I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    so here's your chance enlighten me. What proof do you have that supports an evolutionary happenstance that is the origin of life? Go


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs&list=PL7420408E36541DA4&index=22

  • Hadriel
    Hadriel

    Thanks for proving my point @OrphanCrow you have no answer on the topic so you try to redirect like every other person that doesn't want to see the words come across their lips.

    I get it. you guys just don't want to say "I don't know"

    check we're done....

  • WhatshallIcallmyself
    WhatshallIcallmyself

    "What proof do you have that supports an evolutionary happenstance that is the origin of life"

    That is nothing more than a poorly put together word salad. You should be thankful you got link to a video instead of eggs and salad cream thrown at you...

    "evolutionary happenstance...origin of life"

    How can you keep mixing up to completely different scientific fields? Considering the amount of times you (and others) have been corrected on this thread alone this should not still be happening.

    "What proof"

    I'll fix that for you: What evidence. Consider why you were wrong to say proof...






  • WhatshallIcallmyself
    WhatshallIcallmyself

    I get it. you guys just don't want to say "I don't know" - Hadriel

    I think more than one person has already told you they don't know what you are talking about.

    You can't blame us for not answering your poorly structured questions...

  • cofty
    cofty
    that doesn't automatically mean all the answers have been explained

    Are you familiar with the term "straw man fallacy"?

    If it was good enough to bug Chuck it's good enough for me

    Darwin lived 150 years ago. Most of the progress in the origin of life has happened in the past 2 decades.

    Until we solve this issue it is not possible to make any absolute statement.

    Yes it is possible to say absolutely beyond all reasonable doubt that every living thing evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. That fact is not in any way dependent on an explanation of the origin of life.

    To know what the biochemical charge was (yes cofty scientists absolutely use this term)

    Scientists use a lot of terms but if you want to know something you have to ask the question in a way that makes sense. You can't just throw some random sciencey words and phrases around and pretend you have said something.

    I'm all ears on how the origin of life started. Happy to listen to anything anyone has to say. But alas no one has said much,

    So you want somebody to explain abiogenesis in one post do you? I have a series of almost 40 threads on the evidence for evolution and I haven't scratched the surface yet.

    I offered to discuss the evidence with you. All I asked was that you take 2 or 3 minutes to list a few bullet points setting out what you understand about the topic so far. From that starting point I can help you without wasting time on basics that you already know.

    I offered to recommend some excellent books that will describe the latest progress but you have ignored my offer. You clearly have no genuine interest.

    I will start a new thread on origin of life in the near future.





  • A Ha
    A Ha

    Like everyone else, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll post a couple of paragraphs from Life Ascending which might address your question. RNA WORLD: RNA --> DNA

    And so Martin and Koonin envisaged populations of cooperative RNAs emerging in mineral cells, each RNA encoding a handful of related genes. The drawback to this arrangement, of course, is that the RNA populations would be vulnerable to remixing into different, possibly ill-suited, combinations. A cell that managed to hold its 'genome' together, by converting a group of cooperative RNAs into a single DNA molecule, would retain all its advantages. Its replication would then be similar to a retrovirus, its DNA transcribed into a swarm of RNAs that infect adjacent cells, bestowing on them the same ability to deposit information back into a DNA bank. Each new flurry of RNAs would be freshly minted from the bank, and so less likely to be riddled with errors.
    How hard would it have been for mineral cells to 'invent' DNA in these circumstances? Not so hard, probably; much easier, in fact, than inventing a whole system for replicating DNA (rather than RNA). There are just two tiny chemical differences between RNA and DNA, but together they make an immense structural difference: the difference between coiled catalytic molecules of RNA, and the iconic double helix of DNA... Both of these tiny changes would be hard to stop taking place virtually spontaneously in vents. The first is the removal of a single oxygen atom from RNA (ribonucleic acid) to give deoxy-ribonucleic acid, or DNA. The mechanism today still involves involves the kind of reactive (technically free-radical) intermediates found in vents. The second difference is the addition of a 'methyl' group on to the letter uracil, to give thymine. Again, methyl groups are reactive free-radical splinters of methane gas, plentiful in alkaline vents.
    So making DNA could have been relatively easy: it would have formed as 'spontaneously' in the vents as RNA (I mean its formation from simple precursors would have been catalysed by minerals, nucleotides, amino acids, and so on). A slightly more difficult trick would have been to retain the coded message, which is to say, to make an exact copy of the sequence of letters in RNA in the form of DNA. Yet here too the void is not insuperable. To convert RNA to DNA requires just one enzyme: a reverse transcriptase, held in trust by retroviruses like HIV today...
  • cofty
    cofty

    A Ha that is an excellent book by Nick Lane.

    He is actively working on origin of life energetics in his lab at University College London and has had funding for the last few years. His latest book "The Vital Question" lays out the development of his ideas since he wrote "Oxygen" in I think it was 2002

    "Power, Sex, Suicide - Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" is really excellent too but his latest book updates some of it.

  • A Ha
    A Ha

    I've been on a Quantum Mechanics kick lately, but this thread made me wonder about updates in origin of life investigation since I read Life Ascending a few years ago. I ordered The Vital Question yesterday.

    Edit: In fact, I think I first got Life Ascending because you had recommended it in a thread years ago, so thanks for the recommendation.

  • cofty
    cofty

    You will love it.

    If Hadriel would read it he could at least frame his objections more meaningfully.

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    This thread really needs to go to sleep......

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit