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

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.

no, the equilibrium constant is not a reference to solubility rates, it's a reference to reaction rates. Having a low equilibrium constant means the equation tends towards the reactants, which in this case is the monomer form. This is because amino acid polymerization is non-spontaneous in water. This is why the equilibrium constant for this reaction is "extremely small".

If this weren't the case, and amino acids polymerized spontaneously in water solutions, we would have massive amino acid polymers all throughout freshwater lakes, swimming pools, etc. But this doesn't happen, because water breaks down amino acid polymers.

a reply to: cooperton


Wrong on all points.
The isoelectric point of amino acids is 7. Hydrogen bonds form and break all the time. Stabilization occurs AFTER monomers are covalently bound and is dependent on which amino acids are in the monomeric chain.

Why don't you go into your lab and repeat the experiments posted in the papers. You might learn something. Don't forget the deionized water.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Wrong on all points.

Lol I was mostly repeating and quoting the info YOU gave on the past page. Make up your mind

Go to your lab and repeat the experiments posted in the papers. You might learn something. Don't forget the deionized water.

Show your associates this thread, they will affirm what im saying.

a reply to: cooperton

I've posted the evidence that amino acid monomers can form in water. You have provided zero evidence that they can't.
You can confuse the issue all you want. The facts are the facts.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

I've posted the evidence that amino acid monomers can form in water.

You have provided zero evidence that they can't.
You can confuse the issue all you want. The facts are the facts.

I'll say this one last time. Amino acid polymerization is non-spontaneous in water. Like the source you showed on the last page, it is extremely unfavorable. This means that over time any polymers that may be present in an aqueous solution will dissociate into the monomer form.

This makes the prebiotic abiogenesis scenario implausible through random chance

a reply to: cooperton

You're wrong.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're wrong.

The equilibrium constant you posted on the last page proves that it is non-spontaneous

"A spontaneous reaction is a reaction that will proceed without any outside energy or driving force. A spontaneous reaction has an equilibrium constant greater than 1. A reaction will be nonspontaneous if the equilibrium constant is less than 1"

As your own source said, the equilibrium constant is extremely low. It would be like being able to light a match underwater.

a reply to: cooperton

You're wrong.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're wrong.

Then show him where he is wrong instead of 2-3 word replies.

a reply to: yuppa

I already did.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

I've posted the evidence that amino acid monomers can form in water.

You have provided zero evidence that they can't.
You can confuse the issue all you want. The facts are the facts.

I'll say this one last time. Amino acid polymerization is non-spontaneous in water. Like the source you showed on the last page, it is extremely unfavorable. This means that over time any polymers that may be present in an aqueous solution will dissociate into the monomer form.

This makes the prebiotic abiogenesis scenario implausible through random chance

Where did you get this from? Are you stuck in the 1950s things have changed as more experiments were done. Just off the top of my head tryptophane, leucine and isoleucine love aqueous solutions and do just fine linking with hydrogen bonds.

The other problem is you want to compare current cells claiming they could not exist. However, protocells are much simpler versions that took time to evolve. Amino acids are relatively easy to get they are all over the place as I stated the uiverse makes them in bulk. Anywhere that meteors land would have access to amino acids.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Where did you get this from? Are you stuck in the 1950s things have changed as more experiments were done.

No this has been known for a while. It would be silly for any recent experiments to test it because it's already known.

amino acid polymerization is energetically unfavorable

The rate law is partially determined by the equilibrium constant. If the constant is below 1, then that means the reaction equilibrates to the left side of the equation, whereas if its above 1 it equilibrstes to the right side of the equation



Here this researcher Is explaining how the equilibrium constant is very small fforamino acid polymerization ,meaning it highly favors hydrolysis of the polymers into the monomer form

ust off the top of my head tryptophane, leucine and isoleucine love aqueous solutions and do just fine linking with hydrogen bonds.

Hydrogen bonds are not peptide (covalent) bonds, they're van Der Wahl forces. It's like a temporary attraction rather than an enduring rigid bond.

a reply to: dragonridr

He's never been in a lab, hasn't done a single experiment, understands nothing about acid/base chemistry. Yet he's an "expert". If everything he says were true, no life would exist on this planet. He's a cultist hell bent on denying the real science.

More bs hitting the wall - but none of it is sticking.

a reply to: cooperton

This again shows you are clueless it doesn't say anything about it being impossile. As I explained earlier pI is different for each amino acid. Amino acids there are hundreds, by the way, prefer a certain PH however even if it is not optimal it can still occur just not as effective.

However, we are talking about trillions and trillions of places each with different PH levels. For example, a pool lined with boron would lower the PH. What I find funny is you claim things to be impossible without any proof or experiments to ack you up. I backed up what I said with science why don't you try that now

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: dragonridr

He's never been in a lab, hasn't done a single experiment, understands nothing about acid/base chemistry. Yet he's an "expert". If everything he says were true, no life would exist on this planet. He's a cultist hell bent on denying the real science.

More bs hitting the wall - but none of it is sticking.

I see he's reading things off the internet reminds me of some of my students who will argue some point and I have to sit them down for hours showing them why some idiots on the web are wrong. Just in this case I don't think he has the background needed to even read a scientific paper He just qouted one wrong again not understanding what they were trying to say.

a reply to: dragonridr

It is impossible - for him. It's willful ignorance. But the cult he belongs to has brain washed people like him into believing that the real science somehow denies a designer. Well, if he and his cult understood real science they would know that science is only about two things: discovery and evidence. Science doesn't deal with a god or gods because there's no evidence. It's not a concept you can bring into a lab and test - and TESTING is everything in science. If it can't be tested, it's not science. And it's not a function of instrumentation like physics. There's no possibility of ever testing for a designer god.

Crackpot cults. Fortunately, as per the definition of a cult, it's a small group of crazies.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

This again shows you are clueless it doesn't say anything about it being impossile.

Extremely low equilibrium point means it is essentially like trying to light a match underwater. Thermodynamically things are technically "possible", but realistically do not happen. The writer of that snippet I re-posted is describing the kinetic and thermodynamic difficulty of forming a peptide bond in water. What he means by kinetically unfavorable is that water is a product of the reaction, meaning that it will not do well in water for the same reason that a combustion reaction (lighting a match) isn't favorable in water because water is one of the products of combustion.

The fact you guys are ignoring this and trying to dance around this simple thermodynamic concept is showing you aren't being objective at all. You will simply refute anything I say regardless of how straightforward it is. The fact that people are starring your posts is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind lol

However, we are talking about trillions and trillions of places each with different PH levels. For example, a pool lined with boron would lower the PH. What I find funny is you claim things to be impossible without any proof or experiments to ack you up. I backed up what I said with science why don't you try that now

Ok well now this is a different discussion. I was referring to peptide bond formation in water, which is non-spontaneous. (Which I am waiting for you all to admit you were wrong about). If the solution becomes acidic enough for peptide bonds to be favorable, such as the experiment that phantom showed before, it would be unstable for a proteins tertiary structure. 2pH is favorable for peptide bond formation, but it is unfavorable for proper protein folding, which is a necessity to obtain functional enzymes.

This is the dilemma that occurs over and over again in trying to consider the theoretical abiogenesis event

originally posted by: Phantom423
and TESTING is everything in science.

Yeah and that's why i dont believe in evolution, it has never been verified in a lab. Your belief that it does is not based in actual observable science. Show all the papers you want, but none of them show a population of organisms evolving into something new over time

in a lab

Go ask a biochemistry teacher about the thermodynamics and kinetics of peptide bonds. They are non-spontaneous in water.

originally posted by: neoholographic
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!

This is interesting. So you're saying the code Is separate from what the code designs like a person designing a building has plans that tell the builders how the building should look. Is that what you're saying? Also, how did nature design a code like this. Curiosity peaked.

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah and that's why i dont believe in evolution, it has never been verified in a lab. Your belief that it does is not based in actual observable science. Show all the papers you want, but none of them show a population of organisms evolving into something new over time

And yet our planet is full of diverse of lifeforms, not one of them a product of creation.

You keep on spouting out that last sentence of yours. No experiment that I know of has tried to produce a new species - EVER. That would be unethical at the very least. If you know of one, please link it.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

You keep on spouting out that last sentence of yours. No experiment that I know of has tried to produce a new species - EVER. That would be unethical at the very least. If you know of one, please link it.

Evolution has never been observed, so it's faith, not science.