DNA Self Assembly, Abiogenesis and How Science REALLY Works

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
In the end if two people have a similar education in the sciences and one comes to one conclusion and one a different conclusion(creation VS. spontaneous life) , many here will just say, oh they are just loony. But that's really a lie, it boils down to a philosophical difference in world view.
And that is something people who fight against creation don't want to admit to, but it is the reality in the 21 century.

Perhaps, but only to a small extent. Just because two people have received a similar education does not mean that they share the same level of understanding of the subject material. There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists studying biology, evolution, a biogenesis, and the like are not creationists. There is evidence for the chrrently accepted theories. Mountains of it. There is zero evidence of a creator. Period. I don't understand why that's so difficult for you to grasp.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

To be fair its very hard to study those disciplines as a creationist. We constantly see creationists pull out the phrase "playing god" about those areas. Over in the the other thread you will see a poster in the creationist camp whip it out.

The bias affects their objectivity. They also all seem to think that those of us who agree with evolution, and that abiogenesis could have happened, are atheists. Strangely they miss that at least 4 posters on here, have a spiritual leaning, that we keep in check, not because we are ashamed, but we know there is a place for everything. I sure as hell don't whip out a spectrometer in ritual with my Grove

No smart creationist would have any issues with the articles sited by the starter of this thread. All the articles are saying is that scientists have observed what could be parts of DNA/RNA compounds spontaneously forming.

So?

That's the building blocks. What about the information encoded into those building blocks? Building blocks are building blocks.

The target of ridicule by this discussion, the christian bible, doesn't say that God provided the 'dirt' he scraped together to make man. The building blocks, the dirt, was already there.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Noinden

Interesting, but why did one biologist that believes in creation ask this question.

How did those protein machines become so well engineered ?’

Similar educations and fields of study yet you both came to different conclusions, are you claiming to be that much smarter than a person with a similar education and career ?

In the end if two people have a similar education in the sciences and one comes to one conclusion and one a different conclusion(creation VS. spontaneous life) , many here will just say, oh they are just loony. But that's really a lie, it boils down to a philosophical difference in world view.
And that is something people who fight against creation don't want to admit to, but it is the reality in the 21 century.

Here's the difference: Whoever the scientist was who asked the question didn't do their homework. The instructions for protein synthesis are embedded in the genetic code. Amino acids and the protein output are then processed by enzymes. The Michaelis-Menten model for enzyme kinetics has been used since 1913.

Here's a model as to how protein synthesis works:



Proteins are the workhorses of the cell, controlling virtually every reaction within as well as providing structure and serving as signals to other cells. Proteins are long chains of amino acids , and the exact sequence of the amino acids determines the final structure and function of the protein. Instructions for that sequence are encoded in genes . To make a particular protein, a messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) copy is made from the gene (in the process called transcription ), and the mRNA is transported to the ribosome . Protein synthesis, also called translation , begins when the two ribosomal subunits link onto the mRNA. This step, called initiation, is followed by elongation, in which successive amino acids are added to the growing chain, brought in by transfer RNAs (tRNAs). In this step, the ribosome reads the nucleotides of mRNA three by three, in units called codons , and matches each to three nucleotides on the tRNA, called the anticodon. Finally, during termination, the ribosome unbinds from the mRNA, and the amino acid chain goes on to be processed and folded to make the final, functional protein.

Read more: www.biologyreference.com...

Your scientist, whoever it is, has no excuse for not knowing how protein synthesis works. It's no mystery. It's right there in the literature, in every biochemistry textbook and every high school biology book.

Shame on him/her for misrepresenting the science of protein synthesis. This is completely in keeping with what Creationists do - they hide the information, misrepresent the information and hope that no one notices. This is fraud no matter which way you turn the screw.

And consider this: If we didn't understand how proteins were "engineered", how could we possibly synthesize proteins like insulin to treat diabetics??

This is a flow chart of how insulin is synthesized. Without the fundamental understanding of the genetic mechanism and protein processing, this would be impossible. Learn something for a change. Get your mind wrapped around the reality of science and wipe the crap out.

BTW, who is this "scientist"? Give me the name and I'll write him/her a letter.

a reply to: Phantom423

I appreciate your detailed answer to the question, unlike some of the others in this thread you took the question head on, instead of doing what they did. It shows you know the topic very well.
I guess Nevada beat New Zealand this round

However you said this

The instructions for protein synthesis are embedded in the genetic code.

Aren't you just kicking the can back down the road, because by extension the question now becomes "where did the genetic code come from ?"

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

I appreciate your detailed answer to the question, unlike some of the others in this thread you took the question head on, instead of doing what they did. It shows you know the topic very well.
I guess Nevada beat New Zealand this round

However you said this

The instructions for protein synthesis are embedded in the genetic code.

Aren't you just kicking the can back down the road, because by extension the question now becomes "where did the genetic code come from ?"

What is the title of this thread????? DNA SELF ASSEMBLY. The research paper suggests at least one way that DNA could self assemble without outside intervention.

You need to read with some comprehension.

a reply to: Phantom423

BJ33 bolded "genetic code"... expect an argument based on misuse/misunderstanding of information theory shortly.

a reply to: Phantom423
Here is who the OP is referring too.

She is a Microbiologist, who has stated she personally beleives that there is no chance life arose with out God. Now she is a Jehovah's Witness, and that article in the link is the JW magazine. So its not like it was a massive conspiracy kind of thing. Indeed reading it, she states she is happier with faith. If one looks at her publication record. She has not attempted to publish once findings for her stance.

This is more weasel words (on the part of the OP) to build credibility for an idea. Once again it is a single scientist, who actually is not actively researching this. So again its not a body of work stacking up. It is random scientists working with Unverifiable Personal Gnosis (UPG) which is all "feeling" and not "evidence".

Apparently me knowing who the scientist was, is bad form to the OP. Rather than his (?) bad form for quoting people and not attributing the quote. Its not as if any of this is personal information, and unacceptable after a quick Google search of the quote

a reply to: Noinden

Standard Creationist debate tactic #3294
-When called to task for scientific evidence, quote mine a respected scientist to make them look religious or issue an appeal to authority fallacy for a scientist speaking about something outside his field of expertise.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well its a religious tactic too.

"Moses said...."

He did did he? That translates to exactly this from either Egyptian, or old Hebrew, or another Semetic language?? WE know he said it how? Some one wrote it down centuries later word for word?

To be fair Joe and Jo-Anne public fall for this # from scientists and Medical professionals too. The Dr Oz's and Dr Phils of the world have more impact, than the actual professionals. Its the "man in the white coat" effect the media (particularly marketers) use. Or politicians. When you look at the "many Climate change deniers", the number of climatologists are vanishingly small. You get "Science reporters" and "scientists from other disciplines". Similarly the current "if its safe drink it" movement, miss that for example Glyphosate is rather acidic, and yes will be unsafe to drink. Not because of the glyphosate, but because it would burn your throat. Sulfuric acid is safe too, if used correctly, but no one sane would drink it.

Creationists thus use the "Authority figure in the white coat" effect, to try and brow beat people, or at least inject doubt. Shamefully we no longer require kids to learn critical thinking, not till most post graduate courses even. Hell mathmatics at college is quite often "optional" even in the physical sciences. SO how would they fit some philosophy in there?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423
Here is who the OP is referring too.

She is a Microbiologist, who has stated she personally beleives that there is no chance life arose with out God. Now she is a Jehovah's Witness, and that article in the link is the JW magazine. So its not like it was a massive conspiracy kind of thing. Indeed reading it, she states she is happier with faith. If one looks at her publication record. She has not attempted to publish once findings for her stance.

This is more weasel words (on the part of the OP) to build credibility for an idea. Once again it is a single scientist, who actually is not actively researching this. So again its not a body of work stacking up. It is random scientists working with Unverifiable Personal Gnosis (UPG) which is all "feeling" and not "evidence".

Apparently me knowing who the scientist was, is bad form to the OP. Rather than his (?) bad form for quoting people and not attributing the quote. Its not as if any of this is personal information, and unacceptable after a quick Google search of the quote

`

It looks like that statement was her religious conviction speaking. Her publications are very good and she certainly understands how science works. I don't doubt that the understands the molecular biology of protein synthesis. Here's what she said about origins:

"What did you conclude?

Well, I asked myself, ‘How did those protein machines become so well engineered?’ At the time, the unexpected complexity of cell chemistry made a number of scientists ask the same question. A professor of biochemistry in the United States published a book arguing that the molecular machines in living cells are so complex that they could not have originated randomly. I agreed. I felt that life must have been created."

She said this sometime during the '90's - so 20-25 years ago. At that time, many biologists and chemists were dumbfounded by the complexity of DNA. But that has all changed now. New analytical techniques which include advanced spectroscopic instrumentation and powerful laboratory analytic techniques have increased knowledge of DNA exponentially.

I think using this doctor's remark which was made at least 20 years ago is disingenuous. As a scientist who has published as recently as last month, her opinion may be quite different today - not about her religious conviction - but about how science has uncovered a substantial amount of information about DNA and protein synthesis.

I don't see that she endorses false propaganda about science. I don't know much about Jehovah's Witnesses. Whatever she believes about creation, it doesn't appear that it follows her into the lab. She's a good scientist and has written well researched papers.
I don't think she would appreciate her comments from 20 years ago being used in this context either.

a reply to: Phantom423

It is also clear that that statement is from a newly converted person. When you are that new to a spiritual path, one that is vastly different than that which you grew up with, you tend to be overly zealous in your praise, and statements. It is natural, as a young neopagan, I bought a few of the various paths myths, a decade later I see these on line with my nickname and cringe, but its natural.

I do know a lot about the JW's, I do not agree with their views on blood transfusions when it is applied to their kids, I don't like their handling of some sexual abuse problems. Sadly there was an inherent racism in the founding church, I think (don't know) that is more a product of the time, and place the founding occurred than the doctrine?

Eg
Jehovah's Witnesses once taught that black skin was a curse from God and that blacks were divinely ordained to be slaves and servants. source

However like any religious path, its the humans at fault, more than the philosophy. If nothing they have "evolved" (snicker) a little from the founding.

With Dr Yang, we have very little way short of asking her if she still agrees with that statement, and well JW's also don't like you talking to members, they might catch strange ideas from you.

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.

^this. According to the followers of the Religion of Evolution the scientific method doesn't apply...settled science and all.

a reply to: VVV88

Ahhh another member of the brain trusts presents themselves. Don't bother understanding the differences between different scientific disciplines, if it sounds like god isn't responsible it must be related to evolution right? You could the farther from the truth. The origins of life and the evolution of life are two separate processes investigated by very different scientific disciplines. But hey, why bother with trivialities like facts when you can just take a dump on science instead of properly disputing it. If it's wrong, please point out the errors in the science and then you just might have a little ground to stand on.

a reply to: peter vlar

When they stumble they call for back up, or they threaten. Its easier than you know, actually trying to understand the subject matter, and honestly its not that hard to get a basic understanding. But then I am reminded of the Kirk Cameron's of the world, and perhaps it is hard for them ?

originally posted by: VVV88
^this. According to the followers of the Religion of Evolution the scientific method doesn't apply...settled science and all.

Well, you clearly have no understanding of how science actually works, or of the scientific method, but hey! Thanks for posting!

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

To be fair, I blame the education system in the west. Both my mother in laws (bless the US divorce rate for giving me two father in laws, and mother in laws, while my wife has to put up with just a mother in law) are teachers. One is special ed, so yeah not a good source. The other, is a English teacher for Highschool, and she is constantly at a loss with how some of these kids do not know the basics of the language. I am sure mathematics and science teachers do the same. There has been a move to not reward excellence, and to "leave no one behind" which would be great if the funding was thrown at it :/

So this particular poster is using the interwebs, and by the looks of it (and their previous posts) creationist sites as credible ones.

This whole "religion of evolution" line is common. Worse they don't get that if Science was a religion (its not) evolution would not be a sub religion, it would be a part of it. Something akin to the kosher laws in Judiasm (to pick an example which I hope will not cause offense), or the rede in Wicca. Its part of it, but not one all by its lonesome.

All that said. Beyond ego stroking for a "us vs them" kind of feeling, I do not see how Science is a religion, philosophy sure. But thats because there are Christians, Islamicists, Jews, Buddhists, Scientologists, and yes Pagans (waves) who are scientists. We have no problem going about our spiritual lives, and no where does it say we are naughty little members of the religion for being scientists. Indeed the church once supported science, my paleopagan ancestors had a caste (the Druids) who were the intellectuals of the Celtic speaking peoples.

So yeah it confuses me, but I don't speak fundamentalist too well

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

To be fair, I blame the education system in the west. Both my mother in laws (bless the US divorce rate for giving me two father in laws, and mother in laws, while my wife has to put up with just a mother in law) are teachers. One is special ed, so yeah not a good source. The other, is a English teacher for Highschool, and she is constantly at a loss with how some of these kids do not know the basics of the language. I am sure mathematics and science teachers do the same. There has been a move to not reward excellence, and to "leave no one behind" which would be great if the funding was thrown at it :/

So this particular poster is using the interwebs, and by the looks of it (and their previous posts) creationist sites as credible ones.

This whole "religion of evolution" line is common. Worse they don't get that if Science was a religion (its not) evolution would not be a sub religion, it would be a part of it. Something akin to the kosher laws in Judiasm (to pick an example which I hope will not cause offense), or the rede in Wicca. Its part of it, but not one all by its lonesome.

All that said. Beyond ego stroking for a "us vs them" kind of feeling, I do not see how Science is a religion, philosophy sure. But thats because there are Christians, Islamicists, Jews, Buddhists, Scientologists, and yes Pagans (waves) who are scientists. We have no problem going about our spiritual lives, and no where does it say we are naughty little members of the religion for being scientists. Indeed the church once supported science, my paleopagan ancestors had a caste (the Druids) who were the intellectuals of the Celtic speaking peoples.

So yeah it confuses me, but I don't speak fundamentalist too well

Agree with that - science education in the U.S. is on the downhill side. Only private schools, parochial schools and the better public schools who are supported by the parents have decent curriculums. The average public school barely teaches the basics. And it's usually the teachers who complain when the state tries to enforce standards.

Take a look at this for innovative teaching - if teaching methods like TEAL could be brought to the general public, imagine the improvement in student performance and interest. icampus.mit.edu...



But that's a subject for another board.

Dr Fazale Rana and Dr Hugh Ross.