DNA Self Assembly, Abiogenesis and How Science REALLY Works

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

As an addendum: What part of speculative proposition is not hypothetical, in your eyes that is.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

Well I guess your hypothesis theory is out the window.

a reply to: Char-Lee
I am afraid in many ways Science has its own languages (yes plural). When I teach freshmen Chemists in labs, the main problem is teaching them the language of Chemistry (which also helps with the more complex language of Biochemistry and Genetics. Now to be fair these languages are really dialects.

Words change meanings, and certain words have different meanings in different situations. Theory and hypothesis are one. When talking about science, one should endeavor to use that meaning over the common meaning, otherwise you get these situations.

"Its just a theory" means a hell of a lot more in the scientific sense than the other sense.

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.

You're right, we don't know with absolute certainty. We do, however, have an enormous body of evidence supporting the currently accepted theories. The same cannot be said for creationist ideas, which have zero supporting evidence...

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

More results.....
Observation of LC phases

Cells are observed with either a Nikon TE200 or a Nikon Optiphot2 polarized microscopes and images are acquired on Nikon DS-5M and Prosilica GX-1050 b/w CCD cameras. Fluorescent images are obtained by doping DNA with EvaGreen dye (Biotium).

The optical properties of LC phases directly reflect the symmetry of their ordering. Birefringence, the anisotropy of the refractive index, is determined by the quality of the local collective molecular orientation. Simple inspection of LC samples in thin cells by polarized transmission light microscopy enables detecting the presence of LC phases, which will appear coloured, while the light transmitted by isotropic liquids, such as PEG solution, is extinguished by crossed polarizers. Moreover, the features of the optical textures associated to LC domains (type of deformation, domain boundaries and topological defect lines) generally enable determining the specific kind of LC phase. In the circumstances of this study, where the need is to distinguish isotropic, nematic and columnar phases—the only LC phases observed in DNA solutions, microscope observations are thus enough to characterize the samples.


Where in the results did the authors say their results were an "hypotheis"????

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

Waiting......

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

Please rewrite that, in your own words, just to show you know what it actually refers to in the context of your OP.

I must repeat, What part of speculative proposition is not hypothetical, in your eyes that is.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

Please rewrite that, in your own words, just to show you know what it actually refers to in the context of your OP.

You won't answer your own argument, but that's okay. You want to know if I can put into plain English? Sure I can.

1. This is a LIGATION experiment based on previous experiments which demonstrated that DNA self assembled into discreet oligomers. If self assembly occurred, then ligation of terminal groups of the oligonucleisides would be detected.
2. Detection: Column chromatography. I'm not going to explain what chromatography is - look it up. Essentially, the ligated DNA molecules aggregated in specific domains of the columns.
3. DNA oligomers had end-to-end attraction and ligation which stabilized the aggregate molecule.
4. Gel electrophoresis utilizing fluorescence spectra techniques to compare controls to results.
5. DNA self assembled into discreet groups.

Going beyond that is futile - you obviously can't read the paper without intensive assistance from an outside source.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

Please rewrite that, in your own words, just to show you know what it actually refers to in the context of your OP.

You won't answer your own argument, but that's okay. You want to know if I can put into plain English? Sure I can.

1. This is a LIGATION experiment based on previous experiments which demonstrated that DNA self assembled into discreet oligomers. If self assembly occurred, then ligation of terminal groups of the oligonucleisides would be detected.
2. Detection: Column chromatography. I'm not going to explain what chromatography is - look it up. Essentially, the ligated DNA molecules aggregated in specific domains of the columns.
3. DNA oligomers had end-to-end attraction and ligation which stabilized the aggregate molecule.
4. Gel electrophoresis utilizing fluorescence spectra techniques to compare controls to results.
5. DNA self assembled into discreet groups.

Going beyond that is futile - you obviously can't read the paper without intensive assistance from an outside source.

But the whole premise is based on a supposed, and absolutely non proven initial state. What the hell are you talking about?

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

Please rewrite that, in your own words, just to show you know what it actually refers to in the context of your OP.

So now it's your turn - where's the hypothesis? Where did the authors claim that their results were an hypothesis?

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

Please rewrite that, in your own words, just to show you know what it actually refers to in the context of your OP.

You won't answer your own argument, but that's okay. You want to know if I can put into plain English? Sure I can.

1. This is a LIGATION experiment based on previous experiments which demonstrated that DNA self assembled into discreet oligomers. If self assembly occurred, then ligation of terminal groups of the oligonucleisides would be detected.
2. Detection: Column chromatography. I'm not going to explain what chromatography is - look it up. Essentially, the ligated DNA molecules aggregated in specific domains of the columns.
3. DNA oligomers had end-to-end attraction and ligation which stabilized the aggregate molecule.
4. Gel electrophoresis utilizing fluorescence spectra techniques to compare controls to results.
5. DNA self assembled into discreet groups.

Going beyond that is futile - you obviously can't read the paper without intensive assistance from an outside source.

But the whole premise is based on a supposed, and absolutely non proven initial state. What the hell are you talking about?

Once again, you never read the paper. The experiment was motivated by previous experiments which demonstrated self assembly of small oligomers of DNA. The experiments are refereneced in the paper.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

Please rewrite that, in your own words, just to show you know what it actually refers to in the context of your OP.

You won't answer your own argument, but that's okay. You want to know if I can put into plain English? Sure I can.

1. This is a LIGATION experiment based on previous experiments which demonstrated that DNA self assembled into discreet oligomers. If self assembly occurred, then ligation of terminal groups of the oligonucleisides would be detected.
2. Detection: Column chromatography. I'm not going to explain what chromatography is - look it up. Essentially, the ligated DNA molecules aggregated in specific domains of the columns.
3. DNA oligomers had end-to-end attraction and ligation which stabilized the aggregate molecule.
4. Gel electrophoresis utilizing fluorescence spectra techniques to compare controls to results.
5. DNA self assembled into discreet groups.

Going beyond that is futile - you obviously can't read the paper without intensive assistance from an outside source.

But the whole premise is based on a supposed, and absolutely non proven initial state. What the hell are you talking about?[/quot

edit on 7-4-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

Please rewrite that, in your own words, just to show you know what it actually refers to in the context of your OP.

So now it's your turn - where's the hypothesis? Where did the authors claim that their results were an hypothesis?

What are you actually even talking about now? Abiogenesis and this is proof? Because it isn't, it is a speculative proposition for that. And no one needs to state a hypothesis is a hypothesis. Do I believe abiogenesis is a possibility, damn right I do. Does this article prove that, absolutely not. It proves that given a certain, hypothetical state, dna can self replicate. Initial state and hypothetical being key.

+not replicate, I meant to say form and then replicate

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

Please rewrite that, in your own words, just to show you know what it actually refers to in the context of your OP.

You won't answer your own argument, but that's okay. You want to know if I can put into plain English? Sure I can.

1. This is a LIGATION experiment based on previous experiments which demonstrated that DNA self assembled into discreet oligomers. If self assembly occurred, then ligation of terminal groups of the oligonucleisides would be detected.
2. Detection: Column chromatography. I'm not going to explain what chromatography is - look it up. Essentially, the ligated DNA molecules aggregated in specific domains of the columns.
3. DNA oligomers had end-to-end attraction and ligation which stabilized the aggregate molecule.
4. Gel electrophoresis utilizing fluorescence spectra techniques to compare controls to results.
5. DNA self assembled into discreet groups.

Going beyond that is futile - you obviously can't read the paper without intensive assistance from an outside source.

But the whole premise is based on a supposed, and absolutely non proven initial state. What the hell are you talking about?[/quot

Where did the authors claim that the results were an hypothesis???

You may as well admit that you're absolutely wrong - because you are.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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.

Exactly where do the authors say that their results constitute a hypothesis?

Really? Ok, never mind then.

"These results show that the chemical ligation of DNA oligomers into linear chains is greatly enhanced by COL ordering. Mechanisms contributing to this enhancement include the organization of the duplexes into the base pair stacks characteristic of the already ligated bases; the promotion of the ligation reaction by maintenance of continuous stable proximity (high local concentration) of the reacting terminals, according to the law of mass action; the provision by the LC phase of a fluid environment for transport and reaction, and the coexistence of phases that provides an ISO environment surrounding the LC domains in which ​EDC can freely diffuse. In this way, the limitations of the finite solubility of ​EDC in the COL phase are overcome by a continuous supply from the ISO phase. Gel data from ligation in the COL phase (Fig. 1d) show a very strong depletion of the monomer band, indicating that such ​EDC supply mechanism combined with the reaction time (~1 day; Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 8) ensure that the largest part of the duplexes within the COL domains takes part in the reaction."

Where is the hypothesis in the results???

Please rewrite that, in your own words, just to show you know what it actually refers to in the context of your OP.

So now it's your turn - where's the hypothesis? Where did the authors claim that their results were an hypothesis?

What are you actually even talking about now? Abiogenesis and this is proof? Because it isn't, it is a speculative proposition for that. And no one needs to state a hypothesis is a hypothesis. Do I believe abiogenesis is a possibility, damn right I do. Does this article prove that, absolutely not. It proves that given a certain, hypothetical state, dna can self replicate. Initial state and hypothetical being key.

It is YOU who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Read the paper. I'm not about to spend more time answering stupid questions.

a reply to: Phantom423

I didn't say you had no idea, I said I don't understand what you are talking about. Your thread, enjoy it. And thanks for the article anyway.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
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.

You have to see this for what it is, a piece of the puzzle.

Independently it shows that DNA can self assemble. While this does not by itself prove the theory (abiogenesis) to be correct it does resolve a part of it.

If one was to write out the steps that leads from non-living compunds to living organisms at some point you are forced to place a "black box" or "magic box" which is filled with all the steps that are still unkown. This is what keeps the theory a theory. Science works to extract all the steps out of that box, one by one, until the box no longer exists and we have a completed puzzle. At that point the theory is no longer a theory.

The problem I see with those who oppose certain theories is that they don't accept or recognize that this piecemeal approach is how science works. At every step they want to point out that whatever piece has been put in place doesn't provide the complete answer. While this is true, they use this fact to try and twist someones educated assesment about the theory into an accusation of faith.

It's sad that they no longer try to prove their claim but instead put all their effort into accusing others of "being just as bad as we are".

a reply to: Jonjonj

And herein lies the problem. You are misinterpreting the premise of the experiment and subsequent paper published in Nature Communications journal. The premise of the aforementioned was not to prove abiogenesis. The paper and experimental data are entirely focused on proving the viability of spontaneous self assembly of molecular fragments ability to form chemical bonds that connect together in long enough chains of polymers to form life without the assistance of any biological mechanism. The article is misleading you into hypothetical territory. If you read the paper which is linked in the OP. There are no hypothesis demonstrated or mentioned in the actual paper.

"The new findings show that in the presence of appropriate chemical conditions, the spontaneous self assembly of small DNA fragments into stacks of short duplexes greatly favors their binding into longer polymers, thereby providing a pre-RNA route to the RNA world," said Clark.