmission and membrane systems. The earlier
systems may have then been discarded. The Wikipedia article on the LUA
probably isn't the place to try to make that point, however. If the
editors want to discard my edit it might eliminate a bit of
redundancy.
Jimbo
Jul 26, 2016, 6:52:54 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
considered ancestral if it embodied a set of abilities necessarily
antecedent to the emergence of modern metabolisms and genetics, even
if it wasn't genetically ancestral.
jillery
Jul 26, 2016, 8:12:54 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
did not equate "progenote" with first life, and even if it did, that's
not the point Steadly thought giggle-worthy.
Jimbo
Jul 26, 2016, 8:27:54 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:10:30 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
"progenote" by itself is ambiguous. It can have several meanings
depending on the context in which it's applied. And why should anyone
pay attention to what Eddy considers giggle-worthy?
depending on the context in which it's applied. And why should anyone
pay attention to what Eddy considers giggle-worthy?
Jimbo
Jul 26, 2016, 8:42:53 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
to what they write anymore?
Jimbo
Jul 26, 2016, 9:07:54 PM7/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
ironic. Clearly I need to stop posting to Usenet. Keep up the good
fight, y'all. I'll check again in a couple years. Hopefully T.O. will
still be alive.
jillery
Jul 27, 2016, 12:32:53 AM7/27/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Wiki wrote.
>And why should anyone
>pay attention to what Eddy considers giggle-worthy?
Bob Casanova
Jul 27, 2016, 2:17:51 PM7/27/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:44:29 -0700, the following appeared
IIRC, it's understood that the first replicator (as
contrasted with the first life) was almost certainly neither
RNA- nor DNA-based, or even "alive", but was what we'd
consider a simple (well, probably not really "simple")
chemical compound. Or did I misinterpret what I read?
>Even if it were mostly like modern organisms genetically or in terms
>of its membrane systems, we can't assume it would be as
>'self-contained' as most modern organisms. It might have been like one
>of those old-timey cars that had to be hand-cranked to get it started.
>If you assume it's a completely self-contained unit it's obviously
>non-functional. Yet modern cars are "descended" from such
>'unstartable' ancestors.
Point(s) taken, and thanks again.
>Sorry 'bout the rant. I probably should try editing the Wiki article
>myself. I haven't done that in a long time and don't even know if it's
>still possible to do minor edits without going through the talk page
>and suggesting the change for discussion.
Damfino; I've never tried to edit a Wiki page. Good luck;
any clarification is a Good Thing (TM).
contrasted with the first life) was almost certainly neither
RNA- nor DNA-based, or even "alive", but was what we'd
consider a simple (well, probably not really "simple")
chemical compound. Or did I misinterpret what I read?
>Even if it were mostly like modern organisms genetically or in terms
>of its membrane systems, we can't assume it would be as
>'self-contained' as most modern organisms. It might have been like one
>of those old-timey cars that had to be hand-cranked to get it started.
>If you assume it's a completely self-contained unit it's obviously
>non-functional. Yet modern cars are "descended" from such
>'unstartable' ancestors.
>Sorry 'bout the rant. I probably should try editing the Wiki article
>myself. I haven't done that in a long time and don't even know if it's
>still possible to do minor edits without going through the talk page
>and suggesting the change for discussion.
any clarification is a Good Thing (TM).
Bob Casanova
Jul 27, 2016, 2:17:52 PM7/27/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:55:41 -0700, the following appeared
Cool! And additional clarity, as I noted elsethread, is
always desirable.
always desirable.
Bob Casanova
Jul 27, 2016, 2:22:51 PM7/27/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:41:16 -0700, the following appeared
Your spelling may be a classic "Freudian slip". An eddy is
analogous to threads in which Eddie posts - a structure
which goes nowhere, but which can trap the unwary in
circular motion indefinitely.
analogous to threads in which Eddie posts - a structure
which goes nowhere, but which can trap the unwary in
circular motion indefinitely.
Steady Eddie
Jul 27, 2016, 11:37:51 PM7/27/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
0 new messages