What Makes Us Human? The Answer May Be Found in Overlooked “Junk” DNA

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're a lousy chemist.

wow it's like you can't actually discuss science so you just resort to insult and erroneous tangents

I didn't believe I was being insulting, I pointed out that Neo is not a person of faith, as he claims, because his responses - just about all of them - are so full of vitriol and hatred and venom against his responder that I wonder if his religion is that of Christ at all.

Maybe I'm not allowed to say that, I don't. I'll find out if this is deleted too.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Way to move those goalposts first you say it can't happen, Then well it cant happen outside a lab. Your argument is funny because you have no clue the early oceans were acidic. CO2 and water produce carbonic acid, so it stands to reason that the early oceans would have been more acidic. But higher early CO2 levels would also have resulted in acidic rainwater meaning it also could have started in tidal pools as well.

See we will never know how life was created unless we invent a time machine all we can do is show possible paths it could have taken. There are some very smart researchers tackling this problem mostly because we don't want to be alone in the universe. Did you realize the building blocks of life are created in nebulas? So the universe itself could e predisposed to create life.

www.universetoday.com...[/quot e]
Their world doesn't go back that far so these conditions are alien to them.

a reply to: dragonridr

Thanks for supporting intelligent design. You said:

So the universe itself could e predisposed to create life.

Exactly! That's intelligence. How did it get predisposed to encode information on the sequence of a storage medium(DNA)? It also encoded the information to build the machinery to decode this information. Also, information is encoded in non coding sequences that regulat the expresion of coding regions.

Welcome to the club!

Let's first look at the definition of predisposed:

Definition of predispose
transitive verb

1: to dispose in advance
a good teacher predisposes children to learn
2: to make susceptible
malnutrition predisposes one to disease

www.merriam-webster.com...

This illustrates why a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy and an intelligent design interpretation is the only real explanation of the evidence.

The information encoded in the sequence of a storage medium has to be DISPOSED IN ADVANCE by intelligence because the information encoded and the storage medium has nothing to do with each other. It's a way for intelligence to convey information and meaning.

Again, these are your words

For instance, if I write a post on ATS and I have a paragraph I want to highlight, I can do what I did in the previous sentence. I can type [ ] with a b in the middle at the beginning of the paragraph and [/ ] with a b in the middle at the end of the paragraph.

This is my intelligence using the code to regulate the expression of the paragraph.

The symbols or code was designed by intelligence. When you look at [ ] and / they have nothing to do with boldness or with the information in the paragraph. The sequence has just been encoded with this meaning to regulate the expression of the text. It's the code DISPOSED IN ADVANCE by intelligence.

Here's another example:

Say I have a piece of typing paper. I tell someone, if the typing paper is split into two parts then meet me at Chipolte on 4th St. Downtown at 5 PM but if the tryping paper is split into 4 parts, meet me at Subway on MLK Drive at 7 PM.

I have just encoded the sequence of a piece of typing paper with information. The typing paper is a storage medium like DNA. The typing paper doesn't determine the code, typing paper split in 2 or split in 4, intelligence does. The typing paper knows nothing about chipolte, subway, 4th St, MLK Drive or 5 PM just like [, ], and / know nothing about boldness or the information being highlighted.

Let me repeat this with the CODE ATS uses to highlight text in a post. I'm glad you used the word PREDISPOSED.

I have just encoded the sequence of a piece of typing paper with information. The typing paper is a storage medium like DNA. The typing paper doesn't determine the code, typing paper split in 2 or split in 4, intelligence does. The typing paper knows nothing about chipolte, subway, 4th St, MLK Drive or 5 PM just like [, ], and / know nothing about boldness or the information being highlighted.

Another intelligent mind that knows the code can then decode the information encoded on the sequence of typing paper or I can build machinery to decode this information.

This is the same with DNA. DNA is a storage medium whose sequence is encoded with information that tells amino acids how to be arranged on a polypetdide chain. The code has nothing to do with amino acids or how amino acids are produced. This is why we can encode it with DVD's and PDF files or make synthetic DNA. This is because our intelligence understands the code.

DNA: The Ultimate Data-Storage Solution

In a world flooded with data, figuring out where and how to store it efficiently and inexpensively becomes a larger problem every day. One of the most exotic solutions might turn out to be one of the best: archiving information in DNA molecules.

Even better, DNA can archive a staggering amount of information in an almost inconceivably small volume. Consider this: humanity will generate an estimated 33 zettabytes of data by 2025—that’s 3.3 followed by 22 zeroes. DNA storage can squeeze all that information into a ping-pong ball, with room to spare. The 74 million million bytes of information in the Library of Congress could be crammed into a DNA archive the size of a poppy seed—6,000 times over. Split the seed in half, and you could store all of Facebook’s data.

www.scientificamerican.com...

We can do this because our intelligence understands the code used to store this information, just like an intelligence that knows the code of the piece of typing paper can unlock the information stored on it's sequence.

The typing paper, DNA or [ ] / don't create the code or any information stored on the code, that comes from intelligence.

I'm glad you said:

So the universe itself could e predisposed to create life.

It clearly illustrates how the coded information in the sequence of DNA had to be DISPOSED IN ADVANCE by intelligence!

a reply to: Phantom423

Exactly I am not a chemist yet know more about chemistry than he does. Hes seems to make the same arguments as dr James Tour guessing that his source for his debates. And just like him, he ignores anything contrary to his beliefs.

a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks for supporting intelligent design. You said:

So the universe itself could e predisposed to create life.

Exactly! That's intelligence. How did it get predisposed to encode information on the sequence of a storage medium(DNA)? It also encoded the information to build the machinery to decode this information. Also, information is encoded in non coding sequences that regulat the expresion of coding regions.

Welcome to the club!

wrong what it shows is abiogenesis occurs not through random processes but due to underlying physical and chemical processes. In chemistry, you put together certain chemicals you get a chemical reaction like earlier when I mentioned adding Co2 to water to get carbonic acid. It is a physical process that occurs intelligence is not needed. Arguing that intelligence is needed is well stupid chemistry occurs naturally as matter is combined and the chemical reactions occur between substances.

a reply to: dragonridr

Cooperton and the Great Bloviator both claim to be scientists - they know everything - chemistry, biochemistry, physics, quantum mechanics. Yet neither one of them has access to papers behind a paywall. Neither one of them has been associated with an academic institution which subscribes to the scientific journals.

That says that neither one knows anything about research and how it's done. Neither one has ever been in a lab. They pick up bits and pieces off the internet, reconfigure it to their own agenda and make up a story around it. They "consult" with their crackpot websites and pseudo scientists and formulate the crap that they post.

If they were that interested in real science, at the very least they would pay for research papers relevant to a particular topic.

The biggest giveaway is that when they're presented with the real science, both of them disappear into the ether. If it wasn't so sad it would be laughable.

a reply to: dragonridr

A little off topic, but that video demonstrates the paucity of science education in our school systems. Tour is a typical charlatan who preys on the ignorant.

Best statement: "First of all, we don't know how to build the four classes of molecules.....". Crackpot science.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

One more paper and I'm done with you and the Great Bloviator:

pubs.rsc.org...

Polymerization of amino acids ... AND IT TAKES PLACE IN WATER.

lolol no not at all.

"Normally for peptides, an absorption in the region of 190 to 260 nm is observed since the peptide bond is a primary absorbing species. In this case, despite the absence of any covalent amide linkages, the pure amino acid solution appears to display secondary structure characteristics that are manifested as absorption in the CD measurement."

These are not bonded amino acids. no covalent amid linkages means no peptide bonds. No polymerization reaction occurred in their experiment. They're simply microscoping how the amino acid monomers clump together. You time and time again prove you don't know what you're reading.

Face the fact, amino acids do not self-polymerize in water.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Find a single paper in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that says: "amino acid monomers do not polymerize in water".

It's basic thermodynamics.

The hydrolysis of amino acid polymers is spontaneous, meaning the reverse reaction (polymerization) is non-spontaneous. Here in this paper it shows the -3850 calories/mol. refer to equation (1) to see what I mean

Thermodynamics of peptide bonds

It really blows my mind how you keep remaining ignorant to this basic thermodynamic concept.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: cooperton

This is a mic drop moment:

As acidic as battery acid? Such acidity is favorable for polymerization, but the second, tertiary and quaternary structure of a protein will denatured in such high acidity:

"Acid-induced denaturation (of proteins) often occurs between pH 2 and 5"

This yields yet another impossibility for random chance generation. If low pH is required to polymerize amino acids, yet it is unfavorable to protein folding, that shows acidic oceans also wouldn't be favorable for making functional proteins.

This is why enzymatic catalysis is so necessary, and this is also why these protein structures could not have formed by random chance.

I don't know how your points can be any clearer. A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy that should have been discarded after we discovered a supercomputer in the cell.

Yeah I don't know if they're purposefully being obtuse, or if they cannot understand basic biochemical concepts. It's hilarious how dragonridr just ignored my response because he is incapable of defending his point

This yields yet another impossibility for random chance generation. If low pH is required to polymerize amino acids, yet it is unfavorable to protein folding, that shows acidic oceans also wouldn't be favorable for making functional proteins.

a reply to: cooperton


The reason I ignored this is that it's wrong. Ph decides which amino acids you produce so for example the pI for glycine is 6 to 8. I think he was attempting to discuss translation???? Realize early earth had lots of hydrogen this should tell you something if you knew chemistry. This is why amino acids are found in nebulas and even asteroids.

a reply to: cooperton

Is that it? Is that all you have? A journal from 1952? That's older than I am.

Just another proof positive that you understand nothing about modern science. I hope you didn't leave your day job to engage in all this bs.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Is that it? Is that all you have? A journal from 1952? That's older than I am.

Just another proof positive that you understand nothing about modern science. I hope you didn't leave your day job to engage in all this bs.

You're too stubborn to digest this simple fact. Dehydration synthesis for amino acid polymerization is a non-spontaneous reaction. Hydrolysis of the bonds on the other hand is spontaneous. This is why you STILL can't find a single experiment that shows amino acids polymerizing in water.. its because the reaction is textbook unfavorable. If you have a chemistry textbook there is usually a chart at the back of the book that shows the thermodynamics for reactions.

You're incapable of admitting you were wrong, and that's why you make an awful scientist.

originally posted by: dragonridr

The reason I ignored this is that it's wrong.

No it wasn't. High acidity denatures protein structures. Basic chemistry.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Over 60% of the human body is composed of water. And you're telling everyone that peptide synthesis can't happen in water.

Lol yeah thats why the body uses enzymes, so it can execute a reaction that is energetically unfavorable.

Hilarious you are quadrupling down on your ignorance.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

There is a combination of factors, one of which being that knowledge takes effort and people don't like to believe their efforts are wasted. Beyond that, ther eis a massive lack of imagination.

Im still trying to grasp with the notion of consciousness being simply an emergent property. How utterly meaningless.

I think it's incredibly narcissistic to throw away "emergent properties" simply because they don't satisfy your need for validation. Consciousness isn't about propping your self image on some vague hypothesis of transhumanist destiny. That's just ego giving fundamental human biology the middle finger.

a reply to: cooperton


Over 60% of the human body is composed of water. And you're trying to tell everyone that monomers don't form in water.
That's the definition of ignorance. A total disregard for the real science.

a reply to: cooperton

Simple acid/base chemistry - which you ignore like the plague.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Over 60% of the human body is composed of water. And you're trying to tell everyone that monomers don't form in water.
That's the definition of ignorance. A total disregard for the real science.

Lol I guess I have to keep repeating myself. Enzymes are necessary to facilitate amino acid polymerization. Amino acid polymerization doesn't happen spontaneously in water without enzymes. Water breaks down peptide bonds. When proteins are folded into their tertiary structure, it helps protects the peptide bonds from spontaneous degradation.

All of these reactions are very meticulously catalyzed. That's why it couldn't have happened randomly in a prebiotic soup

originally posted by: Phantom423

Simple acid/base chemistry - which you ignore like the plague.

Yes there's the proof right there. When they say it "greatly favors the monomers" that means the reaction equilibrates towards the monomer state, not the polymerized state. You literally just proved my point

a reply to: cooperton

So where's the enzyme in that equation?

Definition of a monomer:

Monomers are atoms or small molecules that bond together to form more complex structures such as polymers. There are four main types of monomer, including sugars, amino acids, fatty acids, and nucleotides.

Polymerization is the next step.

AMINO ACID MONOMERS FORM IN WATER WITH NO CATALYST REQUIRED.

You can't prove that statement wrong.

originally posted by: Phantom423

AMINO ACID MONOMERS FORM IN WATER WITH NO CATALYST REQUIRED.

You can't prove that statement wrong.

That equation you are referencing is saying amino acid monomers form from the amino acid polymers. Which is exactly my point, and you yourself have reaffirmed it incidentally. Amino acid polymers spontaneously degrade and return back to the monomer state. This is because, like I was saying, polymer degradation into monomers is spontaneous in an aqueous solution.

For this reason, amino acid polymer chains do not form spontaneously in water. Instead, They break down in water, like your reaction equation is saying

a reply to: cooperton


Once again, ignorance - can't even read the equation properly. The equation says it can form in water and dissolve in water. That's all it says. It's a two component reaction in water. Get over it already.

BTW, where's that paper that shows that amino acid monomers cannot form in water? Did you write it? Let's see the citation.