For The Children

[Glenn]

DNA repair:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFr0xTMV5k

"Ancient bacteria show evidence of DNA repair"

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/36/14401

First life, being primitive, wouldn't have needed such complex repair mechanisms?

[jillery]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 20:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Bacteria aren't first life, and first life didn't use DNA. However,
double-stranded DNA has a built-in repair mechanism, of comparing the
strands. It's not perfect, but it's better than what single-stranded
RNA allows.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[RonO]

On 9/28/2021 3:39 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 20:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> DNA repair:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFr0xTMV5k
>>
>> "Ancient bacteria show evidence of DNA repair"
>>
>> https://www.pnas.org/content/104/36/14401
>>
>> First life, being primitive, wouldn't have needed such complex repair mechanisms?
>
>
> Bacteria aren't first life, and first life didn't use DNA. However,
> double-stranded DNA has a built-in repair mechanism, of comparing the
> strands. It's not perfect, but it's better than what single-stranded
> RNA allows.
>

If you go to the paper, the ancient bacteria that they are talking about
were frozen a million years ago. Beats me why anyone would expect
bacteria of a million years ago would not have DNA repair. Glenn seems
to be misinterpreting the paper, the claim seems to be that these
ancient bacteria survived because they could repair their DNA for the
last million years.

Abstract
Recent claims of cultivable ancient bacteria within sealed environments
highlight our limited understanding of the mechanisms behind long-term
cell survival. It remains unclear how dormancy, a favored explanation
for extended cellular persistence, can cope with spontaneous genomic
decay over geological timescales. There has been no direct evidence in
ancient microbes for the most likely mechanism, active DNA repair, or
for the metabolic activity necessary to sustain it. In this paper, we
couple PCR and enzymatic treatment of DNA with direct respiration
measurements to investigate long-term survival of bacteria sealed in
frozen conditions for up to one million years. Our results show evidence
of bacterial survival in samples up to half a million years in age,
making this the oldest independently authenticated DNA to date obtained
from viable cells. Additionally, we find strong evidence that this
long-term survival is closely tied to cellular metabolic activity and
DNA repair that over time proves to be superior to dormancy as a
mechanism in sustaining bacteria viability.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 1:40:12 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 20:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >DNA repair:
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFr0xTMV5k
> >
> >"Ancient bacteria show evidence of DNA repair"
> >
> >https://www.pnas.org/content/104/36/14401
> >
> >First life, being primitive, wouldn't have needed such complex repair mechanisms?

> Bacteria aren't first life, and first life didn't use DNA. However,
> double-stranded DNA has a built-in repair mechanism, of comparing the
> strands. It's not perfect, but it's better than what single-stranded
> RNA allows.
>

I suppose this was propaganda for the children.

I didn't say that first life was bacteria, nor was it implied.

It is unknown whether first life used DNA.

DNA has multiple repair mechanisms, not "a" mechanism, some possibly including use of RNA.

You don't say what "single-stranded RNA allows", other than it is not "better than a DNA repair mechanism". I said nothing about RNA repair mechanisms. Once again, you represent a claim as a fact. Neither are facts.

And you didn't answer the question.

I can only surmise your reply was a dishonest reaction to the thread title.

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 3:50:12 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 9/28/2021 3:39 AM, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 20:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> DNA repair:
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFr0xTMV5k
> >>
> >> "Ancient bacteria show evidence of DNA repair"
> >>
> >> https://www.pnas.org/content/104/36/14401
> >>
> >> First life, being primitive, wouldn't have needed such complex repair mechanisms?
> >
> >
> > Bacteria aren't first life, and first life didn't use DNA. However,
> > double-stranded DNA has a built-in repair mechanism, of comparing the
> > strands. It's not perfect, but it's better than what single-stranded
> > RNA allows.
> >
> If you go to the paper, the ancient bacteria that they are talking about
> were frozen a million years ago. Beats me why anyone would expect
> bacteria of a million years ago would not have DNA repair. Glenn seems
> to be misinterpreting the paper, the claim seems to be that these
> ancient bacteria survived because they could repair their DNA for the
> last million years.

I certainly gave no indication of suggesting that million year old bacteria would not have DNA repair mechanisms.
The bacteria does show evidence of DNA repair mechanisms, since as you say they survived because of it.
How that "seems" that I misinterpreted the paper is a mystery.

And you didn't answer the question, nor address what you actually responded to. I would not be surprised that you confirmed
jillery's claim that first life was RNA based, though, or even comment on whether this RNA based life needed repair mechanisms.
Again, I'm not surprised you didn't, since you consistently avoid responding to what is actually said.

[RonO]

On 9/28/2021 6:05 PM, Glenn wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 3:50:12 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 9/28/2021 3:39 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 20:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> DNA repair:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFr0xTMV5k
>>>>
>>>> "Ancient bacteria show evidence of DNA repair"
>>>>
>>>> https://www.pnas.org/content/104/36/14401
>>>>
>>>> First life, being primitive, wouldn't have needed such complex repair mechanisms?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bacteria aren't first life, and first life didn't use DNA. However,
>>> double-stranded DNA has a built-in repair mechanism, of comparing the
>>> strands. It's not perfect, but it's better than what single-stranded
>>> RNA allows.

You wrote this after posting a link to the paper.

QUOTE:

First life, being primitive, wouldn't have needed such complex repair
mechanisms?

END QUOTE:

You just have to look at what you posted.

>>>
>> If you go to the paper, the ancient bacteria that they are talking about
>> were frozen a million years ago. Beats me why anyone would expect
>> bacteria of a million years ago would not have DNA repair. Glenn seems
>> to be misinterpreting the paper, the claim seems to be that these
>> ancient bacteria survived because they could repair their DNA for the
>> last million years.
>
> I certainly gave no indication of suggesting that million year old bacteria would not have DNA repair mechanisms.
> The bacteria does show evidence of DNA repair mechanisms, since as you say they survived because of it.
> How that "seems" that I misinterpreted the paper is a mystery.

You wrote this after posting a link to the paper.

QUOTE:

First life, being primitive, wouldn't have needed such complex repair
mechanisms?

END QUOTE:

You just have to look at what you posted.

>
> And you didn't answer the question, nor address what you actually responded to. I would not be surprised that you confirmed
> jillery's claim that first life was RNA based, though, or even comment on whether this RNA based life needed repair mechanisms.
> Again, I'm not surprised you didn't, since you consistently avoid responding to what is actually said.
>

My take was that you misinterpreted the PNAS paper and your question was
lame and just a bunch of your usual denial stupidity. It is still just
denial with the reinterpretation.

The first life with DNA wouldn't have needed the sophisticated DNA
repair because the amount of DNA would have been minimal. If the RNA
world guys are onto something the first DNA polymerase was likely an
RNA. What repair mechanisms existed by the time DNA was being used
would likely be dependent on what had already evolved for RNA. There
wouldn't have been much to repair for the early lifeform. How much DNA
do you think there was to repair after replication. My guess is that
just constantly replicating the DNA was the biggest deal for the early
lifeform. Beats me how sophisticated lifeforms were when DNA started to
be used. My guess is that early cells didn't replicate and divide, but
probably just blebbed off bits with the hope that enough of the genetic
material transferred with the bit that got separated. The DNA would
have been in short bits or plasmids and like plasmids would likely have
gone randomly into the different resulting cells.

No one knows, so your denial isn't warranted. God-of-the-gaps junk has
always been worthless for demonstrating much of anything. Just look how
you have been running from the Top Six God-of-the-gaps IDiot stupidity
for nearly 4 years.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Your take is so delusional as to be close to gibberish.

>
> The first life with DNA wouldn't have needed the sophisticated DNA
> repair because the amount of DNA would have been minimal.

That's your "take" on it. Based on nothing but faith, and silly. Perhaps I'm wrong. Show me "minimal" DNA that doesn't need repair.

"Until recently, this lack of conservation of the key elements of the DNA replication machinery precluded reconstruction of the ancestral state, suggesting multiple origins for DNA replication and even the possibility that LUCA was an RNA-based cell [2, 5]. However, given the universal conservation of other components of the replication apparatus, such as PCNA (sliding clamp), clamp loader ATPase, and ssDNA-binding protein, along with the inferred relatively high complexity of LUCA, comparable to that of modern prokaryotes, such scenarios appear unlikely. The line of reasoning developed here, based primarily on the recently discovered evolutionary connection between PolD and the universally conserved RNAP, allows inference of the ancestral DNAP.

https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-020-00800-9

[jillery]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 15:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 1:40:12 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 20:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >DNA repair:
>> >
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFr0xTMV5k
>> >
>> >"Ancient bacteria show evidence of DNA repair"
>> >
>> >https://www.pnas.org/content/104/36/14401
>> >
>> >First life, being primitive, wouldn't have needed such complex repair mechanisms?
>
>> Bacteria aren't first life, and first life didn't use DNA. However,
>> double-stranded DNA has a built-in repair mechanism, of comparing the
>> strands. It's not perfect, but it's better than what single-stranded
>> RNA allows.
>>
>I suppose this was propaganda for the children.
>
>I didn't say that first life was bacteria, nor was it implied.

And I didn't say you said....

And I didn't imply you implied....

Don't bother to explain why you mentioned first life.

>It is unknown whether first life used DNA.

Only if you use pointlessly pedantic meanings of "unknown".

>DNA has multiple repair mechanisms, not "a" mechanism, some possibly including use of RNA.

Not the point.

>You don't say what "single-stranded RNA allows",

I don't say lots of things. Don't bother to explain why you focus on
that one thing.

>other than it is not "better than a DNA repair mechanism". I said nothing about RNA repair mechanisms.

And I didn't say you said...

>Once again, you represent a claim as a fact. Neither are facts.

Do you mean one fact or two?

>And you didn't answer the question.

Yours is a Dale-style non-question.

>I can only surmise your reply was a dishonest reaction to the thread title.

You surmise lots of things having nothing to do with anything anybody
said.

I presume your topic title is a self-reference.

[Glenn]

You are still avoiding the question.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 18:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Dang, my irony meter just exploded.

[RonO]

Projection is stupid. It was what you wrote.

Even the argument that you claim to be making is just the usual denial
stupidity.

>>
>> The first life with DNA wouldn't have needed the sophisticated DNA
>> repair because the amount of DNA would have been minimal.
>
> That's your "take" on it. Based on nothing but faith, and silly. Perhaps I'm wrong. Show me "minimal" DNA that doesn't need repair.

Why would the first lifeforms need such a sophisticated DNA repair
mechanism?

Your denial seems to overwhelm your common sense.

>
> "Until recently, this lack of conservation of the key elements of the DNA replication machinery precluded reconstruction of the ancestral state, suggesting multiple origins for DNA replication and even the possibility that LUCA was an RNA-based cell [2, 5]. However, given the universal conservation of other components of the replication apparatus, such as PCNA (sliding clamp), clamp loader ATPase, and ssDNA-binding protein, along with the inferred relatively high complexity of LUCA, comparable to that of modern prokaryotes, such scenarios appear unlikely. The line of reasoning developed here, based primarily on the recently discovered evolutionary connection between PolD and the universally conserved RNAP, allows inference of the ancestral DNAP.
>
> https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-020-00800-9
>

What is your point? More denial? If RNA came first there could have
been multiple evolutions of DNA replication. What do you not get? What
is also likely to have happened is that early life forms were exchanging
genetic material (universal genetic code), so they can keep variable
polymerases and acquire other bits by horizontal transfer. It is one of
the reasons why we have difficulty trying to figure out the last common
ancestor of the three distinct types of life (bacteria, archaea, and
Eukaryotes. Even after such a last common ancestor life forms have been
swapping bits of their DNA. We have a bunch of eubacterial DNA in our
genomes because of the symbiosis event that made eukaryotes aerobic
lifeforms. Even though eukaryotes seem to be derived from achaea,
archaea doesn't have as much aerobic bacterial DNA in their genomes.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 18:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

You are still avoiding coherent content.

[Glenn]

So others can have reasons for not answering questions that are acceptable to you, but I'm expected to answer any question posed to me, regardless of what my reasons may be for not answering directly.

You're either very ignorant of the fact that others do often ignore or not answer questions posed to them, or you're dishonest.
And I usually do not make such comments about other's not answering. I only mention it here because of recent criticisms of me.
I also don't always respond to claims such as "I didn't say you said that" with "I didn't say you said I said that". I suppose you'll claim your irony meter exploded again. You got the devil in you, Martin, whether you know it or not.

[Glenn]

Irrespective of what you imagine I am denying, why would you need to ask why first life would need 'sophisticated" repair systems?

Are you stupid? Nah. Are you crazy? Likely. Are you delusional? Definitely.

Below I gave you the reasons. And instead of responding to the cited paper, you ask what my point is.

> >
> > "Until recently, this lack of conservation of the key elements of the DNA replication machinery precluded reconstruction of the ancestral state, suggesting multiple origins for DNA replication and even the possibility that LUCA was an RNA-based cell [2, 5]. However, given the universal conservation of other components of the replication apparatus, such as PCNA (sliding clamp), clamp loader ATPase, and ssDNA-binding protein, along with the inferred relatively high complexity of LUCA, comparable to that of modern prokaryotes, such scenarios appear unlikely. The line of reasoning developed here, based primarily on the recently discovered evolutionary connection between PolD and the universally conserved RNAP, allows inference of the ancestral DNAP.
> >
> > https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-020-00800-9
> >
> What is your point? More denial? If RNA came first there could have
> been multiple evolutions of DNA replication. What do you not get? What
> is also likely to have happened is that early life forms were exchanging
> genetic material (universal genetic code), so they can keep variable
> polymerases and acquire other bits by horizontal transfer. It is one of
> the reasons why we have difficulty trying to figure out the last common
> ancestor of the three distinct types of life (bacteria, archaea, and
> Eukaryotes. Even after such a last common ancestor life forms have been
> swapping bits of their DNA. We have a bunch of eubacterial DNA in our
> genomes because of the symbiosis event that made eukaryotes aerobic
> lifeforms. Even though eukaryotes seem to be derived from achaea,
> archaea doesn't have as much aerobic bacterial DNA in their genomes.
>

So now you're going for RNA being first life.
By coincidence, this article just appeared today:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/stop-lights-in-the-cell/

"In Science, Michael R. Lawson and six colleagues play the role of forensic investigators, figuring out what goes wrong when mRNA transcripts run a red light, so to speak. Their paper, “Mechanisms that ensure speed and fidelity in eukaryotic translation termination,” begins with a statement of the law: “How Translation Stops.” It includes a shocking statistic:"

Continue reading down. I'll quote one part:

"This “essential process,” they note, requires the functioning of interdependent events. The “e” in eRF1 and eRF3 means “eukaryotic” because bacteria, too, have homologous factors (RF1/2, RF3) that perform corresponding functions. Translation termination is therefore essential for all living things. "

Now tell me why this first life based on RNA would not require repair mechanisms, and/or what "simple" mechanisms would look like, as opposed to 'sophisticated" or "relatively complex" machinery comparable to what appears has been required of DNA and RNA since LUCA and even first life.

[jillery]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:33:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

[...]

>So others can have reasons for not answering questions that are acceptable to you, but I'm expected to answer any question posed to me, regardless of what my reasons may be for not answering directly.

Since you mention it, it is reasonable for others to expect you to
answer questions about the topics and issues you raise.

>You're either very ignorant of the fact that others do often ignore or not answer questions posed to them, or you're dishonest.

Since you mention it, the criticism to which you allude is chronic and
long-standing, not just recent.

Also, a problem you have is your questions are usually irrelevant to
the topics and issues under discussion, and/or incoherent, as in this
case.

Also, another problem is you show poor comprehension of written
English. This limitation would make it hard for you to recognize
answers, or to understand them.

>I also don't always respond to claims such as "I didn't say you said that" with "I didn't say you said I said that". I suppose you'll claim your irony meter exploded again. You got the devil in you, Martin, whether you know it or not.

Since you mention it, when you say "I didn't say [X]", you also don't
say what you meant to say, and/or you don't say how what you did say
is different than what you say you didn't say. This suggests your
statement is just a wordgame to avoid answering the question.

You do this so often, the only rational response is to throw it back
at you and retort "I didn't say you said [X]", which is at least
factually correct. That might be why you get your knappies in a bunch
over it. Of course, you could stop pointlessly posting "I didn't say
[X]", but apparently that's too hard for you to figure out.

And for those who have trouble recognizing the difference, my comments
above are not arguing with a fool, but instead is describing what
qualifies as foolish.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:33:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >So others can have reasons for not answering questions that are acceptable to you, but I'm expected to answer any question posed to me, regardless of what my reasons may be for not answering directly.

> Since you mention it, it is reasonable for others to expect you to
> answer questions about the topics and issues you raise.

I didn't mention what you claim. It is not always reasonable to answer a question, as you repeatedly demonstrate.

> >You're either very ignorant of the fact that others do often ignore or not answer questions posed to them, or you're dishonest.
> Since you mention it, the criticism to which you allude is chronic and
> long-standing, not just recent.
>
> Also, a problem you have is your questions are usually irrelevant to
> the topics and issues under discussion, and/or incoherent, as in this
> case.
>

So it is not reasonable for me to expect you to answer any question I pose, but it is reasonable for you to expect me to answer any question you pose. Got it.
[...]

[RonO]

From all we know at this time, it did not need a sophisticated DNA
repair system. If you think that it did, you need to demonstrate that.
The problem with god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity is that you don't
know what is in the gap either.

>
> Are you stupid? Nah. Are you crazy? Likely. Are you delusional? Definitely.

Projection is stupid and as dishonest as anything that you ever do. You
have to know what you are in order to project that onto someone else.
Why can't you understand that?

>
> Below I gave you the reasons. And instead of responding to the cited paper, you ask what my point is.

There was nothing to respond to in the cited paper. They demonstrated
that million year old bacteria survived because they had the DNA repair
system that had evolved over billions of years. They were billions of
years in time from the first life forms that used DNA.

>>>
>>> "Until recently, this lack of conservation of the key elements of the DNA replication machinery precluded reconstruction of the ancestral state, suggesting multiple origins for DNA replication and even the possibility that LUCA was an RNA-based cell [2, 5]. However, given the universal conservation of other components of the replication apparatus, such as PCNA (sliding clamp), clamp loader ATPase, and ssDNA-binding protein, along with the inferred relatively high complexity of LUCA, comparable to that of modern prokaryotes, such scenarios appear unlikely. The line of reasoning developed here, based primarily on the recently discovered evolutionary connection between PolD and the universally conserved RNAP, allows inference of the ancestral DNAP.
>>>

So what is your point?

>>> https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-020-00800-9
>>>
>> What is your point? More denial? If RNA came first there could have
>> been multiple evolutions of DNA replication. What do you not get? What
>> is also likely to have happened is that early life forms were exchanging
>> genetic material (universal genetic code), so they can keep variable
>> polymerases and acquire other bits by horizontal transfer. It is one of
>> the reasons why we have difficulty trying to figure out the last common
>> ancestor of the three distinct types of life (bacteria, archaea, and
>> Eukaryotes. Even after such a last common ancestor life forms have been
>> swapping bits of their DNA. We have a bunch of eubacterial DNA in our
>> genomes because of the symbiosis event that made eukaryotes aerobic
>> lifeforms. Even though eukaryotes seem to be derived from achaea,
>> archaea doesn't have as much aerobic bacterial DNA in their genomes.
>>
> So now you're going for RNA being first life.
> By coincidence, this article just appeared today:
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/stop-lights-in-the-cell/

Why keep going back to the ID perps for second rate junk when you are
running from the Top Six? That is what you should explain, not put up
more claptrap denial from the ID perps.

What does translation termination have to do with the price of tea in
China, in relation to DNA repair? This is just more god-of-the-gaps
denial stupidity. Why even bring it up? More denial doesn't explain
your other denial, nor support your denial. It is just more denial.

>
> "In Science, Michael R. Lawson and six colleagues play the role of forensic investigators, figuring out what goes wrong when mRNA transcripts run a red light, so to speak. Their paper, “Mechanisms that ensure speed and fidelity in eukaryotic translation termination,” begins with a statement of the law: “How Translation Stops.” It includes a shocking statistic:"
>
> Continue reading down. I'll quote one part:
>
> "This “essential process,” they note, requires the functioning of interdependent events. The “e” in eRF1 and eRF3 means “eukaryotic” because bacteria, too, have homologous factors (RF1/2, RF3) that perform corresponding functions. Translation termination is therefore essential for all living things."
>
> Now tell me why this first life based on RNA would not require repair mechanisms, and/or what "simple" mechanisms would look like, as opposed to 'sophisticated" or "relatively complex" machinery comparable to what appears has been required of DNA and RNA since LUCA and even first life.
>

What is your point? What does this have to do with your DNA repair
denial? What does it have to do with your DNA replication denial that
you put up after the DNA repair denial?

Why don't you have any ID science to put up and discuss?
God-of-the-gaps denial has never amounted to anything in centuries. The
gaps just keep getting smaller. Why do you think that Behe never
claimed that DNA replication or repair was his type of IC? Shouldn't
that give you a clue as to how much this type of denial is worth?

Ron Okimoto

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Maybe you should be better at
proof reading. You were the one that
brought up the words "first life."


There are no gods unless we create them.

[Glenn]

It really is revealing and informative that no one here will question claims of yours such as this one, let alone actually respond to the cites I provide.

[jillery]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 14:04:17 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 12:33:58 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> >So others can have reasons for not answering questions that are acceptable to you, but I'm expected to answer any question posed to me, regardless of what my reasons may be for not answering directly.
>
>> Since you mention it, it is reasonable for others to expect you to
>> answer questions about the topics and issues you raise.
>
>I didn't mention what you claim.

And I didn't claim what you mentioned...

>It is not always reasonable to answer a question, as you repeatedly demonstrate.

As I said, it depends on the question.

>> >You're either very ignorant of the fact that others do often ignore or not answer questions posed to them, or you're dishonest.
>> Since you mention it, the criticism to which you allude is chronic and
>> long-standing, not just recent.
>>
>> Also, a problem you have is your questions are usually irrelevant to
>> the topics and issues under discussion, and/or incoherent, as in this
>> case.
>>
>So it is not reasonable for me to expect you to answer any question I pose, but it is reasonable for you to expect me to answer any question you pose. Got it.

You must enjoy proving my point for me, you do it so often.

And since you mindlessly repeated your mindless claim...

[jillery]

Like most pseudoskeptics, Glenn has no problem ignoring inconvenient
facts.

[jillery]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 18:10:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Since you mention it, your cites say nothing about first life having
DNA, nevermind needing a system to repair it. So responding to your
cites is different from responding to your claims.

[RonO]

What do we know? Why should anyone question what I wrote. Do we know
that a sophisticated repair system was needed by the first lifeform that
started using DNA? No. That is just a fact. Your second rate denial
junk is just second rate even by IDiot standards. Why run from the Top
Six to put up this junk? Why can't you take the best that you have and
do something with it? Why is it only used for denial? Really, why is
it that you have to deny the Top Six as IDiot denial arguments? What do
you think that you are doing by running from your own Top Six?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"It"? What knowledge do you have of the existence of any life before the LUCA?
What knowledge do you have that the first life forms were not enclosed in a membrane?
What evidence do you have that the first life forms were RNA based?

[RonO]

"It" is the first lifeform that used DNA as the genetic material. "It"
was likely not the first lifeform, or what would likely be called the
first lifeform. We don't know what the first lifeforms were like. You
don't know either, that is what makes your denial stupidity so stupid.
You do not have the answer that you think that you have. Look up this
thread. All that you have done is heap more denial on top of your
initial denial. Your denial is just denial. It isn't positive evidence
for what you think happened. You don't even know what happened nor how
your designer would have done it. That is how lame this denial is.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

Actually, you don't know if there was a "first life form" before LUCA, and "It" is a movie monster.

[RonO]

What you need is more than denial. The first life before the LUCA is
inferred by what we can figure out about the common ancestor of the
three branches of extant life, but we can do things to learn something
about life before the LUCA. Remember this study that you ran in denial
from?

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/GGWJOqX-zuc/m/xgm3K3FNAQAJ

You had to divert the issue to one of the authors because you couldn't
deal with the science. Denial is all that you have, so why keep lying
about it?

What is not as good as your own notion of what is not good enough? You
don't even have a designer to do what you want it to do. How sad is
that. Really, what is not as good as our inference about life before
the last common ancestor of extant lifeforms? We actually have
lifeforms to study, and we can do things to figure out what existed
before the common ancestor of those extant lifeforms. What can you do?

What do you know about your designer? What do you know about what such
a designer is capable of? What do you know about what your designer did
before the last common ancestor of extant life existed? What is not as
good as your own opinion of what is not good enough? Your alternative
isn't as good as what you consider to be not good enough, so why bother
with the denial?

Ron Okimoto