DNA Self Assembly, Abiogenesis and How Science REALLY Works

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Lets examine this mass of text that uses long lofty sounding words.

"In the formulation of origin-of-life scenarios, self-assembly is often invoked15, 16 as the only available mechanism to bridge the ‘insurmountable kinetic barrier’17 connecting simple carbon-based molecules available on the early Earth and the simplest structures capable of enzymatic activity18, which in a RNA world scenario would be ribozymes19, 20. Here we have offered a real example, based on DNA but very likely extendable to RNA3 or other nucleic acid precursors21, of how this path could have actually taken place, showing that the interplay of fluid ordering, aqueous phase separation, and distinctive modes of hierarchical and sequence-directed self-assembly can direct chemical reaction in a way that facilitates production of long chains of variable sequence. We envision our findings as a paradigm of what could have happened in the prebiotic Earth based on the fundamental and simplifying assumption that the origin of nucleic acids is written in their structure. This vision combines well with the classic notions of thermal and drying–wetting cycles, generally considered basic drivers for life to emerge on early Earth22, 23, and with more recent notions such as the thermophoretic accumulation of DNA-like molecules in hydrothermal pore systems24, 25, thereby offering a plausible pathway for the molecular crowding crucial for LC ordering to appear."

scenarios, invoked, offered, very likely, could have, we envision, paradigm, what could have happened, assumption, vision, notions, generally considered, recent notions, plausible.

Walk through that gibberish and find each and every one of those bonding it all together.

If that is supposed to be a shining example of science, somebody needs to eat their shorts.

The paper demonstrated unequivocally that DNA can self assemble. That was the design of the experiment. Whatever they decided to include in their discussion are their thoughts and impressions. But the results are genuine and represent hard evidence.

You obviously don't have a clue about scientific research and how it's done. Why don't you sit back and learn something for a change. If everyone was like you, we would still be rubbing two sticks together to make a fire.

originally posted by: Phantom423
If everyone was like you, we would still be rubbing two sticks together to make a fire.

No, we'd actually be sitting around sniffing each others' farts waiting for god to light up another fire for us.

a reply to: Phantom423

In this case I feel that there is confusion from Joe and Jane public over the scientific meanings of theory and hypothesis. That is what usually causes confusion. I could be wrong

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

In this case I feel that there is confusion from Joe and Jane public over the scientific meanings of theory and hypothesis. That is what usually causes confusion. I could be wrong

Yes, people do get confused over the terminology. But the point of the research and the reason that I posted it was to demonstrate that HARD EVIDENCE means something. And the results show once again that DNA can self assemble without any outside intervention. The implications of this experiment go far beyond the laboratory. That's why the authors went into detail in their discussion suggesting that this is at least one way that life could have formed on this planet.

Now it's up to others to repeat the experiment and analyze their results. If their results confirm the original work, then the experiment will be considered valid. Other researchers will then pick up the ball and run with it - this is how science works. It's a process. If other scientists find that there are anomalies or discrepancies, then it's back to the drawing board to find the reason and either correct it or redesign the experiment.

As far as this experiment is concerned, however, it's a straightforward methodology that can be repeated (even by Creationists!) if anyone wants to give it shot.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Phantom423

Wow credible science for once. Just wait, before long a Creationist will be along to dismiss it completely without reading and understanding any of the science.

You mean like how so many dismiss the mass of clues that there could have been an intelligent directing of the beginnings of life on earth. Why so much anger always toward "Creationist" thinking? Nothing is proven yet we are learning daily at this point.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

In this case I feel that there is confusion from Joe and Jane public over the scientific meanings of theory and hypothesis. That is what usually causes confusion. I could be wrong

Actually I saw a well known scientist use the word...."the wrong way"...during an interview the other day. I suppose that the common people are used to it being used in that way as we are not all scientists. The full use of the word theory includes a lot and I see no reason why people need worry over it so much!
a :a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
www.merriam-webster.com...

nvm

This doesn't prove anything, their own language even says so. All it provides is a few what ifs, maybes and assumptions.

When steel is worked then heat treated the crystalline structures realign, nothing new is learned by crystalline structures returning to their allignments, we already knew this property of crystal structure.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
nvm

Ha I agree with you for once!

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj
So, in spite of all the namby pamby words and suchlike we have here a hypothesis. I like hypotheses, as they can be proven or refuted on the basis of experiment and result. Nice one OP. S+F

The results are real results. Results are not a hypothesis. If DNA self assembly was a hypothesis, then this paper collapsed that hypothesis as it is now fact.

I rather read that as if the conclusions were hypothetical. I actually agree with the article as a hypothesis. You must have misunderstood my irony.

From your own OP:

New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA.

That is speculation and as such is hypothesis. Perhaps you need to reassess the definition.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I have seen you take nothing but the most brain dead stance in every thread you've participated in. At least you're consistent.

a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks for posting this Phantom- very interesting stuff.

Topics like this one should not be posted in the O&C forum. It only invites mindless creationist banter.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

scenarios, invoked, offered, very likely, could have, we envision, paradigm, what could have happened, assumption, vision, notions, generally considered, recent notions, plausible.

Equals we don't know, but it will sound awesome to those that want to put their faith in scientific hypothesis and theories.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Equals we don't know, but it will sound awesome to those that want to put their faith in scientific hypothesis and theories.

Not this again.

No faith needed. Science has given us, all of us, very tangible results.

Maybe not in this field, but the work in other fields lets me give those in this field the benefit of the doubt.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj
So, in spite of all the namby pamby words and suchlike we have here a hypothesis. I like hypotheses, as they can be proven or refuted on the basis of experiment and result. Nice one OP. S+F

The results are real results. Results are not a hypothesis. If DNA self assembly was a hypothesis, then this paper collapsed that hypothesis as it is now fact.

I rather read that as if the conclusions were hypothetical. I actually agree with the article as a hypothesis. You must have misunderstood my irony.

From your own OP:

New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA.

That is speculation and as such is hypothesis. Perhaps you need to reassess the definition.

Once again, you don't get it. The design of the experiment was to test the self assembly of DNA. And that's exactly what they did.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks for posting this Phantom- very interesting stuff.

Topics like this one should not be posted in the O&C forum. It only invites mindless creationist banter.

Yes it does. But that was the point. So far there hasn't been one post that can refute the results of this experiment - only mindless opinions with no substantiating evidence to support their case.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TinfoilTP

scenarios, invoked, offered, very likely, could have, we envision, paradigm, what could have happened, assumption, vision, notions, generally considered, recent notions, plausible.

Equals we don't know, but it will sound awesome to those that want to put their faith in scientific hypothesis and theories.

Please explain what is the "hypothesis" and what is the "theory" of this experiment. How do the results fit into your description?? When the DNA self assembled, was that a hypothesis? Was it a figment of someone's imagination? Was it a dream? Was it a theory? Or did DNA self assemble?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TinfoilTP

scenarios, invoked, offered, very likely, could have, we envision, paradigm, what could have happened, assumption, vision, notions, generally considered, recent notions, plausible.

Equals we don't know, but it will sound awesome to those that want to put their faith in scientific hypothesis and theories.

And your entire statement equals 'Didn't read the article to see what the parameters of the actual experiment were so I'm arguing from a point of sheer ignorance and confirmation bias'.

The point of the experiment, if you had bothered to read it, was NOT to prove specifically that this is how early life and DNA formed on earth. It was to prove that molecular fragments can self replicate and grow into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life.

All the language containing qualifiers is applicable to the potential that this process could have formed early life and it's precursors, yes. But the experiment itself wasn't to prove this, it was simply to see if molecular strands could self replicate based on 30 year old research proving that RNA has the ability to chemically alter its own structure. This experiment was a success and proved that self replicating molecular fragments could form DNA like structures long enough to form life. But hey...why bother actually reading this when it's easier to remain ignorant and dismiss it out of hand right?!

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj
So, in spite of all the namby pamby words and suchlike we have here a hypothesis. I like hypotheses, as they can be proven or refuted on the basis of experiment and result. Nice one OP. S+F

The results are real results. Results are not a hypothesis. If DNA self assembly was a hypothesis, then this paper collapsed that hypothesis as it is now fact.

I rather read that as if the conclusions were hypothetical. I actually agree with the article as a hypothesis. You must have misunderstood my irony.

From your own OP:

New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA.

That is speculation and as such is hypothesis. Perhaps you need to reassess the definition.

Once again, you don't get it. The design of the experiment was to test the self assembly of DNA. And that's exactly what they did.

I think I do actually get it, the article speculates on the self assembly ability of DNA in a hypothetically available liquid crystal matrix.

I can't believe we are arguing here. And I am no creationist. I believe in the scientific method. The point is moot however as this is just a hypothesis.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

DNA is not an atom, and the likeihood that it arrived on Earth from space is so small as to be almost negligible. The most complex organic chemical found in a meteorite is isovaline, an amino acid. DNA is an order of magnitude more complex -- and fragile.