Jordan Peterson shows DNA Video

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: skywatcher44

This is supposed to have happend through random interactions of basic chemistry in an inorganic soup?

Really?

Obviously not. It was an organic soup (except that the word 'soup' is probably misleading).

And I mean that absolutely literally: "Inorganic" means without carbon.

Life on earth is carbon based, thus "organic" not "inorganic".

The pre-biotic conditions for carbon based life must have taken place in an organic conditions.

However, there is no proof that the very first life was necessarily carbon based, so maybe...

a reply to: cooperton

This same logic would apply to the micro-molecular level. It is inconceivable that this meticulous biochemical machinery could have culminated through piece-by-piece mutation.

No, actually it is not inconceivable at all.

The clockwork motion of these biomolecules resembles a purposeful, sentient process.

Not clokwork, simple chemistry and physics doing what they do.

No purpose required.

No sentience required except to marvel and admire the beauty.

a reply to: chr0naut

Due to research by Venter (et al), we now know the minimum number of genes coded in DNA required for life (about 600). Additionally there is a requirement for ribosomes to synthesize proteins from messenger RNA templates, basic metabolic pathways, and a plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels. The system cannot be much simpler than this and still be viable.

Well that is still up for debate. However, even if we assume it is correct, it is addressing MODERN CELLS and nucleic acid based organic life. We have no idea that that was the the FIRST life that existed on earth. Why would a non-cellular life form have any need for a "plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels"?

Is a virus life? Depends on your definition, I suppose, but I say yes.

Does a virus have a "plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels"? No, it has a 'capsid' and some have an additional 'envelope', but these are not a "plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels".

Some biologists think that the lipid based capsid of a virus is a rather advanced version of the lipid based capsules they hypothesis the 'FIRST' life used. In other words, a virus, as primitive as it is, is still much more complicated than what 'FIRST" life must have been.

To think that life on earth started with a modern cell with "plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels" and etc. is simply not sustainable. And to argue that therefore life couldn't just 'pop' into existence is absurd.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

Actually you did say exactly that:

"However, it (abiogenesis) is entirely un-evidenced by objective observation."

Then in the next statement in regards to your experiment you say, "a replication method must have arisen with the proto-DNA structure in a single step" and "we now know the minimum number of genes coded in DNA required for life (about 600)."

I just see that as double standards. You say that we KNOW one thing that MUST HAVE happened, but abiogenesis is entirely unevidenced objectively. That's a direct conflict.

You took the quotation out of its context and then in your penultimate sentence you re-arranged the words to try and change its meaning, however,

The meaning I intended, that is compliant with my quotation in context, was that chemical abiogenesis in its entriety, i.e: inclusive of a sequential chain of every every single component part or process, is not fully evidenced.

You agreed with this in your restatement that abiogenesis was a hypothesis.

If you are suggesting that I am wrong in saying that chemical abiogenesis is not fully evidenced? Surely you would be the one being self-contradictory, saying that, and also that it is a hypothesis.

The problem with that is what you posted can be interpreted alternatively as well! How do you not see that? You are setting rules for proto-RNA, based on the current DNA molecule, which makes it entirely hypothetical as well.

Are the Van Der Waals forces different? The valences? Do you think that proto-RNA, RNA, proto-DNA and DNA are governed by magic rather than exactly the same chemistry?

Of course I'm suggesting that there are rules (I'm not capable of "setting" them) because they are chemical and apply pretty much universally, to chemicals.

You need to learn what an argument from ignorance is.

I have learnt it.

Here's a definition on Wikipedia.

I didn't say, "I don't know, therefore abiogenesis is true!" I said that we don't know a lot about the process and it's hypothetical,

You can't discard it as a theory or hypothesis, it is not yet disproven, due to a lack of contradictory evidence. If you had contradictory evidence it would not be a valid theory or hypothesis because it would be disproven by that contradictory evidence.

So saying something is a hypothesis is an argument from ignorance as defined.

therefore it's silly to make assumptions about it. Being honest and admitting that we don't know, isn't an argument from ignorance, because I'm not arguing anything except against your specific claims. You are the one actually making arguments based on ignorance, not me. I'm admitting the process is hypothetical and very difficult to study, and that we should let science continue to research it and figure it all out. I never said abiogenesis is proved. I said that it has experimental evidence.

The truth is that neither you nor I have perfect, complete knowledge.

In that sense, all of everyone's arguments are from ignorance - even the philosophical 'argument fom ignorance', is a circular argument from ignorance, in the broadest and most honest evaluation.

Do you understand what a hypothesis is in science? It doesn't mean, NO EVIDENCE.

Yes, I know.

All I'm trying to say is that we should let science figure it out before making all kind of assertions about the probability of it, like you are. I never mentioned anything about probability of abiogenesis being true, just that there IS some evidence. You said it was "entirely unevidenced," so I took issue with that. When you take everything as ALL or NOTHING, I can see why you take positions like that, but it's a bit ridiculous.

What alternative explanation can you think of for the generation of amino acids? I don't understand this "alternative" interpretation thing. Either the postulated process can happen under certain conditions or it can't. Where is the interpretation of this?

Originally, it was erroneously believed that somehow life was the only thing that could make and use amino acids (by RNA transcription). Now we know we can also do it with inorganic chemistry.

But here's some postulations of how amino acids might arise from sources other than natural biology and naturally occuring inorganic chemistry:

- Nano-tech that assembles amino acids molecularly.

- Chemists directly synthesizing amino acids by chaining processes that could not occur naturally.

- Synthetic DNA and RNA and subsequent transcription.

- God could create them.

- Perhaps we will find that plasma states of matter can create particular amino acids, through physics rather than chemistry as we know it (very hypothetical).

Remember that unnatural amino acids also already exist.

PS: the word "abiogenesis" on its own can also apply to 'special creation ex nihilo', which I am sure is not what you mean. Where possible, I have referred to 'chemical abiogenesis' to clarify the term.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Well that is still up for debate. However, even if we assume it is correct, it is addressing MODERN CELLS and nucleic acid based organic life. We have no idea that that was the the FIRST life that existed on earth. Why would a non-cellular life form have any need for a "plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels"?

Is a virus life? Depends on your definition, I suppose, but I say yes.

... and I'd say no, it's a chemical that messes with life processes.

Does a virus have a "plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels"? No, it has a 'capsid' and some have an additional 'envelope', but these are not a "plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels".

How does a virus replicate?

How do you get to a proliferation of proto-virii or virii without RNA transcription and the DNA replication mechanism (which is also dependent upon the existence of DNA)?

Some biologists think that the lipid based capsid of a virus is a rather advanced version of the lipid based capsules they hypothesis the 'FIRST' life used. In other words, a virus, as primitive as it is, is still much more complicated than what 'FIRST" life must have been.

The problem with lipid 'proto cell walls' is that they must be really small to have enough strength to not break apart under osmotic pressure (where water moves across semi-permeable membranes from lower concentration solutions like the external 'dirty pond water/primordial soup' to dilute the 'internal' higher concentration of trapped chemicals. And which also reduces the internal concentration of those chemicals, making self-organization into chains of proto-RNA even less likely than 'outside').

If the enclosed volumes are really small, the walls are quite strong but don't support the concentration or numbers of molecules enough for 'RNA like' chains to polymerise.

If the enclosed volumes are larger, the semi-permeable nature of even quadruple lipid 'walls' is enough to cause osmotic pressure to eventually break the structure (if not dilute the 'soup').

To think that life on earth started with a modern cell with "plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels" and etc. is simply not sustainable. And to argue that therefore life couldn't just 'pop' into existence is absurd.

If life, or proto-life worked that way, it would be happening now.

There's plenty of dirty water and other conditions, now. Probably more in some places (like jars of peanut butter & such, where the precursor concentration is way, way larger than some ancient pond).

Why aren't we seeing the origins of new life in concentrated, high energy chemical sources, arising right now?

Perhaps it doesn't work the way we have imagined?

a reply to: chr0naut

Originally, it was erroneously believed that somehow life was the only thing that could make and use amino acids (by RNA transcription). Now we know we can also do it with inorganic chemistry.

Wait... Wut?

You can do organic chemistry without carbon? Sheeeee-IT! I'm agonna have to go back to Uni and confront my old Grad Assistant for leading me down the garden path which I now know can actually be made up of silicon trees!

a reply to: chr0naut

Why aren't we seeing the origins of new life in concentrated, high energy chemical sources, arising right now?

1) We aren't looking.
2) We aren't looking everywhere.
3) We aren't interested.
4) Peanut butter is not, for example, a methane dominated, hydrogen rich, volcanically heated, comet strike zone.

a reply to: chr0naut

... and I'd say no, it's a chemical that messes with life processes.

As I said, it is debatable, and depends on the definition of 'life'. However...

Are Viruses Alive? New Evidence Says Yes

It suggests that viruses were not simply shed genetic material of cells, but shared unique properties with cells (and thus were living) and eventually evolved as separate entities. “We are now able to build truly universal trees of life,” says Caetano-Anolles, “that describe the origin and diversification of organisms and viruses.”

These findings provide some of the strongest evidence yet that viruses are indeed living. “The mere fact of the existence of a universal biology unifying viruses and cells now justifies the construction of a Tree of Life that embraces viruses side by side with cells.” says Caetano-Anolles. The interesting thing about these results is that they indicate that viruses must have diversified from ancient cells by a process called reductive evolution, where organisms simplify instead of becoming more complex. Viruses were likely “more cellular in nature and existed in the form of primitive cells,” explains Nasir. The ancient cells that these primordial viruses resided in were those of the last universal common ancestor that preceded diversified life about 2.45 billion years ago.

The debate is a real one, and not settled by any means.

Are viruses alive?

NIGEL BROWN (arguing the NO side)

In many ways whether viruses are living or non-living entities is a moot philosophical point.

...However, a crucial point is that viruses are not capable of independent replication. They have to replicate within a host cell and they use or usurp the host cell machinery for this. They do not contain the full range of required metabolic processes and are dependent on their host to provide many of the requirements for their replication.

DAVID BHELLA (arguing the YES side)

The question of whether viruses can be considered to be alive, of course, hinges on one’s definition of life. Where we draw the line between chemistry and life can seem a philosophical, or even theological argument.

...Fundamental to the argument that viruses are not alive is the suggestion that metabolism and self-sustaining replication are key definitions of life. Viruses are not able to replicate without the metabolic machinery of the cell. No organism is entirely self-supporting, however – life is absolutely interdependent.

...So, what does define life? Some have argued that the possession of ribosomes is a key ingredient. Perhaps the most satisfying definition, that explicitly excludes viruses, emerges from the ‘metabolism first’ model and concerns the presence of membrane-associated metabolic activity – a tangible ‘spark’ of life. This draws a neat distinction between viruses and obligate intracellular parasites such as Chlamydia and Rickettsia. This definition also confers the status of life on mitochondria and plastids, however. The endosymbiosis that led to mitochondria is thought to have given rise to eukaryotic life. Mitochondria have metabolic activity on which we depend, they have machinery to manufacture proteins and they have genomes. Most would accept that mitochondria are part of a life form, but they are not independent life.

I would argue that the only satisfactory definition of life therefore lies in the most critical property of genetic heredity: independent evolution. Life is the manifestation of a coherent collection of genes that are competent to replicate within the niche in which they evolve(d). Viruses fulfill this definition.

a reply to: chr0naut

The problem with lipid 'proto cell walls' is that they must be really small to have enough strength to not break apart under osmotic pressure

Yeahbut that is the specific mechanism, along with mechanical forces such as currents, that could be used to 'replicate' in such simple life forms (not to mention in modern cells).

Clearly it would not a very robust system (compared to modern cells), but that means that systems that produced stronger vesicles might then have an advantage as long as there was some other mechanism that allowed division. Hey! that sounds like evolution! Whaddya know about that? If they continue evolving like that it might even lead to modern cells after a while

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

Why aren't we seeing the origins of new life in concentrated, high energy chemical sources, arising right now?

1) We aren't looking.
2) We aren't looking everywhere.
3) We aren't interested.
4) Peanut butter is not, for example, a methane dominated, hydrogen rich, volcanically heated, comet strike zone.

Peanut butter was once living and contains concentrated amino acids and lipids, in such proximity that they should self-assemble into proto-RNA fragments and these fragments should also self-assemble into proto-life and life, by the same processes proposed for chemical abiogenesis.

The synthesis of amino acids is already done, lipid encapsulation (it is an emulsion) is done, the relative chemical abundances are already optimal for life.

The peanut butter industry regularly produces millions of jars of the stuff and depends very much upon the fact that life will not spontaneously arise and cause spoilage.

Thinking that the proposed primordial soup offers better likelihood of producing life because it had rare events in the theory (cometary impact, vulcanism) is magical thinking. Peanut butter is a better medium and we just don't see the chemical abiogenesis of proto-life.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

... and I'd say no, it's a chemical that messes with life processes.

As I said, it is debatable, and depends on the definition of 'life'. However...

Are Viruses Alive? New Evidence Says Yes

It suggests that viruses were not simply shed genetic material of cells, but shared unique properties with cells (and thus were living) and eventually evolved as separate entities. “We are now able to build truly universal trees of life,” says Caetano-Anolles, “that describe the origin and diversification of organisms and viruses.”

These findings provide some of the strongest evidence yet that viruses are indeed living. “The mere fact of the existence of a universal biology unifying viruses and cells now justifies the construction of a Tree of Life that embraces viruses side by side with cells.” says Caetano-Anolles. The interesting thing about these results is that they indicate that viruses must have diversified from ancient cells by a process called reductive evolution, where organisms simplify instead of becoming more complex. Viruses were likely “more cellular in nature and existed in the form of primitive cells,” explains Nasir. The ancient cells that these primordial viruses resided in were those of the last universal common ancestor that preceded diversified life about 2.45 billion years ago.

The debate is a real one, and not settled by any means.

Are viruses alive?

NIGEL BROWN (arguing the NO side)

In many ways whether viruses are living or non-living entities is a moot philosophical point.

...However, a crucial point is that viruses are not capable of independent replication. They have to replicate within a host cell and they use or usurp the host cell machinery for this. They do not contain the full range of required metabolic processes and are dependent on their host to provide many of the requirements for their replication.

DAVID BHELLA (arguing the YES side)

The question of whether viruses can be considered to be alive, of course, hinges on one’s definition of life. Where we draw the line between chemistry and life can seem a philosophical, or even theological argument.

...Fundamental to the argument that viruses are not alive is the suggestion that metabolism and self-sustaining replication are key definitions of life. Viruses are not able to replicate without the metabolic machinery of the cell. No organism is entirely self-supporting, however – life is absolutely interdependent.

...So, what does define life? Some have argued that the possession of ribosomes is a key ingredient. Perhaps the most satisfying definition, that explicitly excludes viruses, emerges from the ‘metabolism first’ model and concerns the presence of membrane-associated metabolic activity – a tangible ‘spark’ of life. This draws a neat distinction between viruses and obligate intracellular parasites such as Chlamydia and Rickettsia. This definition also confers the status of life on mitochondria and plastids, however. The endosymbiosis that led to mitochondria is thought to have given rise to eukaryotic life. Mitochondria have metabolic activity on which we depend, they have machinery to manufacture proteins and they have genomes. Most would accept that mitochondria are part of a life form, but they are not independent life.

I would argue that the only satisfactory definition of life therefore lies in the most critical property of genetic heredity: independent evolution. Life is the manifestation of a coherent collection of genes that are competent to replicate within the niche in which they evolve(d). Viruses fulfill this definition.

Even those who say virii are life are arguing that it is because virii have come from regular living things and have established only as part of an environment which includes life. Virii are rogue RNA, that has escaped from life processes with the disruption of the cell, so to speak.

If you had no DNA replication mechanism, you can't produce the DNA required to produce the damaged RNA fragments that we call virii.

So it is entirely a semantic issue as to 'life or chemical'.

Your opinion falls one way, mine the other, they have equal validity, as far as I am concerned.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

... and I'd say no, it's a chemical that messes with life processes.

As I said, it is debatable, and depends on the definition of 'life'. However...

Are Viruses Alive? New Evidence Says Yes

It suggests that viruses were not simply shed genetic material of cells, but shared unique properties with cells (and thus were living) and eventually evolved as separate entities. “We are now able to build truly universal trees of life,” says Caetano-Anolles, “that describe the origin and diversification of organisms and viruses.”

These findings provide some of the strongest evidence yet that viruses are indeed living. “The mere fact of the existence of a universal biology unifying viruses and cells now justifies the construction of a Tree of Life that embraces viruses side by side with cells.” says Caetano-Anolles. The interesting thing about these results is that they indicate that viruses must have diversified from ancient cells by a process called reductive evolution, where organisms simplify instead of becoming more complex. Viruses were likely “more cellular in nature and existed in the form of primitive cells,” explains Nasir. The ancient cells that these primordial viruses resided in were those of the last universal common ancestor that preceded diversified life about 2.45 billion years ago.

The debate is a real one, and not settled by any means.

Are viruses alive?

NIGEL BROWN (arguing the NO side)

In many ways whether viruses are living or non-living entities is a moot philosophical point.

...However, a crucial point is that viruses are not capable of independent replication. They have to replicate within a host cell and they use or usurp the host cell machinery for this. They do not contain the full range of required metabolic processes and are dependent on their host to provide many of the requirements for their replication.

DAVID BHELLA (arguing the YES side)

The question of whether viruses can be considered to be alive, of course, hinges on one’s definition of life. Where we draw the line between chemistry and life can seem a philosophical, or even theological argument.

...Fundamental to the argument that viruses are not alive is the suggestion that metabolism and self-sustaining replication are key definitions of life. Viruses are not able to replicate without the metabolic machinery of the cell. No organism is entirely self-supporting, however – life is absolutely interdependent.

...So, what does define life? Some have argued that the possession of ribosomes is a key ingredient. Perhaps the most satisfying definition, that explicitly excludes viruses, emerges from the ‘metabolism first’ model and concerns the presence of membrane-associated metabolic activity – a tangible ‘spark’ of life. This draws a neat distinction between viruses and obligate intracellular parasites such as Chlamydia and Rickettsia. This definition also confers the status of life on mitochondria and plastids, however. The endosymbiosis that led to mitochondria is thought to have given rise to eukaryotic life. Mitochondria have metabolic activity on which we depend, they have machinery to manufacture proteins and they have genomes. Most would accept that mitochondria are part of a life form, but they are not independent life.

I would argue that the only satisfactory definition of life therefore lies in the most critical property of genetic heredity: independent evolution. Life is the manifestation of a coherent collection of genes that are competent to replicate within the niche in which they evolve(d). Viruses fulfill this definition.

Even those who say virii are life are arguing that it is because virii have come from regular living things and have established only as part of an environment which includes life. Virii are rogue RNA, that has escaped from life processes with the disruption of the cell, so to speak.

If you had no DNA replication mechanism, you can't produce the DNA required to produce the damaged RNA fragments that we call virii.

So it is entirely a semantic issue as to 'life or chemical'.

Your opinion falls one way, mine the other, they have equal validity, as far as I am concerned.

Viruses are considered alive and are characterized as parasitic. Regardless whether they are RNA or DNA (of which there are both), they reproduce by hijacking the DNA of the host cell. Dead or alive, it's an infectious agent. Viruses are also thermodynamically very efficient as they require less energy to reproduce.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

... and I'd say no, it's a chemical that messes with life processes.

As I said, it is debatable, and depends on the definition of 'life'. However...

Are Viruses Alive? New Evidence Says Yes

It suggests that viruses were not simply shed genetic material of cells, but shared unique properties with cells (and thus were living) and eventually evolved as separate entities. “We are now able to build truly universal trees of life,” says Caetano-Anolles, “that describe the origin and diversification of organisms and viruses.”

These findings provide some of the strongest evidence yet that viruses are indeed living. “The mere fact of the existence of a universal biology unifying viruses and cells now justifies the construction of a Tree of Life that embraces viruses side by side with cells.” says Caetano-Anolles. The interesting thing about these results is that they indicate that viruses must have diversified from ancient cells by a process called reductive evolution, where organisms simplify instead of becoming more complex. Viruses were likely “more cellular in nature and existed in the form of primitive cells,” explains Nasir. The ancient cells that these primordial viruses resided in were those of the last universal common ancestor that preceded diversified life about 2.45 billion years ago.

The debate is a real one, and not settled by any means.

Are viruses alive?

NIGEL BROWN (arguing the NO side)

In many ways whether viruses are living or non-living entities is a moot philosophical point.

...However, a crucial point is that viruses are not capable of independent replication. They have to replicate within a host cell and they use or usurp the host cell machinery for this. They do not contain the full range of required metabolic processes and are dependent on their host to provide many of the requirements for their replication.

DAVID BHELLA (arguing the YES side)

The question of whether viruses can be considered to be alive, of course, hinges on one’s definition of life. Where we draw the line between chemistry and life can seem a philosophical, or even theological argument.

...Fundamental to the argument that viruses are not alive is the suggestion that metabolism and self-sustaining replication are key definitions of life. Viruses are not able to replicate without the metabolic machinery of the cell. No organism is entirely self-supporting, however – life is absolutely interdependent.

...So, what does define life? Some have argued that the possession of ribosomes is a key ingredient. Perhaps the most satisfying definition, that explicitly excludes viruses, emerges from the ‘metabolism first’ model and concerns the presence of membrane-associated metabolic activity – a tangible ‘spark’ of life. This draws a neat distinction between viruses and obligate intracellular parasites such as Chlamydia and Rickettsia. This definition also confers the status of life on mitochondria and plastids, however. The endosymbiosis that led to mitochondria is thought to have given rise to eukaryotic life. Mitochondria have metabolic activity on which we depend, they have machinery to manufacture proteins and they have genomes. Most would accept that mitochondria are part of a life form, but they are not independent life.

I would argue that the only satisfactory definition of life therefore lies in the most critical property of genetic heredity: independent evolution. Life is the manifestation of a coherent collection of genes that are competent to replicate within the niche in which they evolve(d). Viruses fulfill this definition.

Even those who say virii are life are arguing that it is because virii have come from regular living things and have established only as part of an environment which includes life. Virii are rogue RNA, that has escaped from life processes with the disruption of the cell, so to speak.

If you had no DNA replication mechanism, you can't produce the DNA required to produce the damaged RNA fragments that we call virii.

So it is entirely a semantic issue as to 'life or chemical'.

Your opinion falls one way, mine the other, they have equal validity, as far as I am concerned.

Viruses are considered alive and are characterized as parasitic. Regardless whether they are RNA or DNA (of which there are both), they reproduce by hijacking the DNA of the host cell. Dead or alive, it's an infectious agent. Viruses are also thermodynamically very efficient as they require less energy to reproduce.

Can't say I disagree with any of that!

originally posted by: rnaa

No, actually it is not inconceivable at all.

You are unique then, because no one knows how many of the proteins could have possibly evolved through a the piece-by-piece mutative fashion. Take for example the titin protein. It can have over 100,000 nucleotides in its genetic sequence. Can you ACTUALLY conceive how so many successful mutations could have occurred over time? While passing through its theoretical hundred thousand successful mutations, titin would be worthless until achieving its functional length of 100,000 nucleotides. So how could it possibly be selected for over such a long period of time until it actually became a functioning protein? Not to mention it is useless without the other muscular proteins. Which then, of those muscular proteins, came first? Actin is worthless in muscle fibers without myosin, so which came first? How does it even organize into a functional structure, and seamlessly use ATP to initiate muscle contraction?

Give me your best fairy tale as to how this could have possibly happened by random mutation.

I make no statement about evolution versus intelligent design and creationism (two sides of the coin), but Michael Behe's books, "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution" raised some questions in my mind that science hasn't answered yet. IMHO, irreducible complexity (Behe's term) is a challenge for incremental change through random mutation and natural selection.

I mention this in case other folks who are interested in the topic are looking for information on the topic.

I audited an "Origins of life" class (purely secular) about 10 years ago, and there was nothing there but some speculative hypotheses for the most gross cellular components, to say nothing of the complex biochemistry involved. At no point did any hypothesis pretend to describe the creation of the first cell - no matter how simple. No doubt things have progressed since then. I'd be interested in someone pointing me to such a hypothesis!

Cheers!

a reply to: cooperton

You are unique then, because no one knows how many of the proteins could have possibly evolved through a the piece-by-piece mutative fashion.

Conceiving of and knowing the exact sequence in minute detail are two entirely different things. I am not unique (in that way) at all.

While passing through its theoretical hundred thousand successful mutations, titin would be worthless until achieving its functional length of 100,000 nucleotides.

And your proof of this rather extraordinarily 'brave' assertion is what exactly? While no complete description of the evolution of titin has been proposed (at least not in the surface detail of the research that is available to me), a lot of research has gone into sequencing titin which has identified on the order of 363 exons along with 38,000+ residues (introns). Introns do not code for amino acids, only exons do. So the evolutionary 'difficulty' you perceive is not anywhere as difficult as you seem to think.

(source)

Abstract —Titin is a giant vertebrate striated muscle protein with critical importance for myofibril elasticity and structural integrity. We show here that the complete sequence of the human titin gene contains 363 exons, which together code for 38 138 residues (4200 kDa). In its central I-band region, 47 novel PEVK exons were found, which contribute to titin’s extensible spring properties. Additionally, 3 unique I-band titin exons were identified (named novex-1 to -3). Novex-3 functions as an alternative titin C-terminus.

Research as far back as 1994 has found that: (source)

Titin and twitchin are giant proteins expressed in muscle. They are mainly composed of domains belonging to the fibronectin class III and immunoglobulin c2 families, repeated many times. In addition, both proteins have a protein kinase domain near the C-terminus. This paper explores the evolution of these and related muscle proteins in an attempt to determine the order of events that gave rise to the different repeat patterns and the order of appearance of the proteins.

This suggests that of the 100,000 or so nucleotides you claim, many of them are just the same nucleotide sequences repeated over and over and over and over. It is not hard to conceive of a very small number of mutations producing a large number of repeated sequences.

As to whether titin precursors could have had other function before it became titin, I couldn't follow up very far, but here is one such indication: source

While somewhat speculative, evidence suggests that this group of giant elastic proteins may have been co-opted from chromosomal giant proteins responsible for DNA supercoiling.

The function was 'borrowed' from some other molecule doing another job. It just isn't difficult to imagine that at all.

Furthermore, I find no source for your 100,000 nucleotide assertion. What animal does that number relate to? (source)

We used 33 protein sequences of titin from modern vertebrate species, with most of them corresponding to the complete protein sequence composed of more than 30,000 residues.

I could be reading that wrong, but I think it is saying that your 100,000 number should be closer to 30,000.

Give me your best fairy tale as to how this could have possibly happened by random mutation.

I am not Hans Christian Anderson, I do not deal in fairy tales.

Random mutation happens. If the organism is better off with the mutation, the mutation is spread to the population through the organism descendants - that part is called natural selection.

Look it up: Google is your friend.

a reply to: chr0naut

these fragments should also self-assemble into proto-life and life, by the same processes proposed for chemical abiogenesis.

What would lead you to that conclusion? Are you suggesting that pre-biotic earth was a peanut butter jar?

The peanut butter industry regularly produces millions of jars of the stuff and depends very much upon the fact that life will not spontaneously arise and cause spoilage.

Yes. They go to great lengths to ensure that the environment does not permit 'EXISTING LIFE FORMS' to use that very excellent growing medium to take over and spoil the product. And yet SOMETIMES it doesn't work as perfectly as they hope. Either they don't sanitize as well as they thought or a mutated life form is resistant to their hygenic efforts and 'does an end run'.

None of that says anything about whether a completely new life form has 'popped' into existence. The manufacturer does not look for completely new life forms. You don't look for completely new life forms when you spread it on your bread and put it into your mouth. Health inspectors don't look for completely new life forms when they do their inspections. Scientists are not breathlessly watching peanut butter jars looking for completely new life forms to show up.

NOBODY IS LOOKING. That doesn't mean it isn't happening, it means that nobody is looking.

AND the first life forms did not appear in a peanut butter jar. If a completely new life form actually used modern amino acids how would we even know that it was a completely new life form and not just a new species that we had not noticed before. All modern living organisms use a subset of 20 or so amino acids. That doesn't mean that was always the case for every organism from the first life.

Thinking that the proposed primordial soup offers better likelihood of producing life because it had rare events in the theory (cometary impact, vulcanism) is magical thinking.

It has nothing to do with 'better likelihood'. It has to do with 'what were the conditions like' and how could that work?

Peanut butter is a better medium and we just don't see the chemical abiogenesis of proto-life.

Peanut butter is a better medium for MODERN ORGANISMS. Organism that exist today and like to 'eat' the raw materials that peanut butter offers them. That has nothing to do with the conditions that led to first life.

You just don't get it that first life on earth was NOTHING at all like modern life, do you? Everything about the Earths chemical environment was different. More hydrogen, more methane, more sulphur, less oxygen. On and On. It was different. The atmosphere was different. The oceans were different. The temperature was different. The tides were different. The volcanic activity was different. EVERYTHING was different. And no peanut butter jar anywhere.

Thinking that peanut butter is a better candidate medium for fist life to appear is what is magical thinking.

a reply to: WaitingForGodot

IMHO, irreducible complexity (Behe's term) is a challenge for incremental change through random mutation and natural selection.

Yes it was a challenge, but not for long. Every one of Behe's examples of supposed 'irreducible complexity has been completely debunked, and so too others that have been proposed.

In fact, Behe's idea was actually described and rejected 10 years before he published 'Black Box'.

Refuting Michael Behe

Here is some further, more detailed discussion: Irreducable Complexity Demystifyed

Enjoy your journey.

a reply to: WaitingForGodot

I doubt that the question 'what exactly was the first life form like' will ever be answered definitively. There is a lot of work on examining how it could have happened. In this case, there may be several good pathways, and we will never know which one was 'it' or whether there was another thing altogether.

Here is my go to video to help answer your question. It is becoming out of date already but it is a good starting point. I recommend turning up your volume!