Chemists claim to have solved riddle of how life began on Earth

March 18, 2015 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Chemistry in a post-meteoritic-impact scenario. A series of post-impact environmental events are shown along with the chemistry (boxed) proposed to occur as a consequence of these events. a, Dissolution of atmospherically produced hydrogen cyanide results in the conversion of vivianite (the anoxic corrosion product of the meteoritic inclusion schreibersite) into mixed ferrocyanide salts and phosphate salts, with counter cations being provided through neutralization and ion-exchange reactions with bedrock and other meteoritic oxides and salts. b, Partial evaporation results in the deposition of the least-soluble salts over a wide area, and further evaporation deposits the most-soluble salts in smaller, lower-lying areas. c, After complete evaporation, impact or geothermal heating results in thermal metamorphosis of the evaporite layer, and the generation of feedstock precursor salts (in bold). d, Rainfall on higher ground (left) leads to rivulets or streams that flow downhill, sequentially leaching feedstocks from the thermally metamorphosed evaporite layer. Solar irradiation drives photoredox chemistry in the streams. Convergent synthesis can result when streams with different reaction histories merge (right), as illustrated here for the potential synthesis of arabinose aminooxazoline at the confluence of two streams that contained glycolaldehyde, and leached different feedstocks before merging. Credit: (c) Nature Chemistry (2015) doi:10.1038/nchem.2202

(Phys.org)—A team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK believes they have solved the mystery of how it was possible for life to begin on Earth over four billion years ago. In their paper published in the journal Nature Chemistry, the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.

Scientists have debated for years the various possibilities that could have led to life evolving on Earth, and the arguments have only grown more heated in recent years as many have suggested that it did not happen here it all, instead, it was brought to us from comets or some other celestial body. Most of the recent debate has found scientists in one of three chicken-or-the-egg first camps: RNA world advocates, metabolism-first supporters and those who believe that cell membranes must have developed first.

The chemists with this new effort believe they have found a way to show that all three arguments are both right and wrong—they believe they have found a way to show that everything necessary for life to evolve could have done so from just , hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light and that those could have all existed at the same time—in their paper, they report that using just those three basic ingredients they were able to produce more than 50 nucleic acids—precursors to DNA and RNA molecules. They note that early meteorites carried with them ingredients that would react with nitrogen already in the atmosphere, producing a lot of . By dissolving in water, it could have very easily come into contact with hydrogen sulfide, while being exposed to ultraviolet light from the sun. And that, they claim, would have been all that was needed to get things going.

The findings by the team are sure to garner a great deal of interest in the scientific community and others will no doubt be testing and commenting on their findings. If what they claim passes muster, their work will likely be remembered as one of the great achievements of our time.

Explore further: New computational approaches speed up the exploration of the universe

More information: Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism, Nature Chemistry (2015) DOI: 10.1038/nchem.2202

Abstract
A minimal cell can be thought of as comprising informational, compartment-forming and metabolic subsystems. To imagine the abiotic assembly of such an overall system, however, places great demands on hypothetical prebiotic chemistry. The perceived differences and incompatibilities between these subsystems have led to the widely held assumption that one or other subsystem must have preceded the others. Here we experimentally investigate the validity of this assumption by examining the assembly of various biomolecular building blocks from prebiotically plausible intermediates and one-carbon feedstock molecules. We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of ​hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry. The key reaction steps are driven by ultraviolet light, use ​hydrogen sulfide as the reductant and can be accelerated by Cu(I)–Cu(II) photoredox cycling.

Related Stories

Study builds on plausible scenario for origin of life on Earth

August 9, 2011

A relatively simple combination of naturally occurring sugars and amino acids offers a plausible route to the building blocks of life, according to a paper published in Nature Chemistry co-authored by a professor at the University ...

Recommended for you

How to build efficient organic solar cells

July 17, 2018

Organic solar cells, made from carbon-based materials, present unique advantages compared with other solar cell technologies. For example, they can be manufactured through low-cost printing technologies, and they can be made ...

323 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (27) Mar 18, 2015
Very interesting...
Einstein's "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler..) looks appropo, here...
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (23) Mar 18, 2015
It's very interesting that life evolved from 3 things that could harm, if not kill us. So, just how alien are we?
cjn
4.1 / 5 (20) Mar 18, 2015
So they found that H2S and HCN + UV enabled production of 50 nucleic acids, but what about the pheromones? Any serious scientist would know that the nucleic acids wouldn't have formed without the pheromones acting on them within the physical constraints of the chemical interaction.

/sarc

But seriously, I'm not sure how representative the graphic is of the Earth 3-4 BYA. The Earth would have to be pretty stable at that time to have sufficient liquid surface water and temperatures conducive to the chemistries, while still being protected from extreme geological events and solar radiation.
Dethe
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
Why not, but these experiments should be done in natural "one-pot" way. From available information it's evident, that the chemists made a number of synthesis separately in rather artificial way.
loneislander
4.4 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2015
It's very interesting that life evolved from 3 things that could harm, if not kill us. So, just how alien are we?


Water is made of things that can kill us. Cars too. What's yer point?
gkam
2.9 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
Did they find this in Genesis?
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (21) Mar 18, 2015
Water is made of things that can kill us. Cars too. What's yer point?

Oh yeah, prove it to me.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (29) Mar 18, 2015
antigoracle with his usual snarky red-neck style asked
Water is made of things that can kill us. Cars too. What's yer point?
Oh yeah, prove it to me
Water is made up of Hydrogen & Oxygen.

The former displaces Oxygen & can result in suffocation (also potential for explosion as H2/O2 mixture can be ignited easily by static electricity) the latter has details here:-

https://en.wikipe...toxicity

antigoracle have you not used google & wikipedia before - they are quite useful ;-)

Now, in regard to all your snide banal comments to me re AGW, prove CO2 has NO effect in terms of thermal resistivity, can U ?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (26) Mar 18, 2015
Water is made of things that can kill us. Cars too. What's yer point?

Oh yeah, prove it to me.

The simple proof is - stand in the middle of highway and see what happens...
fourinfinities
1.5 / 5 (23) Mar 18, 2015
You can give a 3-year-old paint, a brush and canvas, but the 3-year-old will not produce a Picasso.

How did the "three basic ingredients" to life become life?
JVK
1 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2015
Can heterothermy facilitate the colonization of new habitats? http://dx.doi.org...am.12037

Virus-driven thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation clearly link ecological variation from entropic elasticity to nutrient-dependent anti-entropic ecological adaptations and organism-level thermoregulation via the biophysically constrained physiology of reproduction, which enables changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance. The changes link amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species.

See: Luis P. Villarreal: We Need a Nonlinear Language for Life http://www.huffin...898.html

Suzan Mazur: Have you had dialogue with scientists synthesizing life in the lab?
Luis Villarreal: No. But I do look at their literature and it's apparent they're excluding viruses.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2015
Extraordinary claims....

If they know how to create life, show us.
bendorf2
2.4 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
In response to GKAM, just because we haven't yet found the answer to everything, doesn't mean there are no answers to discover. I guess you can continue to assign it to the big bamboo in the sky, until we discover the truth. We've been doing it for centuries.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (30) Mar 18, 2015
You can give a 3-year-old paint, a brush and canvas, but the 3-year-old will not produce a Picasso.

Give paint, brush and canvas to enough of them and 1 will.
Only improbable, not impossible..
ratrodcattleprod
1.3 / 5 (30) Mar 18, 2015
These scientists if you can even call them that are so full of baloney.
bierzoj
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2015
It all depends on the angle of the tangle.....increased by the heat of the meat....
Funkadelic.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
It's the angle of the dangle, and precedes Funkadelic by generations.
dbuzzee
1.2 / 5 (37) Mar 18, 2015
So if you add the magic ingredients to make life in the ocean, add "millions" of years, bingo life just comes together by itself and then starts to duplicate itself again magically. Then over time, it fixes itself, all using random mutations, and grows the DNA more and more complex, even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all things break down? WOW, is this what science teaches these days. What ever happened to observable, repeatable science were we must see and be able to repeat in a lab,. not just taking a leap of faith and believing what they say. Could these guys be just trying to make a name and get more funding? Life from non-life, and why cant they get this to work in a laboratory? Oh ya, add the magic "millions of years" and BINGO BANGO, life from non-life. And believing that God designed all life and set it, and the universe, in motion is hard to believe? John 3:16, look it up!
jefferey_burnside
1.3 / 5 (30) Mar 18, 2015
life began with a word duh DNA did not design itself
gkam
4.1 / 5 (30) Mar 18, 2015
"duh" was the word??

Ever heard of self-organizing systems? No god required.
dan_horton
4.6 / 5 (20) Mar 18, 2015
You can give a 3-year-old paint, a brush and canvas, but the 3-year-old will not produce a Picasso.

How did the "three basic ingredients" to life become life?


yeah well what if that 3 year old's name is Picasso, then you would have a Picasso!!!!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2015
"they have found a way to show that everything necessary for life to evolve"

-Biopoiesis is not evolution. and they havent really discovered anything until they can make it happen in a lab.
RWT
5 / 5 (17) Mar 18, 2015
dbuzzee,

I'm actually quite surprised you can spell science. There is no "magic" needed, just chemistry. You are confused as to what the second law of thermodynamics implies because you are confused about entropy. Entropy in coloquial use is not the same as entropy in thermodynamics, true entropy in physics does not mean disorder! You have a 2nd grade understanding of how evolution works. You probably haven't come within a libraries distance of an organic chemistry book. You need to make like Billy Madison and go back to school. Why is believing that god designed all life and set it and the universe in motion hard to believe? Because we have educations.
glenister_m
4.7 / 5 (24) Mar 18, 2015
dbuzzee "Then over time...and grows the DNA more and more complex, even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all things break down? WOW, is this what science teaches these days. What ever happened to observable, repeatable science were we must see and be able to repeat in a lab,. not just taking a leap of faith and believing what they say."

Where to start... Do you even know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is? Or what the other two laws are? The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. The Earth is NOT a closed system, and receives plenty of energy from the sun to reverse entropy, so the 2nd law does not apply.

The chemical reactions they describe are repeatable and observable. This is chemistry...

No one is taking a leap of faith on the research; read the last paragraph of the article.

Claiming goddidit explains nothing, especially which god or where god came from. Evidence please, not quotes from an old book.
ian_miller
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
About three years ago, I published an ebook called "Planetary Formation and Biogenesis" which also argues that life began through reasonably standard chemistry, although some of the details are still unclear. The argument is that everything needed for life was produced geochemically from what the Earth accreted. In this, the first important step is to form a ribonucleic acid inside a micelle or vesicle made from phosphates alkanes (or alkenes) that also contain porphyran. The first chemical to be made that remains important now was adenosine tripolyphosphate, and the first self-reproducing organism involved the most primitive photosystem. Such life is only likely on an earth-type planet, and they will only be on the habitable zone for G and heavy K type stars, and only on such stars that shed their accretion disk relatively early.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (20) Mar 18, 2015
Extraordinary claims....

If they know how to create life, show us.

All they are doing and reporting on is the figuring out of a little part of the process. THAT is what they are showing.
Nobody claimed to be able to create life..
thesensitiveguy2000
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
Even if the chemistry is correct, the authors should show why life only began ONCE at 4B years ago and never again since then, with the many unique properties that earth life has now. What were the unique conditions 4,000,000 years ago that provided a special environment for their postulated process, and their process never happened again. For just one reference, see Neil de Grass Tyson's excellent presentation on this subject in the video Cosmos.
DarkLordKelvin
4.3 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2015
So if you add the magic ingredients to make life in the ocean, add "millions" of years, bingo life just comes together by itself and then starts to duplicate itself again magically. Then over time, it fixes itself, all using random mutations, and grows the DNA more and more complex, even though the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all things break down? WOW, is this what science teaches these days. What ever happened to observable, repeatable science were we must see and be able to repeat in a lab,. not just taking a leap of faith and believing what they say. Could these guys be just trying to make a name and get more funding? Life from non-life, and why cant they get this to work in a laboratory? Oh ya, add the magic "millions of years" and BINGO BANGO, life from non-life. And believing that God designed all life and set it, and the universe, in motion is hard to believe? John 3:16, look it up!
Ummm ... are you sure you have the right chapter & verse there?

Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
"duh" was the word??

Ever heard of self-organizing systems? No god required.

If god is just an acronym for "Globally Organized Data", then yes, you do need one... It's how a closed system self-organizes...:-)
bigmuddie2001
2.6 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2015
I thought this settled in the Star Trek episode Return to Tomorrow.
blurt8
1.5 / 5 (24) Mar 18, 2015
What can't be replicated in the lab is BUNK. With all our intelligence and science we can NOT do what supposedly happenned by total accident with no intelligence whatsoever. Scientists who believe in accidental life have more FAITH than the pope...and when they have no answers or proof they just resort to supercilious name calling...pathetic.
grisfoto
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2015
It's Miller-Urey (1952, 1953) all over again.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
Even if the chemistry is correct, the authors should show why life only began ONCE at 4B years ago and never again since then, with the many unique properties that earth life has now.

Um, that the conditions were favorable for the particular chemistry that they are looking at?
What were the unique conditions 4,000,000 years ago that provided a special environment for their postulated process, and their process never happened again. For just one reference, see Neil de Grass Tyson's excellent presentation on this subject in the video Cosmos.

How do you know it's not still happening now? The environment changed, so the 1st
self-assembling, self-regulating life became more complex (re - adapting) to deal with it...
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
What can't be replicated in the lab is BUNK. With all our intelligence and science we can NOT do what supposedly happenned by total accident with no intelligence whatsoever. Scientists who believe in accidental life have more FAITH than the pope...and when they have no answers or proof they just resort to supercilious name calling...pathetic.

Starting at the smallest scale of anything, the Universe starts adding - this plus this = a new this... (even smaller than Planck scale)
Anakin
4.2 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2015
The last bastion is falling.
The foundations is shakin.
God where art thou...

This is going to hurt real bad for the belivers in the many God cult around the world.

What is the next tricky question from the belivers to prove there is a God?
vic1248
1 / 5 (17) Mar 18, 2015
[
—they believe they have found a way to show that everything necessary for life to evolve could have done so from just hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light and that those building blocks could have all existed at the same time—
]

And where did all that "originally" come from?!

Well, DNA is the largest "data" storage that we know exists, and "data" can only come from "intelligence."
gkam
3.9 / 5 (22) Mar 18, 2015
"Well, DNA is the largest "data" storage that we know exists, and "data" can only come from "intelligence.""
-------------------------------------------------

Oh, my, . . proof by semantics.
JVK
1 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
You are confused as to what the second law of thermodynamics implies because you are confused about entropy.


New second laws are required, which is why they are being added.
http://phys.org/n...ics.html

The problem may be the breaking of Mendel's century-old "law of segregation" http://phys.org/n...ene.html

Physicists seem nearly ready to admit that the sun's biological energy is anti-entropic and that it links the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein-folding to nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species.

Serious scientists are laughing about how long it has take pseudoscientists to realize that the origin of life is not based on calculations. That may be why Darwin put "conditions of life" first in his theory.
Tektrix
5 / 5 (20) Mar 18, 2015
. . . believing God designed all life.


At best, 'belief' is a poor substitute for knowledge. At worst, it's an excuse for atrociousness.

glenister_m
4.8 / 5 (21) Mar 18, 2015

Well, DNA is the largest "data" storage that we know exists, and "data" can only come from "intelligence."


Please support your assertion. DNA is a chemical, involved in chemical reactions. You are the classifying it as data, then asserting that it must have come from intelligence. You are making an ambiguity logical fallacy.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) Mar 18, 2015
Well, DNA is the largest "data" storage that we know exists, and "data" can only come from "intelligence."

Silly rabbit. The data was out there building long before we came along.
The only thing that comes from "intelligence" is the RECOGNITION of data (patterns).
(And, judging by some comments on here, even THAT is debatable...)
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
How do you know it's not still happening now? The environment changed, so the 1st
self-assembling, self-regulating life became more complex (re - adapting) to deal with it...

Let me re-phrase.
The 1st self-assembling, self regulating CHEMICAL reaction grew into more complex self chemical reaction we attach the label of LIFE to.
Primarily that's what we are - a walking pile of self regulating, self assembling, self-determining, inter-coordinating - chemical reactions...
How can someone NOT see that this just HAS to happen in a Universe with all these basic chemicals in it?
vic1248
1 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2015
OK, following up on my earlier comment.

Well, mathematically, anything less probable than one in 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) is IMPOSSIBLE. The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than one in 10^4,478,146, mind you even that statistic starts with an "assumption" that it is probable!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2015
While they haven't shown all synthesis ("the potential synthesis of ..."), they have looked at some efficiences and they are good. The article is correct in claiming that this will be a pivotal achievement.

On the other hand their "many pots in sequence" chemical environment is complicated. As a contrast, the "dirty" RNA World of Russell et al ["The Drive to Life on Wet and Icy Worlds"] is much simpler.

And a dirty RNA World pathway can start immediately in the global ocean of early Earth, before plate tectonics had made even island arcs to do Sutherland et al synthesis in. Alternatively, these synthesis pathways need Mars for a comparable early emergence of life, a too wet world and they run into the "tar" problem.

[tbctd]
vic1248
1 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2015
Um, DNA is the genetic "code" and "code" is "DATA."
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2015
[ctd]

Speaking of dirty RNA worlds, which combines metal catalysts with ribozymes as both were present early on, the description of "three camps" is outdated. And while the dirty RNA Worlds do give in an early root metabolism of the standard phylogeny. This synthesis do not and the abstract (if not the paper) do not convince that it should do so.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2015
OK, following up on my earlier comment.

Well, mathematically, anything less probable than one in 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) is IMPOSSIBLE. The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than one in 10^4,478,146, mind you even that statistic starts with an "assumption" that it is probable!

Where are you getting your numbers from? You are starting probabilities at the FIRST 1 and extrapolating. You should start the calculation at each new iteration (the new 1). A lot easier that way...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2015
Extraordinary claims....

If they know how to create life, show us.

All they are doing and reporting on is the figuring out of a little part of the process. THAT is what they are showing.
Nobody claimed to be able to create life..


Then the 'riddle' has not been solved and the entire story is specious.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2015
Then the 'riddle' has not been solved and the entire story is specious.
They solved a SMALL PART of the riddle. They're just trying to show a little enthusiasm.
And Media works that way...
"From small things, Momma, big things one day come"
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2015
Um, DNA is the genetic "code" and "code" is "DATA."

Yah, and data builds (and you'll notice - so does code). You don't think DNA chain was always the same size as it is today, do ya?
vic1248
1 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2015
@Whydening Gyre

Oh, I have read many researches by qualified scientists who challenge "evolution," some of which are at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) but not the only ones. Of course, the challenges are not officially accepted by evolutionists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2015
just trying to show a little enthusiasm.

It's called hype.
Probably to get more funding.
vic1248
1 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2015
Um, DNA is the genetic "code" and "code" is "DATA."

Yah, and data builds (and you'll notice - so does code). You don't think DNA chain was always the same size as it is today, do ya?


Exactly! That's why DNA reveals it is a "coded design," hence, there is a designer behind that structured "data."
JVK
1 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
How can someone NOT see that this just HAS to happen in a Universe with all these basic chemicals in it?


A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution http://www.nature...306.html

"We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms."

A universal trend that started with amino acids suggests light-induced amino acid substitutions are the link between the epigenetic landscape and the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man.
thermodynamics
4.8 / 5 (19) Mar 18, 2015
OK, following up on my earlier comment.

Well, mathematically, anything less probable than one in 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) is IMPOSSIBLE. The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than one in 10^4,478,146, mind you even that statistic starts with an "assumption" that it is probable!


Vic: Thank you for the word salad that says nothing. Can you put this into a form we can take a shot at? Or do you just prefer to dump unconnected numbers out and think that is wisdom?

exyoeman
1 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2015
So where did all these chemicals come from to begin with? I'm not anti-science, I'm just curious if anyone has ever come up with an answer for this question that doesn't involve all the building blocks being created by intelligent design as opposed to just magically appearing out of nowhere for no particular reason.
vic1248
1 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2015
@thermodynamics

In layman's terms, "evolution" is so improbable that it is impossible!

Without a first "assumption" to run the statistic, the probability is zero!
nofungus2000
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2015
Its quite obvious the fact they we don't adjust to our enviroment well that we were genetically engineered. No excess hair for warmth etc., though we have an intellect to make choices only confirms the theory. This is the reason why science cannot cannot agree even with all the DNA research. Not sure of the planet they were from but they were here.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2015
It is interesting how creationists tries to troll science sites on the issue of this paper en masse, here and elsewhere.

There is very little actual content to respond to in their misapplications of statistics, asking for "lab" experiments (ask cosmologists, say!), not knowing that Darwin responded to the question of why no further emergence 2 centuries ago, misapplications of thermodynamics, calling "DNA" for genetic code (the genetic code is the triplet code!), claiming evolution is impossible instead of "a mathematical necessity" (if you have replicators), et cetera.

More interesting to note is that:
- This is one of many possible pathways of emergence of life.
- Testing, such as this paper demonstrates, are ongoing to weed out the non-functional ones; astrobiology is now "normal science".

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2015
[ctd]

- Emergence of life was likely shown already a year ago, as the current version of Russell et al submarine alkaline hydrothermal emergence theory (SAHT) show homologies to Hadean Earth.
- We can therefore observe evolution "all the way down", with the homologies frozen in as replicators appeared.
- SAHT replicators appears out of well known PCR in the vent.
- SAHT solves the 5 major barriers that has been proposed:

1) Squandering: chemical pathways were thought to squander substrates into combinatorially increasing side reactions.

It couldn't be tested until modern sensitive analysis arrived the other year. But directly Keller's non-enzymatic glucolysis/gluconeogenesis (an accidental discovery!), and now Sutherland's synthesis here, show modern cellular efficiency.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2015
[ctd]

2) Tar formation: product should gum up cells.

However, Sutherland here use dry worlds to make synthesis, and SAHT has nucleotides/replication as endothermic last products, so no "tar".

3) Strand shortening: tendency to shorten strands until loss of replication.

PCR in pores selects for longer strands, and so kickstart evolution.

4) + 5) Backbone homogeneity, chiral polymers: belief that both were necessary turned into that handling heterogeneous RNA backbone and non-chiral RNA replication is eaiser. Relaxed grip kicks in at lower temperatures, with ribozymes and replicators still working.

The chiral result, that cross-chiral replication (left-handed ribozyme makes right.handed strands and vice versa) works in non-chiral solutions, is of Joyce and published about a month ago. *** That was the last barrier for emergence of life theories I know of.***

And of course we have those homologies, making us expect there were actually no barriers.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
I forgot: That ribosomes started out in an RNA World is the best test for it, because ribozymes (such as ribosome RNA) uses the quaternary language, the optimum for enzymes vs replication.

And they started out in a non-chiral world, because they evolved and froze in a two-tier chiral selection of amino acids. That is not necessary in modern cells, since mainly metabolism produce chirality.

@exoeyman: "I'm just curious if anyone has ever come up with an answer for this question that doesn't involve all the building blocks being created by intelligent design as opposed to just magically appearing out of nowhere for no particular reason."

If you can't see that it is creationists that use magic thinking (and so magic "poof" out of nothing) instead of science using natural processes (see the figure in the article! see my comment on demonstrated efficiency! so no "nowhere" and no "no particular reason" - did you even read any of those?), I can't help you.
gkam
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2015
In layman's terms, "evolution" is so improbable that it is impossible!
------------------------------------------------------

Then, what about an anthropomorphic Invisible Companion who had all the things we have, but does not need to eat, eliminate, walk, or see, or breathe 21% Oxygen with no high levels of toxics as do earth-bound aerobic creatures? A Prefect Being who is jealous and prone to draconian punishments?

Some bully to smite his love into us?

Not my idea of a god.
vic1248
1 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
@gkam

Before we can get to that, keep in mind that from the very beginning of the feat of science, starting with philosophy, and going through Natural Philosophy—Laws of Physics, leading philosophers and scientists believed in the LOGICAL MUST of the "First Cause."
vic1248
1 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2015
And yes, the "Anthropic Principle" reveals "creation," hence God, the "First Cause."

This Universe is intricately designed and fine-tuned (Anthropic Constants are accurately measured) to enable "life" here on Earth.
day2knight
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2015
@gkam

Before we can get to that, keep in mind that from the very beginning of the feat of science, starting with philosophy, and going through Natural Philosophy—Laws of Physics, leading philosophers and scientists believed in the LOGICAL MUST of the "First Cause."


This is changing quite rapidly. Please keep up.
big_hairy_jimbo
5 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2015
If this is true, then I look forward to seeing what the universe has cooked up on the moons of the solar system.
arone_yucha
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2015
Heat and Light from UV rays are primary energy sources required to create life. As we progressively learn: from quantum building blocks (stated above) to a complete living system what is required, eventually electrical current, electrolysis, ionization will all have to be inserted into theories, concepts, (orgo)chemical equations to be complete the picture/process.

AEY
glenister_m
4.5 / 5 (17) Mar 18, 2015
[qOh, I have read many researches by qualified scientists who challenge "evolution," some of which are at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) but not the only ones. Of course, the challenges are not officially accepted by evolutionists.

"Qualified scientists" look at the facts/data, and draw conclusions from them - no matter how unpleasant or inconvenient. They don't begin with a conclusion (eg. god exists, creation happened), then look for or distort facts to support it.

If anyone could prove evolution false, they would win the Nobel Prize. However despite 150 years of trying, the modern theory of evolution has more evidence supporting it than any other theory in science (eg. gravity, relativity, etc.).

The fine tuning argument is also flawed. If the physical constants were such that life couldn't exist, then we wouldn't be here. However while changing one would be catastrophic, other combinations of several might allow a different kind of life to evolve.
JVK
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2015
[Ribosomes] "...started out in a non-chiral world, because they evolved and froze in a two-tier chiral selection of amino acids."


"...ribosomes are composed of a complex set of covalently linked stem-loop RNAs that interact in complex ways to provide it with its core function, the catalytic synthesis of peptide bonds.72 Given that their individual stem loops appear to have various and distinct evolutionary histories, the ribosome seems to represent a consortium of stem loops that was built up over time.73 Thus, when it became a resident of DNA, the stem-loop RNA consortium created a stable habitat. But the massive creative power of a cooperative RNA consortium (QS-C) remains crucial for life. QS-C was made known to us only recently by virus evolution (e.g., HIV-1). " http://dx.doi.org...as.12565

Interpretation: Torbjorn_Larsson_OM is a biologically uninformed science idiot representing others of "like kind" who automagically evolved (in theory).
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2015
Interpretation: Torbjorn_Larsson_OM is a biologically uninformed science idiot representing others of "like kind" who automagically evolved (in theory).

Interpretation: You, Mr. Kohl are about as closed minded and conceited an individual as I have ever encountered (read: self-magically evolved). To question TL is paramount to questioning the most reasonable and thoughtful person on earth. He makes a point of being understandable and reasoned with just about any plausible concept out there, even yours.
YOU, on the other hand...
IOW - you are a f**king idiot, unworthy of any respect, whatsoever.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
Slightly OT: I *love* this sort of news, as it lets me add another bunch of sad folk to my 'ignore' list...
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2015
The fine tuning argument is also flawed. If the physical constants were such that life couldn't exist, then we wouldn't be here.


"Ammonia molecules, a nitrogen atom bound to three hydrogen atoms, makes up a fundamental chemical group, the 'amines' the characterize amino acids, which link up in long chains to form proteins. They also join aromatic rings of carbon to form nitrogenous bases, the information carrying components of DNA and RNA. And RNA is how many think life got its start."
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Viruses--Architects of the Brain? http://www.icr.or...cle/8639 "...now that researchers see plenty of uses for this DNA, what gets the credit for integrating TEs' precise functions, for example, in developing brain cells? Viruses do."

Force for ancient and recent life: viral and stem-loop RNA consortia promote life
http://dx.doi.org...as.12565
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2015
To question TL is paramount to questioning the most reasonable and thoughtful...


I'm not questioning him; I'm telling others he is a biologically uninformed science idiot.

Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life http://arxiv.org/...02.06880
"The number of proteins grows exponentially with the number n of amino acids..."

A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution http://www.nature...306.html

Origin and Evolution of Human microRNAs From Transposable Elements http://www.geneti...abstract

"This atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations links nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on base pairs and amino acid substitutions to pheromone-controlled changes in the microRNA / messenger RNA balance and chromosomal rearrangements."
http://figshare.c...s/994281
trazhooks
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2015
ok so is what they's is said if I might'ave had forgot to bring out the garbage maybe nessed weeks I mite've gotten some maggots EVERYTIME
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
Three-dimensional genome architecture: players and mechanisms http://dx.doi.org.../nrm3965

"The different cell types of an organism share the same DNA, but during cell differentiation their genomes undergo diverse structural and organizational changes that affect gene expression and other cellular functions. These can range from large-scale folding of whole chromosomes or of smaller genomic regions, to the re-organization of local interactions between enhancers and promoters, mediated by the binding of transcription factors and chromatin looping. The higher-order organization of chromatin is also influenced by the specificity of the contacts that it makes with nuclear structures such as the lamina. Sophisticated methods for mapping chromatin contacts are generating genome-wide data that provide deep insights into the formation of chromatin interactions, and into their roles in the organization and function of the eukaryotic cell nucleus."
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2015
(2012) "The role of chromosome rearrangements in speciation remains controversial, but some landmark chromosomal rearrangements have been found at the major nodes of the Carnivora phylogenetic tree." http://dx.doi.org...2011.107

Will someone let PZ Myers know that I am still touting the explanatory power of chromosomal rearrangements so that he can attack me again and continue his attempts to make his idiot minions believe I am a crank, but that he and other biologically uninformed theorists are not.

One crank dies, another rises to take his place http://freethough...s-place/

Search Results for: chromosomal rearrangements
Number of Results: 70
http://perfumingt...mit.y=18

See also:
From 3-D to epigenetically-effected 4-D genome make-up
http://rna-mediat...make-up/
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2015
fourinfinities with negligible understanding of probability & permutations
You can give a 3-year-old paint, a brush and canvas, but the 3-year-old will not produce a Picasso.
How did the "three basic ingredients" to life become life?
Your notion is flawed because it is in no way foundational, ie Does not allow building blocks or process of natural selection ie of structures which form further foundational building blocks etc.

Eg. Earth's early atmosphere high in Ammonia, methane etc along with water & CO2 with plenty of electrical activity, hot spots etc etc

This mixture creates "Formamide", with time & energy this then creates "Guanine" = a DNA base, other bases shown to similarly form from further chemical permutations. ie Common !

Clear then that "Life" as we think it special is very complex chemistry & that which polymerises in multiple pathways (organic permutations ~10^60) all performing the same function in nature which is:-

"Eat & be eaten"

ctd
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2015
vic1248 claimed
And yes, the "Anthropic Principle" reveals "creation," hence God, the "First Cause."
Really then why can this NOT be proven ?

vic1248 claimed
This Universe is intricately designed and fine-tuned (Anthropic Constants are accurately measured) to enable "life" here on Earth.
Well, not very well is it

Or hadn't you noticed, so many diseases, so many pathogens (~10,000,000 species of bacteria in all), so many parasites, so many worms eg 500 or so species of intestinal worms. Sea water has ~25billion phage virus per Liter etc Pretty violent !

All life appears as a chemical chaotic soup absolutely guaranteeing at all levels the observable proposition of "Eat & be eaten".

So how does your god vic1248, unequivocally communicate, is he/she/it treating everyone equally, or is it from the claims of Moses that your god is the worst punish-er of all time ?

Humans r imaginative/creative, they imagine a human based god that cares by punishing !
bluehigh
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
Oh well, there's at least two 'f**king drunk idiots' in this conversation. One of them is an drunk artist that's said too much. The other bores me.

As for the topic .. Mix me up a chemical stew that grows a new species, then I'll be impressed. Else go read Breathless - Dean Koontz. It's fiction and a little verbose but an eye opener. Some of you would need to stay of the drugs and alcohol for about 8 hours to read the book. Too much for most of you, hooked on ego tripping self righteousness and a goldfish attention span.

Probability factor of infinity and falling ...

Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
You can give a 3-year-old paint, a brush and canvas, but the 3-year-old will not produce a Picasso.

Give paint, brush and canvas to enough of them and 1 will.
Only improbable, not impossible..


The question is a red herring.

No 3-year old will produce a picasso painting because it took Picasso himself 20-30 years of training to obtain the necessary skill and coordination. It's not a matter of probability but time. When the child is 23 or 33, they're much more likely to paint like Picasso - if provided with the tools to the trade.

In the same way, just chucking chemicals in a pot doesn't immediately produce life. It first produces just a bunch of spontaneous and random chemical reactions and molecules, some of which will produce substances capable of autocatalysis, which is the precursor mechanism to life.

Out of the simple self-copying molecules starts evolution, which bridges the gap to life.
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2015
On the abstract of evolution, it's already been shown with computer programs that if a means of self-reproduction exists, self-reproducing entities will automatically arise out of randomness. There are computer programs which simulate the effect. They typically model a grid array of some sort, where each cell contains a string of data which is interpreted as a program and executed by a virtual machine.

Most cells don't contain any meaningful programs, but nearly always some do something, and allowing a certain probability to randomly alter the programs over time, the grid quickly fills with self-replicating bits of code that copy themselves from one cell to the other, then start to exhibit competitive behaviour, different strategies, forming niches within niches... generally acting as if they were alive - within the constraints of their virtual environment.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
Let me know when that fruit fly experiment ongoing creates anything other than a fruitfly.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
On the abstract of evolution, it's already been shown with computer programs that if a means of self-reproduction exists, self-reproducing entities will automatically arise out of randomness. There are computer programs which simulate the effect. They typically model a grid array of some sort, where each cell contains a string of data which is interpreted as a program and executed by a virtual machine.



Oh, a computer model. Let me know when you make the real deal. A computer model is no better than a painting as far as being representative of life. However, no one would argue that even a sharpened pencil is evidence of "intelligent design". Despite this the most advanced machine/entity ever witnessed capable of creation itself is viewed as an accident. You humans are such idiots. Every single one of you are Sisyphus, thinking they have finally pushed the boulder to the top only to come crashing down on your deceitful egos.
DarkLordKelvin
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2015
I'm not a chemist, but it is a very interesting theory. Light is what makes these gasses, amino acids and proteins meld into a "living organism" no matter how simple it is. Without light, we have no simple forms.


That's not quite true, at least not directly. Remember that there is a whole non-photosynthetic, hydrogen sulfide-based food-chain (with bacteria at the base) at thermal vents on the ocean floor, where there is no penetration by sunlight. Now, if your point is that there had to be a star *somewhere* in order for the planetary oceans to evolve to the point where thermal vents could exist, then fine, but it's pretty clear those living systems emerged and evolved in the absence of light.
vic1248
1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2015
@Mike_Massen

vic1248 claimed
And yes, the "Anthropic Principle" reveals "creation," hence God, the "First Cause."
Really then why can this NOT be proven ?

vic1248 claimed
This Universe is intricately designed and fine-tuned (Anthropic Constants are accurately measured) to enable "life" here on Earth.
Well, not very well is it


Very well.

That's because this universe is here and expanding because there is a force outside of it and not subject to its realm, time and Laws of Nature/Physics acting upon it. That force is the "Origin" of life and matter, the "First Cause." That "Origin, First Cause," cannot be empirically examined.

Now, that "Origin, First Cause," and all the adverse mechanisms you mentioned are consistent with what (I am Christian) is written about God and the curse and mortality He inflicted upon His creation for man to endure and pass the test of "Faith/Belief" in this lifetime, since the "fall."
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
vic1248 with oddball waffle
That's because this universe is here and expanding because there is a force outside of it and not subject to its realm, time and Laws of Nature/Physics acting upon it. That force is the "Origin" of life and matter, the "First Cause." That "Origin, First Cause," cannot be empirically examined
This makes no sense whatsoever.

vic1248 went on with illogical dogma
Now, that "Origin, First Cause," and all the adverse mechanisms you mentioned are consistent with what (I am Christian) is written about God and the curse and mortality He inflicted upon His creation for man to endure and pass the test of "Faith/Belief" in this lifetime, since the "fall."
This makes NO sense at all, your god as claimed by Moses is a Devil because it punishes the Innocent because a young woman (Eve) was put in touch with a serpent, was manipulated, lied to and because of that your god punished not only all her children but everything else for ever !

ctd
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
@vic1248
went on with illogical dogma
Now, that "Origin, First Cause," and all the adverse mechanisms you mentioned are consistent with what (I am Christian) is written about God and the curse and mortality He inflicted upon His creation for man to endure and pass the test of "Faith/Belief" in this lifetime, since the "fall."
Note about all religions:-

1. All from claims of a man
2. The man marginalised women
3. All gods are impotent communicators

ie. There is NO possibility that any human can ever communicate with any of the gods claimed of all main religions from claims of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed even Hindu !

The key element re genesis which u seem to rely upon re your god claimed by Moses is:-

a. He put in the tree knowing Eve would be misled !
b. He went away
c. He allowed a devil to mislead the innocent girl
d. He punished ALL children for EVER without ANY exception

The god shows its madness !

& Worst
f. Belief in Jesus u still are punished !

ctd
vic1248
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2015
@Mike_Massen

Well, I respectfully addressed your questions, and I have no intention of discussing religious matters here, except for the very pressing issue of the "Origin" of life and matter.

I believe in the nexus of physics and metaphysics.
OldWiseGuy
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2015
Oh my, this is what happens when men (and women) increase in knowledge to the point they think they know all the answers. They become upset and offended when someone with religious convictions dares to pose their thoughts/ideals into the mix. So what do they do, try to ridicule them, basically call them ignorant, and writing in great lengths to nullify and embarrass them. Why are you so afraid of God that he can have no chance to be the answer to where the first real "life" came from? Chemical reactions are not life, otherwise we've already found signs of that on Jupiter's moons. No real life is not all the right ingredients reacting, its that first cell complete with walls and mitochondria. Basic life and a human is so far from that it isn't even funny. There is no way mutations over millions of years could yield all the plants, animals and humans except by divine intelligence, God! Someday you will learn we are not that smart at all.
Moebius
3 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015
Producing nucleic acids and claiming to solve the origin of life is like having a beaker of chemicals and declaring you know how polymers are created. DNA didn't emerge fully developed from a few chemicals. Therefore DNA based life didn't just emerge either.

When someone mixes a beaker of chemicals that self assemble into a primitive lifeform with some DNA precursor (EVERY chicken comes from an egg) then they can make the claim they've found the origin of life.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
vic1248 hasnt answered my comment
Or hadn't you noticed, so many diseases, so many pathogens (~10,000,000 species of bacteria in all), so many parasites, so many worms eg 500 or so species of intestinal worms. Sea water has ~25billion phage virus per Liter etc Pretty violent !

All life appears as a chemical chaotic soup absolutely guaranteeing at all levels the observable proposition of "Eat & be eaten".

How does your god vic1248, unequivocally communicate, is he/she/it treating everyone equally, or is it from the claims of Moses that your god is the worst punish-er of all time ?
vic1248, u claim all of the above is because of the setup to force a girl to make a bad decision from a serpent which the claimed god of Moses KNEW would lie.

Is this sane at all ?
If u punished your daughter's innocent child for a crime by your daughter u would go to jail or insane asylum !

Reply vic1248:-
HOW did Moses determine it was a god who spoke & NOT a clever lying Devil ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
vic1248 claimed
@Mike_Massen
Well, I respectfully addressed your questions, and I have no intention of discussing religious matters here, except for the very pressing issue of the "Origin" of life and matter.
You did NOT !

Your god is a VERY bad communicator because he ONLY spoke through claims of ONE man - Moses & hundreds of yrs later a claimed son from a god that obviously can have as many as he wants or he is NOT a god - Jesus also made claims & NEVER wrote anything !

All 4 who wrote about jesus did not agree, ie Not particularly reliable - ie All are just untestable stories !

vic1248 muttered
I believe in the nexus of physics and metaphysics.
Believe all you like, where is the Evidence ?

Besides what do u imagine "metaphysics" is in terms of the reliability of positions, empirical evidence etc. OR do u imagine religious dogma which is irrational has any part to play in Physics at all ?

Old testament shows clearly god is VERY nasty character !
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2015
OldWiseGuy claimed
There is no way mutations over millions of years could yield all the plants, animals and humans except by divine intelligence, God! Someday you will learn we are not that smart at all.
In your narrow experience of maths, physics & chemistry that is true as for one reason you cannot appreciate there are virtually infinite environments & immense time scales.

Have u OldWiseGuy, never heard of probability & permutations ?

Life relies on very basic chemistry & stable structures, these routinely self assemble.

Make no mistake, I don't claim there isnt some first pattern as if its a cause but, it obviously has nothing to do with a claim of Moses that his god is jealous & human oriented & ONLY spoke to him (along with David in a dream).

If any god was ever really sincere & be brought to task for treating all of us equally he/she/it SHOULD communicate with all easily & directly so there is NO argument forever.

Bible portrays Moses' god as very NASTY !
russell_russell
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015
To the researchers - your puzzle piece shows potential - a good platform.

Most cells don't contain any meaningful programs - E


Even if you assert this - let's add more of the same code to programs having no meaningful programs.
This changes the timing of reading and reaching programs of meaning interspersed among all the programs having no meaningful programs. And timing is of utmost of importance in life. If an cell expression is read 'too late' imagine the worst, not the best, for a cell.
OldWiseGuy
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
Re: Mike_Massen's numerous comments.

You have just proved my earlier statement "...So what do they do, try to ridicule them, basically call them ignorant, and writing in great lengths to nullify and embarrass them.."

We could go back and forth trying to outdo each other and convince other we are right. I won't do that but you CLEARLY have problems with the Bible thru your repeated comments basically saying BlahBlahBlah shows clearly god is very nasty. We get it, you dislike, maybe even hate God, that's your problem. We have a right to our own opinion, right or as I'm sure you'll point out, wrong. I just happen to think life happened another way. Chill out, don't stroke out over it.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
Now, if your point is that there had to be a star *somewhere* in order for the planetary oceans to evolve to the point where thermal vents could exist, then fine, but it's pretty clear those living systems emerged and evolved in the absence of light.


It is clear that organisms do not emerge or evolve in the absence of light.
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

Compare that fact to the re-evolution of the flagellum, which occurred "over-the-weekend." http://phys.org/n...tor.html

The claims that theorists have made about mutations, natural selection, and evolution across millions of years are comparable to those made by a pre-schooler who was asked: Where do you think you came from?"

That explains why some schools now teach the theory of evolution (as a joke)
http://www.educat...olution/
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
OldWiseGuy muttered
You have just proved my earlier statement "...So what do they do, try to ridicule them, basically call them ignorant, and writing in great lengths to nullify and embarrass them.."
Unfortunately its just too damn obvious but it seems only to those who actually follow through the logic, claimed gods are very bad communicators & NASTY !

A being who represents himself as a god to Moses OR Moses has a dream imagining a god spoke & came up with a ludicrous story which SHOWS it is completely insane !

OldWiseGuy claimed
.. We get it, you dislike, maybe even hate God, that's your problem
Nope, never said that. I made it clear there is NO evidence of the existence of any personal god as claimed by ALL religions, their 'stories' are immensely irrational !

OldWiseGuy offered
We have a right to our own opinion, right or as I'm sure you'll point out, wrong. I just happen to think life happened another way
Ah ! if not from bad gods then how ?
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2015
Oh well, there's at least two 'f**king drunk idiots' in this conversation. One of them is an drunk artist that's said too much. The other bores me.

Personal negatives are bad way start to a comment...
I expected more of you, BH...
(And - I can't believe you actually fell for the whole "more Crown Royal for everybody" schtick... )
BTW... what, exactly, do you determine to be "saying too much"?
As for the topic .. Mix me up a chemical stew that grows a new species, then I'll be impressed.

Tsk, tsk, tsk... You expect that precursors, once formed, should magically just jump together and start dancing? without any further catalysis?
It takes a larger collection of chemicals coming together at each stage, along with more time, that YOU can't wrap your head around. So therefore, no one else can either...?
My, my you are an impatient one...
Eikka
5 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
Oh, a computer model. Let me know when you make the real deal. A computer model is no better than a painting as far as being representative of life.


On the contrary. A computer model is a mathematical description of a process, whereas a painting is just an arbitrary static picture. You wouldn't claim that 1 plus 1 cannot become 2 because you're only doing it on paper, or in a computer memory instead of adding real objects.

The point is that a virtual system with properties analogous to those that exists in reality exhibits the emergence of self-organizing and increasing in complexity "life" from randomness, therefore it is proven that it is fundamentally possible and even inevitable given suitable conditions.

The question is, what those conditions are and how they arise.
Eikka
5 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2015
Let me know when that fruit fly experiment ongoing creates anything other than a fruitfly.


1) What do you mean by "other"? What is the smallest difference you permit?

2) Evolution isn't omnipotent, especially on the short timescale. Completely new features do not arise out of single or a handful of mutations. Species don't arbitrarily transform into other phenotypes or grow extra appendages without a reason.

It's easier for evolution add features than swap them for completely different ones because it works on what it already has. Single-celled organisms can differentiate into all the different animals by growing in complexity, while a highly adapted creature like a cat cannot immediately become anything but a different cat.

To claim that incremental change will never or can never lead to complete difference is like saying water will never boil because it doesn't boil when you add one degree of temperature. That's called the continuum fallacy.
Tim J
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2015
Thanks for the interesting story. I may be missing something important, but the title of this article seems misleading. From the original article:

"We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of ​hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry."

I don't have full access to the article but I don't see any claim made by these chemists regarding the formation of life, rather they claim to demonstrate how it's possible for the important building blocks of cell structure, assumed to be prerequisites of life, to occur naturally. That's quite a gap.
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
It takes a larger collection of chemicals coming together at each stage


You just described my model. Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life http://arxiv.org/...02.06880
"The number of proteins grows exponentially with the number n of amino acids..."

A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution http://www.nature...306.html
"We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged [with creation] before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms."
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
I don't see any claim made by these chemists regarding the formation of life...


That's what I like about Luis P. Villarreal's approach, which begins with viruses and links them to the origin of life via entropic elasticity and the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of the sun's biological energy. You can get from "Let there be light" to light-induced amino acid substitutions that stabilize organized genomes via their nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction and fixation of the amino acid substitutions in all genera.

Obviously, however, the evolutionary theorists and big bang cosmologists hate that model. It makes them look as ignorant of biologically-based cause and effect as they are. Most creationists are too nice to tell the theorists that they are science idiots. But see Dobzhansky (1964) "...the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is "bird watching" or "butterfly collecting." http://icb.oxford...citation
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
See also Dobzhansky (1973): Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution http://www.jstor..../4444260

"...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127).

That fact can be placed into the context of feedback loops that link food odors and pheromones, which we placed into the context of the molecular epigenetics of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via chromatin loops and chromosomal remodeling in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review.
Melchizedek0001
1 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2015
Again:where are my comments? "Seek and will find it" (Matthew 7:7) like in ...lottery acc. to absolute (i.e. divine) statistics's law
Melchizedek0001
1 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2015
Sorry, Devil makes technical troubles on web. afraid of truth (absolute).
Who denies the absolutness of here,statistical law? R.Dawkins for sure!
Tim J
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015
"Luis P. Villarreal's approach"

Thanks for the lead! From this, I found his "Are Viruses Alive?" article. It's a good read.

I'd come across this idea much earlier, but not with as much clarity. I can see why this makes more sense to you. The parasitic nature of viruses is still a hurdle for me, but it does make the connection from "building blocks" to "self-replicating system" easier to imagine.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
One pathway for receptor-mediated cell type differentiation makes opposing factors of viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs possible. That's how cells achieve the balance that links entropic elasticity to anti-entropic epigenesis and epistasis.

Nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions are fixed in the context of the physiology of reproduction. Viruses must learn to play their role. Too much DNA damage and the cell types are eliminated along with the mutations.

Anyone who appreciates Villarreal's approach will probably enjoy reading two of Greg Bear's sci-fi novels (first one reviewed here). http://www.gregbe...ture.cfm Based on what an English major learned from serious scientists, he predicted the paradigm shift that accompanies the valid claims of Villarreal.

Others will prefer the theoretical nonsense Masatoshi Nei's "Mutation-Driven Evolution" http://www.amazon...99661731
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
See also: http://www.thegua...ire-life

The co-author of our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review exposed the textbook nonsense that John Money used to lead others who included it in their ridiculous misrepresentations of RNA-mediated biologically based cause and effect. http://www.hawaii...ion.html

Here we are, 18 years later, trying to explain the fact that mutations perturb protein folding and amino acid substitutions stabilize it. And still, the biologically uniformed science idiots cling to their ridiculous theories despite clear evidence in all species that the nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions differentiate cell types during life history transitions in all species. See: Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults http://dx.doi.org...4-0895-5
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
I have read many researches by qualified scientists who challenge "evolution," ... Creation Research (ICR)
@vic1248
first- there is NO science in the creationist movement, and that is even easily recognized by the courts - https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
Second- the creationist movement is plagiarized from the prophetess/prophet of the 7th day adventist who were debunked a century ago (and repeatedly proven) https://www.youtu...jWkVKyRo
lastly- the scientific method does not disprove a god, but it HAS disproved your bible (which was plagiarized from other religions and then mis-authored as well as includes direct contradictions and lies, from the global flood to MORE)
you have NOT read "many researches by qualified scientists who challenge "evolution," "[sic] you have misinterpreted SOME biology and likely are an acolyte of kohl, which is NOT A SCIENTIST and has been proven a liar, debunked and practices medicine illegally
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
Metabolic theory predicts whole-ecosystem...
http://www.pnas.o...abstract
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2015
In layman's terms, "evolution" is so improbable that it is impossible!
@vic
your word salad also means that you are ASSuming that the "experiment" happened only one time at one location etc,
you are not taking multiple locations nor are you taking multiple instances into consideration, which alters the stat's you are claiming

you can demonstrate this with a quarter
flip it 20 times and count out the times the quarter chooses a single side multiple times
then re-run the same experiment with 1,000 people, then 10,000, then 100,000
how long to replicate the single side landings?
how long to replicate the exact pattern you threw 20 times?

http://www.talkor...rob.html

http://www.talkor...faq.html

don't forget to read the REAL SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES,

it is not the creationist crap you've been exposed to which is nothing more than conjecture with pretty pictures to sucker the stupid into losing money
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
there is NO science in the creationist movement


Viruses--Architects of the Brain? http://www.icr.or...cle/8639

Force for ancient and recent life: viral and stem-loop RNA consortia promote life
http://dx.doi.org...as.12565
Excerpt: "...the massive creative power of a cooperative RNA consortium (QS-C) remains crucial for life. QS-C was made known to us only recently by virus evolution (e.g., HIV-1). Its role in the origin of life, the emergence of complexity and the creation of group identity should now receive our combined attention."

Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
hence God, the "First Cause."
@vic
no, it does NOT
there is NO evidence nor scientific ANYTHING that ASSumes your deity as first cause, nor ANY OTHER DEITY that exists... including the ones FAR OLDER than your monotheistic plagiarized religion has
This Universe is intricately designed and fine-tuned
there is NO EVIDENCE supporting this conjecture either
this is your ASSumption, not anything scientific or observed
and before you start saying crap about the universe being tuned to life... remember, there is a FAR GREATER amount of crap out there trying to kill us than help support life

and don't take that idiot kohl's word for anything: http://freethough...s-place/

jvk has a 100% failure rate trying to interpret ANY scientific study here on PO
every time we contact the author for clarification and get a reply it has said that jvk is WRONG
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short
@little jimmie k
first off, like i said, EVEN THE COURTS can see that there is no SCIENCE in the wrongly named "creation science" (aka creationist) movement
it is a SCAM and easily recognized, except by idiots like you
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas
you should read the transcripts... it is telling why you support such STUPIDITY

second: your article is not about debunking or getting away from "evolution"
it is about combining specialties and getting to the underlying reality
FROM the article
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures... However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work
AND THAT is just in the abstract, you idiot
You should not make ASSumptions on science you don't understand
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
http://www.rnasociety.org/
http://rna-mediated.com/

http://www.huffin...898.html
Villarreal is also the author of two books: Viruses and the Evolution of Life and Origin of Group Identity. In July 2014, he co-organized a major conference on viruses in Salzburg, Austria -- "DNA Habitats and RNA Inhabitants" -- with philosopher of science Günther Witzany.

(there is a link to the pdf of the conference program)

Guenther Witzany
Introduction: Natural Codes do not code themselves
Eugene Koonin
Giant viruses and domains of life
Luis Villarreal
Viral consortia: A social force for ancient and recent life
David Prangishvili
Viruses from the dawn of life
Mart Krupovic
Evolutionary continuum between small RNA and DNA viruses
Aare Abroi
Impact of (RNA) viruses on the genesis of cellular protein domain repertoire
John Mattick
RNA at the epicentre of the evolution and development of complex organisms
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2015
You have just proved my earlier statement "...So what do they do, try to ridicule them, ...
We could go back and forth trying to outdo each other and convince other we are right
@oldwiseguy
You misunderstand Mike and his frustration with stupidity (not ignorance, which we can combat with education ...but stupidity, which is the refusal to accept education and knowledge)
for starters: the scientific method is not only about observation, but about being able to reproduce results
so that really DOES mean that what we DO know, we know fairly well

which brings us to the second part: there is NO evidence supporting religion or faiths

by definition a faith is belief without evidence

so WE are products of education fighting ignorance and stupidity with scientific knowledge, NOT conjecture - which is the tool of ANY religion

what makes you think the plagiarized religion of xtians is more real than ANY OTHER religion? even the older ones?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
You just described my model. Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
@jimmiek
first off, YOUR OWN MODEL promotes MUTATIONS and even beneficial mutations for the sake of evolution!

Second: your model is CRAP and debunked because you don't understand biology (probably because you FLUNKED OUT of college (self admitted) and refuse to educate yourself): http://www.socioa...ew/24367

& you STILL have a 100% failure rate when trying to INTERPRET a study

100% of all authors who responded to clarification regarding your VERBATIM arguments have said YOU WERE WRONG IN YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF THEIR STUDIES

and STILL you keep trying to spread the SAME STUPIDITY
even when the authors themselves DEBUNK YOU

why is that?
Dunning-Kruger or simple stupidity?
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
Twenty years of RNA: then and now http://rnajournal...71?top=1

More than 1000 members of the RNA Society are dedicated to fostering research and education in the field of RNA science. What is the likelihood that a biologically uniformed science idiot like Captain Stumpy can tell us anything important about anything at all?

Alternatively, what might be learned by anyone who initiates a google search on the term RNA-mediated or looks at the blog posts and links to hundreds of articles about cell type differentiation posted to my RNA-mediated.com blog site?

Welcome to RNA-Mediated
A Message From J.V.Kohl:
Here you will find information that links physics, chemistry, and molecular epigenetics via RNA-mediated events such as the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes in order to encourage a public discussion of a paradigm shift. http://rna-mediated.com/
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
Title: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior (1996)
Authors: Milton Diamond Ph.D., Teresa Binstock, and James V. Kohl
http://www.hawaii...ion.html

"Similarly, ribosomal proteins S4X and S4Y (rpS4X, rpS4Y) are produced by sexually dimorphic genes whose protein products are sexually dimorphic. This suggests the possibility of subtle nuances in the ribosomal translation of at least some mRNA, in certain cell types (Fisher et al.,1990; Zinn et al., 1994)."

"Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism, contribute to sexual differentiation in at least two species..."

I've published two award-winning reviews on cell type differentiation and several other works that detail all aspects of what is known about links from physics to chemistry and conserved molecular mechanisms.

I hate ignorance. That fact infuriates science idiots!
JVK
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
http://www.scienc...abstract
Excerpt: "Base-pairing interactions between nucleic acids constitute a large category of target recognition processes such as noncoding RNA-based gene regulation [e.g., microRNAs (1) and long noncoding RNAs (2) in eukaryotes and small RNAs (sRNAs) in bacteria (3)], bacterial adaptive immunity [e.g., the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) system (4)], and homologous recombination (5). Although target search kinetics by transcription factors has been studied in vivo (6), the rate constants for target identification via base-pairing interactions in vivo are not known for any system. Here, we developed a super-resolution imaging and analysis platform to assess the kinetics of base-pairing interaction-mediated target recognition for a bacterial sRNA, SgrS. SgrS is produced upon sugar-phosphate stress, and its function is dependent on an RNA chaperone protein Hfq."
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2015
I hate ignorance. That fact infuriates science idiots!
@little jimmie
you can combat ignorance with education- you know, what you FAILED out of!

and it is STUPIDITY that's infuriating

it is EASY to prove that you are a creationist idiot trying to support your faith with lies and mistranslations of other people work- it is also regularly done right here on PO as well as elsewhere, like here: http://freethough...s-place/
I've published two award-winning reviews
and you have also said here on PO that you have had decades of experience in diagnostic medicine, a lie that can get you JAIL time

and you have a 100% FAIL rate when you interpret a study and we get feedback from the authors (more stupidity)

you also don't know that your own model CAUSES MUTATIONS and argue against it, even after ADMITTING it CAUSES MUTATIONS

now THAT is truly stupid
NOT IGNORANCE! but blatant stupidity
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2015
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1371.abstract
and you think this study supports your creationist dogma crap? lets see
FROM THE EDITORS SUMMARY
RNA kinetics may define regulatory hierarchy

The double-helical structure of DNA suggests immediately how nucleic acid polymers can recognize and bind to homologous sequences. Target recognition by RNA is vital in many biological processes. Fei et al. used super-resolution microscopy of tagged RNAs and computer modeling to understand how RNA-RNA base-pairing reactions occur in vivo. They studied a small RNA (sRNA) that targets a messenger RNA (mRNA) for degradation in bacteria. They observed a slow rate of association as the sRNA searched for its mRNA target, but thereafter a fast rate of dissociation. This explains the need for high concentrations of sRNA to cause mRNA degradation. The sRNA found different target mRNAs at different rates, allowing the generation of a regulatory hierarchy.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2015
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1371.abstract
@little jimmie k
so... lets clear the air about the study you linked

tell everyone, in your own words, what exactly you are trying to link to your model and how this supports your model

tell everyone what exactly it means and how it ties into your pheromone perfume model

if you are able... this will demonstrate your ability to effectively communicate your model as well as how it refutes modern evolution

while you are at it, why not point out how this study refutes modern evolution and what it means, other than repeating the editors summary

or are you not able to?

because so far you have demonstrated a 100% FAIL rate when "interpreting" scientific studies... so lets get this air cleared out and learn something

brad_210000
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2015
Aren't claims without proof considered religion? What makes this "finding" special? We all know that we are mostly made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus anyway. Why not "reduce" it all to Hydrogen and call it a day? Or better yet, reduce it to "strings".
Melchizedek0001
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
to Captain Stampy: science does not prove or disprove the existence of first cause/God. Science assumes (on belief): the existence of external physical concrete objects (the term "world" must be defined) and the existence of (hey boy, waku p) order in this visible outside in order to discover the particural laws "governing" such world; consequently, from the (divine) logic priniciple (do you know difference on the meianing of "law" and "prinicple"?) one must assume the existence of the source of order/first cause. A pure logic! The axiom o choice in set theory= the existence of first cause ( in the set of causes).To deny it: one must take out the term "cause" from the use and dictionary; to justify your(@comp) ignorance: an ordered pair was just defined by J.Kuratowski in 1921 until that time humankind knew it only by "feeling"! March to Library or you will end up..in Hell
bluehigh
2.5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2015
@WG
Personal negatives are a bad way to start a comment ...


I was frustrated by the lack of logical argument refuting two of your assertions. I thought your assertions deserved deeper discussion and the thread degraded into yet another battle of egos.

Your comment regarding some twat being a 'f**ing idiot etc' tipped me over the edge as being unnecessary at that stage.

My apologies for my knee jerk reaction. More respectful in the future as you as one of the smarter and more interesting contributors.

Now ... where's my Crown Royal?

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
Re the creationists asking for evidence of speciation (which is a sure sign they are desperate), AFAIK Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" lists 200 observed speciations in modern time.

Besides the fossil and genetic record that shows the entirety of life in a species tree, that is. It is like asking for evidence that "up" is up, or the Sun is hot.

@WG: "To question TL". Ehm, thanks, I think! It is good to be questioned.

But that creationist is making an inane personal attack, from an erroneous basis too. (But since he so obviously doesn't know evolution, or the person he attacks, who really cares?)

Re his claims, ribosomes were no "consortium" as clearly shown by phylogeny. [ "Evolution of the ribosome at atomic resolution", Petrov et al; http://prion.bchs...iams.pdf ]

[tbcdt]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2015
[ctd]

Modern cells usually have low concentrations of the unusual chirality primarily maintained by metabolic production, but the ribosomal machinery has evolved, and frozen in, a two tier chiral selection:

"Given that the first tRNA charging process was unlikely to better than the modern version, the onset of the ribosome as the machine for making chiral proteins likely emerged not from the chiral exclusivity of its processes, but rather from the fact it is a two tiered process with the same preference at both steps." [ http://www.ncbi.n...2926754/ ]

I have references for all my claims in the comment that emergence seems solved. However, the marginal of these comment fields is too small to contain the very long list... =D
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
@arone_yucha: "Heat and Light from UV rays are primary energy sources required to create life."

That is an open question.

There are some astrobiologists that note that thermodynamics of replicators demand bond strengths that are broken and remade by visible light (rather than UV). [Pascal et al]

However, Russell's SAHT have electron bifurcating metal atoms (Mn, W) as the chemical engines doing that, moving one electron up to a potential that makes such bonds, as is still done by the same atoms in methanogen enzymes. (Cf a refrigerator, also driven by an engine.)

The electrochemical work ("electric current") of chemiosmosis is also there from the beginning, the SAH vents have the homologous potential difference as modern cells.

A good review on the topic is "The Drive to Life on Wet and Icy Worlds", Russell et al, Astrobiology, 2014.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" lists 200 observed speciations in modern time.


All in the (bigger) family http://www.scienc....summary
Attests to the fact that all crustaceans and insects are species of Biblical "like kind."
"And Jerome Hui of the Chinese University of Hong Kong found that in both insects and crustaceans, the same set of micro RNAs control expression of the genes for those enzymes."

This links the sun's biological energy to the balance of viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs. The finely tuned balance links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genome of species from microbes to man without mutations and evolution across millions to billions of years.

http://www.scienc...4131.htm "...appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years."
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
I have references for all my claims...


Please provide one that supports the claim that achiral glycine "emerged."

A good review on the topic is "The Drive to Life on Wet and Icy Worlds", Russell et al, Astrobiology, 2014.


A realistic overview of biologically based cause and effect takes less than 6 minutes of viewing time. There is no reason to drive to another world on wet or icy roads.
"Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation)" https://www.youtu...youtu.be

The RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species can be viewed in the context of personalilzed medicine (2 minute video) https://www.youtu...G_9EEeeA

This allows comparisons to ridiculous theories that have no explanatory power because they are based on calculations and assumptions.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
@Tim: "That's quite a gap."

Rather, in some RNA World pathways the natural production of these important building blocks hadn't been demonstrated. It is an important test for any emergence pathway theory to show key steps.

I think (as I haven't read the article yet) that they are alluding to pure RNA Worlds, where spontaneous (non-protein) protocells have been demonstrated. [ http://exploringorigins.org/ ]
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
@arone_yucha: "Heat and Light from UV rays are primary energy sources required to create life."

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
That is an open question.


The sun is the source of all biological energy on this planet. Any open questions about biologically-based cause and effect appear to come from deep space in the form of ridiculous theories that are not testable. People who believe in theories that cannot be supported by experimental evidence are called biologically uninformed science idiots or pseudoscientists.

Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics http://www.nature...-1.16535

"...what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory."

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
To repeat, I have references for all my claims. Those claims are already made, and I can list the references. In fact, I'll do some of it in a response to an actual question:

@Moebius: "Therefore DNA based life didn't just emerge either."

DNA cells evolved from RNA cells.

That there was a RNA/protein cellular ancestor seems well tested. The verification of RNA ribozymes in the preserved core of the protein translation machinery netted a Nobel Prize, and part of what identifies a universal common ancestry (UCA) is the RNA based protein manufacturing. And a very common transport tag for membrane proteins has a RNA core, testing that this evolved in a cell. [ http://en.wikiped...icle_RNA ]

Finally, an often mentioned constraint to test against is that nucleotides, rather than amino acids, partakes in core metabolic functions, such as ATP, GTP and NAD.

[tbcdt]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
[ctd]

Presumably the universal common ancestry lineage adapted or evolved DNA to separate replication from transcription. It is easier to defend against parasites in general and genetic parasites especially. [ http://journals.p....1002024 ]

RNA replication is still done in +ssRNA viruses. [ http://en.wikiped...fication ]

The preserved core rRNA itself constitutes a good way to recognize phylogeny, heavily relied on to recognize the deeper parts of the universal tree. ["Evolution of the ribosome at atomic resolution", Petrov et al; http://prion.bchs...iams.pdf ]

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
[ctd]

So here we have tentative evidence of a ribosome ancestor that didn't do protein coding [ see Petrov's paper for details ].

Further evidence is possibly that rRNA and tRNA, but not modern mRNA, are generic catalysts in a Hadean environment (anoxic, iron rich, 70 degC) up to and including one electron transfers as today's proteins. [ http://www.nature...649.html ]

I would call the existence of an RNA world of RNA as fulfilling both replication function and enzymatic function _the RNA World hypothesis_. Emergence of such a world is interesting, but isn't necessary for testing its existence.

The best evidence lies in the evolution of the nucleotide code (quaternary system), which shows a tight constraint of being evolved to balance the capability of replication function with the capability of enzymatic function.

[tbctd]
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
https://www.lap-p...iousness

"Magnetic body carrying dark matter carrying large Planck constant phases at its flux tubes and receiving sensory input from and sending control commands to the biological body becomes the basic intentional agent in living matter."

Also from Pitkanen: "What emerged was dark matter and its emergence involved the emergence of all the others. Hens and eggs emerged simultaneously." http://matpitka.b...tor.html

http://www.amazon...99661731
"...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world."

For contrast, see:
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

http://www.rnasociety.org/
http://rna-mediated.com/
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
[ctd]

"In the RNA world, where RNA must serve as both the information carrier and the primary enzymatic building block, there is a tradeoff between optimizing two factors:
- Enzymatic efficiency, which increases with alphabet size
- Replication accuracy, which decreases with alphabet size"

"Four nucleotides seems to be the optimal compromise to balance both the replication accuracy and enzymatic efficiency required in the RNA world. One of a handful of sets of four nucleotides that satisfy this criteria and maximize the differences in hydrogen bonding between mismatches is aA (amino adenosine), U, G, and C."

[tbcdt]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
[ctd]

"As succinctly summed up by Szathmáry[3]:

"It might therefore be concluded that all theoretical investigations point in the same direction: a certain alphabet size (probably four) seems to be optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency, and between information density and error resistance."

[Alex Siegel; https://www.quora...y-system ; quantitative chemical detail on the optimum vs possible variants, and further references, in the link]
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
...optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency, and between information density and error resistance.


In the real world, ecological variation is linked to RNA-directed DNA methylation and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that optimize the biophysically constrained stability of protein folding in all cell types of all individuals of all species. Entropic elasticity is linked from epigenesis to epistasis by the sun's biological energy and amino acid substitutions that link cell type differentiation in all genera to the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of the sun.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM, touts pseudoscientific nonsense as if it had explanatory power. It doesn't. It merely attests to the ignorance of theorists who cannot grasp the facts that link physics and chemistry to RNA-mediated metabolic networks and genetic networks via what is known about nutritional epigenetics and pharmacogenomics.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
http://www.nature...649.html
Mg2+ is essential for RNA folding and catalysis. However, for the first 1.5 billion years of life on Earth RNA inhabited an anoxic Earth with abundant and benign Fe2+.
-- cited by Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

http://www.pnas.o...abstract reported as: Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years http://phys.org/n...ars.html

What happened to the "RNA folding and catalysis" that supposedly went on during the first 1.5 billion years of life on Earth (after it automagically started)? How many more Laws of Physics must be added to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to explain why some species evolved from others and some stayed the same for billions of years?

"On quantum scales, there are many second laws of thermodynamics" http://phys.org/n...ics.html
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
https://www.quora...y-system

Due to various competing constraints, four appears to be the optimal number of nucleotides.
-- cited by Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

Also:
... a two nucleotide alphabet would require a much longer codon to encode an equal number of amino acids. But hold on a minute, if this is the only force at work then why stop at four nucleotides?


Re: "competing constraints"

Only four nucleotides are required to link the sun's biological energy from light-induced amino acid substitutions in plants and in animals to the RNA-mediated cell type differentiation manifested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of species from microbes to man.

I reiterate: Only four nucleotides are required to link the number of amino acids to the exponential increase in the number of proteins via the anti-entropic energy from the sun. (No need to CREATE more.)
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
Single-residue insertion switches the quaternary structure and exciton states of cryptophyte light-harvesting proteins http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Thanks to Torbjorn_Larsson_OM for finally providing links to what he thinks supports his ridiculous opinions about how the biophysicially constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding somehow links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of all genera without the biological energy from the sun.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM, and others like him, know that by providing citations they will repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot, which is why they try to get away with touting their ridiculous theories without citing support.

As soon as they begin to behave as if they were serious scientists, their ridiculous theories are destroyed by serious scientists who understand what Dobzhansky (1973) meant about the light of ecological adaptation.
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
On the Origin of DNA Genomes: Evolution of the Division of Labor between Template and Catalyst in Model Replicator Systems http://journals.p....1002024 -- -- cited by Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

It was co-authored by Eugene Koonin. So was this: A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution http://www.nature...306.html

We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms.


Corrigendum; http://www.nature...656.html
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
Presumably the universal common ancestry lineage adapted or evolved DNA to separate replication from transcription. It is easier to defend against parasites in general and genetic parasites especially.
-- Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

Thanks for showing that even a biologically uninformed science idiot can be forced to admit that ecological variation leads to ecological ADAPTATION via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions, which stabilize the chemistry of protein folding in the organized genomes of all genera. The RNA-mediated stability is the protection from viruses and the viral microRNAs that link entropic elasticity to mutations and physiopathology.

Nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions link RNA-mediated events to the physiology of reproduction and all extant biodiversity via fixation of the amino acid substitutions. For a non-technical representation of this see: https://www.youtu...NcMR_-RU
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
Thanks again to Torbjorn_Larsson_OM who reached the level of understanding that the sci-fi novelist Greg Bear portrayed in "Darwin's Radio" (1999) and in "Darwin's Children" (2003). The difference between people like Torbjorn_Larsson_OM and intelligent people like Greg Bear is largely based on their "fact-checking" ability.

People like Torbjorn_Larsson_OM assume they have learned the facts. Intelligent people do not make ridiculous assumptions. That may be why creationists and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theorists have opposing views.

Creationists seem more likely to believe in observable evidence that links the sun's biological energy to biodiversity. Theorists seem more likely to accept neo-Darwinian dogma and believe in pseudoscientific nonsense like this: "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world" (p. 199). -- Mutation-Driven Evolution
JVK
1 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
Your comment on Origin-of-life puzzle cracked has been approved and is now
live at http://comments.s...228.1298

"Luis P. Villarreal: We Need a Nonlinear Language for Life
http://www.huffin...898.html

It's time to put the pseudoscientific nonsense of ridiculous theories on hold. Serious scientists need to learn more about how the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding links viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs from ecological variation and entropic elasticity to anti-entropic epigenesis and epistasis. More than 1000 members
of the RNA Society are doing that.

See also: Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...8.short"
----------------------------
Mazur's interview article about Luis P. Villarreal's works emboldened me. I would not otherwise have attacked the theorists on the "Science" site.
casualjoe
4 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
"duh" was the word??

Ever heard of self-organizing systems? No god required.

If god is just an acronym for "Globally Organized Data", then yes, you do need one... It's how a closed system self-organizes...:-)


I prefer the acronym; Galactic Ordering Directorate, as told unto me by the primordial wisdom teacher of humanity, Mr Iboga, at the flabby gates to the castle of Bwiti.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2015
Ok, James.
How much for your stuff and where can we get it?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2015
So if you add the magic ingredients to make life in the ocean, add "millions" of years, bingo life just comes together by itself and then starts to duplicate itself again magically.

Not to mention all the millions of other stuff and CONDITIONS in that ocean that are contributing to the process. Scientists aren't making the leap from chemistry to biology in the same few simple steps that those who cannot stretch their own imagination enough to comprehend (creationists) are. They're just chipping away at the baby-steps that occurred to give us a better understanding NOW...
It's really sad to see a mind close...
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2015
"duh" was the word??

Ever heard of self-organizing systems? No god required.

If god is just an acronym for "Globally Organized Data", then yes, you do need one... It's how a closed system self-organizes...:-)


I prefer the acronym; Galactic Ordering Directorate, as told unto me by the primordial wisdom teacher of humanity, Mr Iboga, at the flabby gates to the castle of Bwiti.

You mean, like a phone book? Or maybe a table of contents? Or maybe a hitchhikes guide?
And don't even get me started on labi - I mean, "flabby gates"...
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
science does not prove or disprove the existence of first cause/God
@Melchizedek0001
I never said it did/didn't
i DID say it completely debunked the bible, which is different AND well proven/substantiated by evidence (see ANY Otto post about the bible)
March to Library or you will end up..in Hell
the rest of your post is stupidity and gibberish (and makes NO sense) so i didn't understand you
try again
be clear & concise

about hell... WHICH VERSION?
the first xtian version (extreme cold) or the second version (hot)? or is it the Norse version? Hindu version? what?

what makes your religion any more possible than any other religion? because you SAY it is so?
it SURELY isn't the accuracy of the bible (xtians) because there is far more evidence proving that the bible is not only plagiarized from OTHER religions, but that it is also completely made up to control others stupid enough to believe (like you?)

i do NOT fear hell. i've been there.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
i do NOT fear hell. i've been there.


You should tell everyone about the blast from the bomb that caused your brain damage. It explains virtually all your comments.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2015
caused your brain damage. It explains virtually all your comments
ROTFLMFAO
must be reading comprehension problems! you don't know where the head and feet are on humans!
the FEET are at the OTHER END of the body, jimmie
start here: https://en.wikipe...man_body
All in the (bigger) family http://www.scienc....summary
what's the matter? don't want to address my points? don't want to actually explain how your link to SciMag relates to your model and stupidity because you fear being outed by ANOTHER author?
Please provide one that supports the claim
why are YOU not providing evidence that supports your claims against mutations? remember when you used Dr. Extavour as proof of that claim... except that she stated that YOU WERE WRONG!
For contrast, see:
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
AND for a DEBUNKING of your model, see: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
Scientists aren't making the leap from chemistry to biology in the same few simple steps that those who cannot stretch their own imagination enough to comprehend (creationists) are.


"Life is physics and chemistry and communication" http://dx.doi.org...as.12570

There are more than 1000 serious scientists like Witzany who understand the fact that the link from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA is RNA-mediated. Add to that number the medical practitioners who have learned about nutrigenomics and pharmacogenomics, which link RNA-mediated metabolic networks and genetic networks.

That means there are 10s-100s of thousands of people who are not nearly as ignorant as the participants here, like you, are.

How much for your stuff and where can we get it?


What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot asks a question like that in a discussion like this?

That was a rhetorical question.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
brain damage. It explains virtually all your comments
@little jimmie k
and do you want to know what completely explains all your delusional rants here on PO as well as your own site?
read THIS: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

you truly CANNOT see the science or the reality around you because you have CHOSEN to believe in a fairy tale and will accept nothing that does not support your own delusional belief

this has been proven time and again here on PO
as well as elsewhere (SEE MYERS)

that is why you post a MODEL that contains mutations but then stupidly argue against mutations

that is why you do NOT understand the studies that YOU link, and think they support YOUR delusions, until the AUTHOR slams you and then they are garbage suddenly
(like Dr. Extavour- you used her study to support your denigrations of mutations until she pointed out you were WRONG)

what's YOUR excuse?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2015
What kind of biologically uninformed science idiot asks a question like that in a discussion like this?

That was a rhetorical question.
no, it isn't
you post as though you get PAID per post
you also do NOT comprehend the basics of biology, and this is being pointed out by not only Torbjorn_Larsson_OM but by ANON, Real, WGyre and almost everyone else...

the ONLY people supporting your PSEUDOSCIENCE is the creationist movement

so W Gyre has a point: WHAT ARE YOU SELLING?
you sure as heck aren't selling intelligence or actual science
that is painfully obvious as you have a 100% FAIL rate when we inquire to authors about clarification regarding your "interpretations" of their work

so you are TROLLING SPAMMING and pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE

epic fail
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
why are YOU not providing evidence that supports your claims against mutations?


I haven't made any. They cause loss of function via perturbed protein folding, which leads to the loss of olfactory receptor genes. My claims are about experience-driven de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes, not perturbed protein folding. Everyone, but you, knows that perturbed protein folding is linked to physiopathology, not increasing organismal complexity.

orco mutant mosquitoes lose strong preference for humans and are not repelled by volatile DEET http://www.ncbi.n...3696029/

Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor http://www.nature...964.html

http://www.ncbi.n...24693349 "Olfaction and odor receptors provide a clear evolutionary trail that can be followed from unicellular organisms to insects to humans...Villarreal, 2009; Vosshall... 2000)."
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
so W Gyre has a point: WHAT ARE YOU SELLING?


The information dissemination is free.

"Welcome to RNA-Mediated
A Message From J.V.Kohl:

Here you will find information that links physics, chemistry, and molecular epigenetics via RNA-mediated events such as the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes in order to encourage a public discussion of a paradigm shift."

Why are you pretending not to know that? http://rna-mediated.com/

I just cited two articles from Vosshall's group that are included among the additional details here. http://rna-mediated.com/the-key-to-science-experimental-evidence/
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
you don't know where the head and feet are on humans!


I know about damage caused by explosions. It explains your brain damage. The fact that you don't know the brain damage occurred at the time of the explosion is the best indicator of when the brain damage occurred. However, it is likely that you never were intelligent enough to understand biologically-based cause and effect -- even before that.

Minimally, other 7th Day Adventists understand what is currently known about nutritional epigenetics, and medical practitioners of that faith are among the most informed about pharmacogenomics.

When you rejected that faith, I think you rejected more than what you thought you were rejecting, which now links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions from metabolic networks to genetic networks and cell type differentiation in all individuals of all species via conserved molecular mechanisms of the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
They cause loss of function via perturbed protein folding, which leads to the loss
well, there goes YOUR model then, because YOUR OWN MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS
remember when i asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
so by definition, and in your own words, your OWN MODEL is CRAP
information dissemination is free
except you are pushing KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE
I know about damage caused by explosions
you mean from your decades of experience in diagnostic medicine which you LIED ABOUT?
yeah right...
it is likely that you never were intelligent enough to understand biologically-based cause and effect -- even before that
except that i went on to get TWO college degree's AFTER that... and i am working on a third now...

EPIC FAIL for you
AGAIN
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
Minimally, other 7th Day Adventists understand what is currently known about nutritional epigenetics
no, they do NOT, they are making ASSumptions based upon a religious belief and trying to fit the science to it, JUST LIKE YOU DO
medical practitioners of that faith are among the most informed about pharmacogenomics
Citations/references for proof of that? other than your HUNCH?
When you rejected that faith, I think you rejected more than what you thought you were rejecting
i was NEVER that faith
that is YOUR faith, especially as a creationist idiot promoting a fallacy and PSEUDOSCIENCE here on PO
the lies are ALL YOURS to live with and take to your own personal hell

you don't even know your own religion well enough to debate it here
but that is not important anyway

because you've proven time and again you also don't know biology
medicine
or anything else re: science

because you CHOOSE to interpret everything in light of your RELIGION
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
it is likely that you never were intelligent enough to understand biologically-based cause and effect
what i love best about your post is that it actually explains WHY you hate people like Torbjorn_Larsson_OM, ANON, Real, WGyre, Myers and myself: it points out that you are incapable of learning the basics and the only way you could proceed in life is to adapt a known pseudoscience and fallacious lie and then work with it until you could CON someone into believing you

that is the life of EVERY con man out there, by the way
you are not different

that is why you simply attack people who are educated more than you
that is why you LIE until caught by the authors, then you attack them because they proved you wrong
that is why you still push PSEUDOSCIENCE and refuse to learn/educate yourself in your own field

b/c you wasted your life in a lie

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
WHY you hate people like Torbjorn_Larsson_OM, ANON, Real, WGyre, Myers and myself:


I do not hate people. I hate ignorance. That's why I disseminate accurate information about biologically-based cause and effect -- and I've been doing that for more than two decades.

http://www.scienc....summary "...researchers describe a technique for creating mutations that invade the genome and transmit themselves across to the next generation with near 100% success, defying the classic laws of Mendelian genetics."

Placed into the perspective of Vosshall's works and many others, their claim is that "Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction" http://www.scienc...05009815

The nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction causes rapid fixation of the amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of populations. That fact is a threat to anyone touting ridiculous theories.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
I do not hate people. I hate ignorance
this is your biggest LIE TO DATE
if you hated ignorance, you would have chosen to educate yourself and learn WHY you are wrong, as well as learn WHY you make such basic mistakes from the nomenclature to the interpretations of other peoples studies

that is called STUPIDITY, by the way
why?
because you HAVE been taught (right here on PO) and you have been shown how, when, where, why and how much you are WRONG, but you ignore it because you think you cannot learn from anyone else unless your (what? sky faerie?) gives you permission
I disseminate accurate information about biologically-based cause and effect
to date you have PROMOTED PSEUDOSCIENCE
you have BLATANTLY LIED
you have MISINTERPRETED OTHER STUDIES
and you have spread MISINFORMATION AND LIES

YOU HAVE NOT disseminated accurate information
ONLY RELIGIOUS DIATRIBE AND STUPIDITY

that is not accurate unless one believes in it
NO evidence to support you wrt religion
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2015
@JVK & *any* who have even a little faith in a religion (& which one), can u answer please:-

"Why do *all* claimed gods not treat people equally or well AND are very BAD communicators?"
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
if you hated ignorance, you would have chosen to educate yourself and learn WHY you are wrong,


"Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology" with mention of Zdenek Klein award at http://www.nel.ed...view.htm
http://www.nel.ed...ward.htm

"The Mind's Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual Preferences" won the The Ira and Harriet Reiss Theory Award for "the best social science article, chapter, or book published in the previous year in which theoretical explanations of human sexual attitudes and behaviors are developed. In addition to careful theoretical development, stress will be placed on the use of relevant empirical evidence to examine the validity of the theoretical explanations."
The author's copy of the article/book chapter is here: http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm

I wonder what Captain Stumpy thinks I am wrong about, but I do not care why. He's a science idiot!
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2015
"biologically based" (cause and effect) has a precursor - chemically based...(cause and effect) which has a precursor of it's own - physics based...(cause and effect) which prob'ly has a precursor, but I'm not smart enough to figure that one out, yet....
But, I'm working on it...
Get a bigger picture, James....
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
Get a bigger picture, James....


How could that be possible?

http://rna-mediated.com/
AGreatWhopper
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2015
"Phys.org. Cum dumpster for trolls with delusions of grandeur."

Calling paid spam for outright scams "Popular Articles and Offers" isn't a bit of a give-away that it's a bait and switch site???
cgsperling
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
It's very interesting that life evolved from 3 things that could harm, if not kill us. So, just how alien are we?


Every tool can also be a weapon.
JVK
1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2015
http://www.rnasociety.org/

"Welcome to the RNA Society. We're a non-profit, international scientific society with more than 1000 members dedicated to fostering research and education in the field of RNA science. We host a peer-reviewed scientific journal, RNA, and an annual scientific conference, along with sponsoring other RNA-related scientific conferences through direct financial support and student travel grants. Mostly, we are a community of scientists who are passionate about better understanding the fascinating world of RNA biology."

RNA biology links metabolic networks to genetic networks in every cell type of every individual of every species. Physical and chemical constraints on the networks are manifested in the morphological and behavioral diversity of different species. What's missing from everything currently known about the physics, chemistry, and RNA-mediated biology of species diversity is a link from mutations to evolution.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
I wonder what ...but I do not care why
@jk
if you didn't care you would never answer, nor would you even read my posts
and i can tell you what you are wrong about:
1-your interpretations of ANY study thus far
2-your anti-mutations stance (while promoting a model that causes mutations)
3-that there are NO beneficial mutations (proving you wrong: Lenski and Dr. Extavour, and an ever growing list)
4-you put religion in your science (EPIC FAIL)
5-you are not even capable of learning the basics of communication (starting with definitions)
6- you RE-WRITE definitions ad-hoc with no evidence and then accuse anyone who doesn't agree wtih your re-write of being stupid
7-your model and your anti evolution stance (because you do NOT understand the biology or science)

not even going to get into your outlandish claims and unfounded assertions which are NOT supported by science

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
In the Bible there is an expression that accurately describes the situation in today's scientific circles
@renTROLL the idiot
i tell you what... i will make you a deal

YOU BASE YOUR SCIENCE upon your bible and move to Iraq where it would be considered OK to do so, and check in with the religious run ISIS (don't forget, your idiotic religion is still based upon ALL the same old books)
I will pay for your (one way) ticket!

YOU run your lab with religion, and we will run our labs with SCIENCE
Lets see WHO makes the largest contributions to science in the next 5 years!

I can tell you what will happen, though
why?

BECAUSE to date, the creationist movement has given ABSOLUTELY ZERO SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT to the modern world

NOT ONE IOTA OF SCIENCE
NADA
ZILCH

so what is their excuse?

or maybe it is your lack of credibility and evidence?
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
The truth is that God created the Еarth and the man, and it is available since the Creator gave us the Bible
@renTARDED
nope
in your own bible, the only "man" directly created by your sky faerie in his "image" or "likeness" is the jewish line... all the rest of the world is monkeys
and that is per your book, bubba

otherwise, where did the "world" come from when adam and eve were let out of eden?
where did the wives of the brothers cain and able come from?
The main reason for not wanting to know God is God's law
and now you are saying that your own sky faerie is a bald faced liar, as this is technically (per your book and the whole xtian movement) the second covenant and thus you are not needed to spread the news, you idiot
JER 31:30-33
what you are doing is spreading your OWN VERSION of what you think is the law and trying to beat it into anyone who will not listen

take your cult of plagiarized stupidity and play elsewhere
this is a SCIENCE site
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2015
Ren82 claimed
In the Bible.... "While thinking that they getting smarter they became fools." While they thought that they understand the world in which they are increasingly moving away from the truth
Ren82, u have fallen into a psychological trap.

Eg Koran says there are false prophets - implying Mohammed wasn't !

Ren82 claimed
The truth is that God created the Еarth and the man, and it is available since the Creator gave us the Bible
Only a book & very badly distributed !

How did Moses assess he was contacted by a real god & not a sly Devil who made claims ?

ie WHAT experience did Moses have to decide well ?

Bible Evidence re Moses' claimed god:-

1 Untestable claims
2 Allows satan to lie to innocent Eve
3 Kills millions Eg Noah/Flood
4 Kills thousands Eg Samuel
5 Kills soldiers only following orders
6 Vengeful re Pharaoh
7 Punishes everyone for ever & ever (fall)
8 etc

But, doesn't ever build.

Fully consistent with a lying destroying DEVIL
Freethinker51
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2015
No matter what discoveries are made about life, we still have to wonder if the purpose preceded the universe. We'd be foolish to rule out the possibility of an intelligent force behind it all. It's as if the Big Bang were the releasing of a program designed by an intelligence. It's as if all the ingredients for a living universe were purposely put together and then released to act as planned. In other words, an intelligence may have been responsible for the Big Bang. It could still be involved in some way. It may be involved in the ongoing evolution of life. Then again, any involvement may have ended the moment the Big Bang began. We'll probably never know, due to how far removed we may be from any smoking gun.
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2015

Bible Evidence re Moses' claimed god:-

1 Untestable claims
2 Allows satan to lie to innocent Eve
3 Kills millions Eg Noah/Flood
4 Kills thousands Eg Samuel
5 Kills soldiers only following orders
6 Vengeful re Pharaoh
7 Punishes everyone for ever & ever (fall)
8 etc

But, doesn't ever build.

Fully consistent with a lying destroying DEVIL

But - with a better PR department?
Freethinker51
4.2 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2015
All the zealots are out. That figures. Religion is nothing more than superstition. Sure, some of the history in books like the Bible may be accurate and much of the philosophy may be sound (and borrowed from ancient philosophers). However, anything related to what we scientists call "the supernatural" is pure mythology and not all the "words of wisdom" are wise. For example, what would happen if we all kept turning the other cheek until Muslims finished slaughtering us all? Shouldn't we start fighting back at some point? Wake up, religious robots!
syndicate_51
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
Now begins the long test of verification of results by third parties and peers. Only then can such a hypothesis be confirmed.
syndicate_51
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2015
I think when people come on here quoting scripture all I see is Catholic pollution. They don't know either the Bible or the source of the myths they claim. All that must be said for the scientific hope is Heat Death. No point in going on. All for naught.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2015
I think when people come on here quoting scripture all I see is Catholic pollution. They don't know either the Bible or the source of the myths they claim. All that must be said for the scientific hope is Heat Death. No point in going on. All for naught.


Myths that stand the test of time must be based upon solid foundation.

Aesop's Fables are thousands of years old yet still have meaning today because people won't heed the advice.
gkam
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2015
Why are we discussing superstition?
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2015
Ren82 claimed
Theory of evolution is pure religion, because it does not rely on scientific facts but on wishful thinking and deception from the beginning of its promotion in society
NO. Get off your bum & speak to biologists, foods scientists, etc You have your head in the sand, you poor dogmatic emotional fool !

Ren82 claimed
The faith in God is faith in the truth that is life giving force in this universe
Your god as claimed by Moses is a DEVIL & obviously should NEVER be trusted !

I have asked you several questions for many months but, u ignore them, the key issue is WHY your god is such a pathetic, stupid & impotent communicator AND whats more there is a key question u IGNORE.

How was Moses prepared/trained to KNOW a thing spoke to him was any sort of god & NOT a sly DEVIL ?

The actions of your god are far more consistent with those of a lying, egotistical DEVIL !

Why can't anyone talk to or get unequivocal communication from a god ?

Why Ren82 ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2015
Ren82 claimed
If you want answers read the Bible where is recorded human history and God's wisdom
ALl u have is an old book from a man who made a claim, clearly your god is pretty selective so ONE man gets Authority, Status & Power !

How did Moses know it was not a sly Devil deceiving him ?

Ren82 went on
Who do not have heart for God's wisdom will nоt understand it, although is written in accessible language. it is not accidental that rebels against God are constantly trying to change it
All u have done is read much into an old book from one person, when your god is feeble & impotent & could not broadcast it until humans could travel better.

Conclusion: god ONLY comes from the minds of men !

Ren82 claimed
It is not accidental that medieval church in Europe and all dictators and tyrants in human history have tried to take away the Bible from people.
WRONG. Constantine adopted it & used it to control people, he followed a new religion & exploited it !
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2015
As they always do, the biologically uninformed science idiots have destroyed this discussion. Anyone who intends to move forward based on what is known about the physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation from the dawn of creation may wish to see the discussion about the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled 'Chain reaction' [that] spreads gene[s] through insects.

http://news.scien...-insects
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2015
Ren82 asked very basic questions
Book from a man? Can you clear what you mean with this claim?
From Moses & his cohorts, its a book with claims, nothing more.

Ren82 asked
I have two simple questions
OK but, U haven't yet answered mine, Y ?

Ren82 asked
1) Do you like ten God's commandments?
Irrelevant but, telling that some are for the ego of Moses/god as he not only claims god said he is the only one but, implies he knows the future, so therefore what insanity could there be to be jealous of something that cannot exist - ie. Prospect god of Moses is jealous of another - sheer idiocy !

Ren82 asked
2) Can you demonstrate how random events creates order and increase information in any system?
Easy, shown it to you before re genetic algorithms, do you not read my posts and research them, are u so narrow minded.

NB:Earth is an open system, therefore order is easy to increase ALL the time as heat is lost, doh, thermodynamics !

God is only claim !
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2015
@JVK & *any* who have even a little faith in a religion (& which one), can u answer please:-

"Why do *all* claimed gods not treat people equally or well AND are very BAD communicators?"

AND

Y do majority, if not all religious dogmatic hypnotised people not answer my simple questions ?

AND

How could Moses possibly KNOW it was NOT a sly Devil deceiving him so well ?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2015
God created us...The door of God's grace was closed
@RENTROLLING RETARD
and again, if you would read your own fallacious plagiarized religious book, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting your conclusions other than conjecture, heresay and a faith in NOTHING PROVEN AT ALL
Everyone without exception will receive fair court at the end of the time for his faith and deeds and honest, good and righteous are happy for this
then you should be terrified of going to hell for your failure to abide by the religious rules of your bible and the lies you've intentionally spread proving you are intentionally trying to cause failure in those who seek knowledge

and THAT comes from your book as well!!
from the NEW TESTAMENT, to boot!

you are the stumbling block for ANYONE seeking to gain knowledge and thus a proven liar, AND you have disregarded your own religious commandments as well as ignored biblical LAW

epic fail and hell for you
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2015
Theory of evolution is pure religion, because it does not rely on scientific facts
@TROLL ren
and again, i point out that i have provided YOU SPECIFICALLY with scientific FACTS supporting evolution
even that idiot jk posts scientific facts supporting evolution... his own MODEL is nothing more than a subset of MUTATION DRIVEN EVOLUTION
therefore, you are (again) lying and obfuscating for the sake of religion
go argue this on a religious forum where it is accepted
this is a SCIENCE SITE
it relies on provable comments, not personal conjecture from delusions like what you are promoting: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
I am not a professional psychologist
you are ALSO NOT WELL VERSED IN YOUR OWN BIBLE
Mike, Otto and MORE are FAR more literate in your own bible than you are
and that has been proven here as well!

you simply REFUSE to accept the science
that is called STUPIDITY
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2015
Book from a man? Can you clear what you mean with this claim?

I have two simple questions.

1) Do you like ten God's commandments?

2) Can you demonstrate how random events creates order and increase information in any system?
@ren
the bible is written by MEN and edited BY MEN and that is proven (otherwise, why did the Canon delete the apocryphal books from the tenets?)
as for your questions:
1- YOU do not follow the ten commandments either, and i can prove that by simply noting that you posted today

as for #2 - you HAVE been shown this more than ten times in the past BY ME ALONE
so you are simply ignoring the science to protect your delusional world view for whatever reasons you want
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

if you want to spread stupidity, go to a religious site and spread it
THIS IS A SCIENCE SITE
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2015
As they always do, the biologically uninformed science idiots have destroyed this discussion. ....
http://news.scien...-insects
@the idiot jk
hey kohl
why not give us a complete run down of what YOU think the following study says: http://www.scienc....aaa5945
that way we can see if it actually matches what the authors have actually said

don't forget to include all your buzz phrases and key words (like nutrient dependent amino acid MUTATIONS)

then we can use your interpretation and send it to the author and see how educated you really are WRT biology

considering you have a 100% FAIL rate with this
i can predict you will NOT expound upon the subject with your stupidity or interpretations because you are tired of being proven an idiot by the authors when you try to push religious delusions into the SCIENCE
whisperin_pines
1 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2015
Isaac Newton b. Jan 4, 1642, Gregorian calendar (not N. D. Tyson's erroneous Dec 25 date Julian calendar):

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...

"All variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the 'Lord God'...

"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called 'Lord God'...

"The supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity He exists always and everywhere."

"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.."
whisperin_pines
1 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2015

Isaac Newton b. Jan 4, 1642, Gregorian calendar (not N. D. Tyson's erroneous Dec 25 date Julian calendar):

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

"Opposite to godliness is atheism in profession, and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind, that it never had many professors."

"To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."

"That is, we are to worship the Father alone as God Almighty, and Jesus alone as the Lord, the Messiah, the Great King, the Lamb of God who was slain, and hath redeemed us with His blood, and made us kings and priests."

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
Lying is counterproductive and leads up to self destruction of society
@ren
then why do you continue to lie?
there is NO TRUTH in your bible
your bible has been proven to not only be FALSE, but also plagiarized as well as edited by man and contributed to authors who either didn;t exist or didn't write the parts ascribed to them!
now THAT IS A BIG FREAKIN LIE
and you support it!
and saying "You constantly demonstrate shocking ignorance for the God's Scriptures" while not being able to prove ANY of them, from moses to noah to your personal sky faerie is simply delusional

SCIENCE CAN prove that there was no global flood, no ark, and that your book is plagiarized from other religions
so you got nothing

@whisperin_pines
newton also believed in alchemy https://en.wikipe...#Alchemy
and could never prove anything in the bible to be true
does that mean alchemy is real?
you believe in it too?
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2015
why not give us a complete run down of what YOU think the following study says:


http://www.scienc....aaa5945

It links the balance of viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs to biodiversity via the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in vertebrates and invertebrates. See my comments at: http://news.scien...-insects

Obviously, you and the anonymous fool need to alert Leslie Vosshall to the experimental evidence, since he (aka Andrew Jones) mentioned Vosshall thought my work was pseudoscience.

She may not know enough about physics and the chemistry of protein folding to link her groups' works on mutations and amino acid substitutions to the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes and works by the Nobel Laureates Richard Axel and Linda Buck.

That could be very embarrassing to her in the future.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2015
A guy walks into a bar...
and proceeds to tell everyone that he KNOWS for certain everything will soon end.
He walks out and gets hit by a horse and carriage...
100 years later, people in bars are still telling "A guy walks into a bar..." jokes.
russell_russell
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2015
@TL_OM
"It might therefore be concluded that all theoretical investigations point in the same direction: a certain alphabet size (probably four) seems to be optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency, and between information density and error resistance."


Damage is inevitable. Or at least all life appears to possess repair ( Is there a form of life without repair?). Of course no repair is perfect. So the changes there contributed to evolution much less half haphazardly, less detrimental, and more often than mutation.
(You only have mutation where repair fails. A metaphysical question: Does evolution stop from repair that can repair all damage? Place me in the "no" camp where researchers consider damage normal to at least brain activity).
http://medicalxpr...ain.html

JVK
1 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2015
...a certain alphabet size (probably four) seems to be optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency...


???Catalytic efficiency??? What happened to the automagical autocatalytic efficiency that led to the evolution of the alphabet from nothing, and the anti-entropic catalytic events that control DNA damage or repair it?

Did you just try to remove the magic from stability and evolvability by placing a ridiculous theory into the context of nutrient-dependent fidelity and catalytic efficiency controlled by the physiology of reproduction and fixation of amino acids substitutions in the organized genomes of all genera?

Why not simply admit to your ignorance instead of continuing to display it?

Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
@TL_OM
"It might therefore be concluded that all theoretical investigations point in the same direction: a certain alphabet size (probably four) seems to be optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency, and between information density and error resistance."


Damage is inevitable. Or at least all life appears to possess repair ( Is there a form of life without repair?). Of course no repair is perfect. So the changes there contributed to evolution much less half haphazardly, less detrimental, and more often than mutation.
(You only have mutation where repair fails. A metaphysical question: Does evolution stop from repair that can repair all damage? Place me in the "no" camp where researchers consider damage normal to at least brain activity).
http://medicalxpr...ain.html

THIS is interesting....
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2015
...a certain alphabet size (probably four) seems to be optimal as a compromise between stability and evolvability, between fidelity and catalytic efficiency...


???Catalytic efficiency??? What happened to the automagical autocatalytic efficiency that led to the evolution of the alphabet from nothing, and the anti-entropic catalytic events that control DNA damage or repair it?
Didyou just try to remove the magic from stability and evolvability by placing a ridiculous theory into the context of nutrient-dependent fidelity and catalytic efficiency controlled by the physiology of reproduction and fixation of amino acids substitutions in the organized genomes of all genera?

Why not simply admit to your ignorance instead of continuing to display it?


THIS is not...
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
"The supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity He exists always and everywhere."

If god = (G)eodesically (O)rdered (D)ata, then yes, I would agree with Newton...
goldsmith2_99
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2015
I am Curious Ren82 You said God gave us free will and Eve and Adam eating the Fruit of the tree of Knowledge caused Original Sin. So if I have free will WHY am I Punished for a Choice I never Made? That isn't Free Will nor is it the work of a All Knowing/All Powerful LOVING God. You can't claim it was a test... because he KNEW they would fail thus making everyone else who followed somehow Guilty by Nothing they did. Thus Requiring him to split himself into 3 Gods to save the World HE Damned. It makes ZERO Sense if the Universe and Life required a Creator who created your Living God? He has to have a Creator as well, so there goes his having no gods before him....
goldsmith2_99
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2015
Whisperin_pines You quote Isaac Newton as if that supports the Bible... But he was a man of his times 1667 Newton was a Fellow at Cambridge, making necessary the commitment to taking Holy Orders within seven years of completion of his studies. He didn't believe the Divinity of Christ nor that the Bible was without Error.
Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. 'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'. As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul, a personal devil and literal demons. Although he was not a Socinian he shared many similar beliefs with them. A manuscript he sent to John Locke in which he disputed the existence of the Trinity was never published.
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2015
Stumpy, it seems that you become my second shadow. There is rarely a case to not comment me. The truth does not give you peace. What are your sins which make you so resistant to the truth? You know well that participants in this forum rarely read yоurs comments but despite this your persistence is impressive.


@Renasshole

You become more delusional with every post.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2015
Goldsmith,
Nicely done on both comments...

Ren,
The truth does not give you peace. What are your sins which make you so resistant to the truth?

It's only a truth for you...
You know well that participants in this forum rarely read yоur comments but despite this your persistence is impressive.

His persistance indicates passion. The fact that his statements are always voted on belies your assertion...
For some reason, you feel yourself to be Daniel in the lions den in here. An indication of a martyr complex...
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2015
And once again, Ren, you have taken a perfectly good scientific discussion (about chemistry this time) and turned into a metaphysical shit slinging exercise.

Seems anti-science to me...

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
"Phys.org. Cum dumpster for trolls with delusions of grandeur."

Calling paid spam for outright scams "Popular Articles and Offers" isn't a bit of a give-away that it's a bait and switch site???

Someday, I really AM gonna look at those "incredible body painting" pictures...
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2015
Ren82 claimed
"From Moses & his cohorts, its a book with claims, nothing more?"
You constantly demonstrate shocking ignorance for the God's Scriptures.
Beg Pardon ?

Aren't these in a book ?

When I was in catholic sunday school 1962 they stated the Old Testament is the first and only book written by moses as dictated to him by god either in person or in a dream as he did to David and the New testament was only written by people to document jesus' life.

You keep claiming my so called ignorance but, u havent answered my key questions ?

So where do the "God's Scriptures" come from then, isnt it still a book ?

What is best Provenance please, try to enlighten ALL of us not just my 'ignorance' ?

https://en.wikipe...ovenance

Tell me Ren82 how does one unequivocally & definitive contact any particular god ?

How often & when do they reply with feedback which we can be SURE is from a particular god ?

Answers please Ren82, to very SIMPLE questions ?
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
goldsmith2_99 damn good points
I am Curious Ren82 You said God gave us free will and Eve and Adam eating the Fruit of the tree of Knowledge caused Original Sin. So if I have free will WHY am I Punished for a Choice I never Made? That isn't Free Will nor is it the work of a All Knowing/All Powerful LOVING God. You can't claim it was a test... because he KNEW they would fail thus making everyone else who followed somehow Guilty by Nothing they did. Thus Requiring him to split himself into 3 Gods to save the World HE Damned. It makes ZERO Sense if the Universe and Life required a Creator who created your Living God? He has to have a Creator as well, so there goes his having no gods before him....
I've been saying roughly same things in variously for ~30yrs nice concise variations you offered :-)

Especially for Ren82:-

1 Complete freewill demands full & complete Education & that's obviously not static

2 How was Moses it was the god, evidence implies a Devil ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2015
whisperin_pines falls into trap of appeal to Authority
"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.."
Indeed the bible has elements of 'sublime philosophy' and is an authentic attempt to explain human's lot, especially as to why all beings suffer equally !

However, for so called 'loving' god claimed by Moses, the god fails so BADLY :-(

1 Untestable claims
2 Allows satan to lie to innocent Eve
3 Punishes everyone for ever & making millions of causes of disease !
4 Kills millions (flood)
5 Makes his people suffer walking the desert
6 Vengeful (Pharaoh)
7 Kills soldiers only following orders
8 Kills thousands (Samuel)
9 Rapes Mary
10 Makes claimed only son suffer
11 Doesn't distribute "truth" except ONE man (moses)

Yet NEVER
Builds anything, Educates eg food, surgery, safety & Nothing to alleviate suffering :-(

Exactly like an angry Devil !

:-(
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2015
http://www.nature...202.html

They "...created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light."

Excerpt: "...precursors of amino acids glycine, serine, alanine and threonine, are inevitable by-products of this RNA assembly chemistry..."

The link from "Let there be light" to the creation of the first cell has also been linked to replication and differentiation of all cell types in all individuals of all species via the biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding. Meanwhile, neo-Darwinian theorists and "big bang" cosmologists are embarrassed to be stuck with their ridiculous theories.

Most of the comments we read here are from the biologically uninformed, who are categorized as "science idiots" when they refuse to inform themselves.

See also: http://www.ncbi.n...23206328 A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role...
Ulg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2015
OK, following up on my earlier comment.

Well, mathematically, anything less probable than one in 10^49 (another standard is 10^150) is IMPOSSIBLE. The "evolution of the first living cell" is less probable than one in 10^4,478,146, mind you even that statistic starts with an "assumption" that it is probable!


Oh? At this very planck second, what are the odds that every single particular atom would be inside your lungs comprising the air you breath, of all the atoms in the universe- by all the moments of history? What are the odds of that happening for every single organism on earth that has lungs, every single moment- for all of history and the future? Impossible you say? Never mind this could be made endlessly more ludicrous by involving sub atomic particles, and locality in planck space or involving all the rest of matter and energy in the universe being exactly as it is, every moment of history.
JVK
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
http://earthweare...y-field/

Excerpt: "All of humanity is being presented with this energetic shift to either embrace willingly or vainly try to resist."

See also: Correctly modeling ecological adaptation http://rna-mediat...ptation/

Conclusion: Greg Bear predicted in 1999 that "…radical changes in the genome, brought about by mobilization of transposable elements such as human endogenous retroviruses, result in rapid change at the subspecies or species level."

For comparison, see: "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world" (p. 199). http://www.amazon...99661731

Also see, "Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model." http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 "Minimally, this model can be compared... for determination..."
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2015

My apologies for my knee jerk reaction. More respectful in the future as you as one of the smarter and more interesting contributors.

Thanks, BH.
Now ... where's my Crown Royal?

Don't drink in the home, so we'll have to walk to the local pub...

JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2015
Correctly modeling biological energy http://rna-mediat...-energy/

Excerpt: The light-activated "origins of life" issue (see: Correctly modeling ecological adaptation) forces others to come out of the woodwork and try to overwhelm the biologically underinformed masses with the complexities of their existence after decades of attributing what is currently known about viruses, viral microRNAs, entropic elasticity, anti-entropic biological energy from the sun, and nutrient-dependent microRNAs, to mutations and evolution. Theorists have denied the obvious facts about light-induced amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation controlled by the physiology of reproduction."

They must now continue to try to baffle the biologically uninformed with even more of their pseudoscientific nonsense. It's all they ever will have until they examine what is currently known about physics, chemistry, and molecular biology.
DarkLordKelvin
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2015
What make the Earth open system? The sun energy? This is the reason for increasing the order on our planet?
It is not the reason for it, but it is the source of energy that enables certain processes that locally decrease entropy, yes. The *reason* those processes are able to cause entropy of the local system to decrease is that they release sufficient "waste heat" that the overall change in entropy of the universe is still positive. That is the proper interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics in this context.
Order can increase only when submitting precisely controlled by intelligence energy and matter in the system
What about iron oxidation by O2 to produce rust? That process causes a local increase of order that is quite analogous to photosynthesis, for example.
This is how people create things.
And the "waste heat" entropy increase from "creation" is always greater than any local decrease in entropy that you are calling "increased order".
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
Planet Earth is in precise energy balance that provides a suitable environment for life support. Would you explain how radiation or absorption of certain amount of energy will increase the order and the information in the system, if is not not under the control of intelligence?

The disparate systems assemble on their own quite by stroke of good fortune, my dear Watson...
Being in the right place at the right time...
Do you struggle with understanding the fact that random events do not create order in a system and do not increase information in it.

Because it's not random, it's chaotic (there IS a difference there) and only APPEARS random to your psyche. Which is ALSO a product of the almost infinite array of "random" inputs YOU have assembled into a structure (as instructed by others, usually).
Therefore - the "struggle" appears to be yours...
unknown_anonymous
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2015
Believe in "creation?" don't like the implications of this work? Go get your PHD in chemistry and prove the science wrong. Your "word" is a rusting blade you keep bringing to a gun fight...
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
The truth does not give you peace
@renTROLL
actually, the truth is all that CAN give me peace, and i've since learned that there is NO TRUTH IN RELIGION
especially not one that ignores logic and science to believe delusions and lies that are PROVEN WRONG
You know well that participants in this forum rarely read yоurs comments
you do!
and i know that there are a GREAT MANY others who do as well
in fact, i know an entire school who does, regularly

what is your excuse for your delusional behaviour?
Why do you refuse to accept reality and TRUTH in front of you when you can see it is true for yourself?
WHY do you refuse to acknowledge point a when points b-x, widely accepted, even by YOU, only validate and prove/support point a?

the personal acceptance of a "faith" or belief without evidence over something that can be repeatedly proven and demonstrated is NOT TRUTH
it is only an accepted DELUSION
look that one up if you don't believe me
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2015
@renTROLL
Stumpy, it seems that you become my second shadow
actually, it is reverse
YOU are posting in threads that i frequent

and i find it incredibly offensive when someone posts pseudoscience and conjecture and then claims it has some authority over scientific evidence, especially when said pseudoscience (like in YOUR specific case) is based upon a fallacy, a known delusional set of ASSumptions and beliefs that have been PROVEN wrong, historically as well as scientifically

in order for humanity to progress,
we must first be able to differentiate between SCIENCE and pseudoscience
only then can we move on to a future governed by intelligence rather than superstition and delusions

and religion is the worst of ALL camps, demanding acquiescence with NO valid proof as well as creating prejudice, judgement, friction, and more... then demanding the suspension of critical thinking skills and logic to ALL

you or jk post CRAP
i will set you straight

it is my DUTY
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2015
That is the proper interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics in this context.


What is the interpretation of added 2nd laws in this case?

The second laws of quantum thermodynamics http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Why are additional 2nd laws of thermodynamics needed to complement the ordinary second law of thermodynamics, one of the most fundamental laws of nature?

Is the problem the fact that light-induced and nutrient-induced amino acid substitutions are responsible for breaking Mendel's century-old "law of segregation." It states that you have an equal probability of inheriting each of two copies of every gene from both parents.

That's not true, and it forces theorists to add laws of physics that they can try to link to quantum biology without acknowledging the the obvious fact that they missed the importance of the sun's biological energy when they were inventing their ridiculous theories.
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2015
It is highly plausible that the entire meteoritic N-isotope range can be accommodated simply by the photochemical effect (including self-shielding and mutual shielding and perturbations) during photodissociation of N2. The bulk nebular N-isotopic ratio is represented by the Sun and Jupiter, while the terrestrial ratio and the ratios from the meteoritic materials represent considerable processing from the original starting values, and the bulk of the processing must have occurred in the solar nebula.


No deep space origins probably means no 14 billion-year evolution of life on earth and explains the obvious problems with the fossil record in the context of microbes that have not evolved in 1.8 billion years as well as re-evolution of the bacterial flagellum "over-the-weekend" since ecological variation links RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species ever known to exist in this solar system.
Nathan_Henry
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2015
A theory of internet comment threads on anything based on science or religion. In one corner we have Science Trolls and in one corner religion trolls and in the middle there are two boxes. One box contains maxwell's demon and in the other box there may or may not be a cat that may or may not be dead. Now if the angle of the dangle increases as the heat of the meat increases until the motion in the ocean and the heat of the meat reach a tipping point then your hands become sticky and moist towelettes are your best friends.
DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2015
Planet Earth is in precise energy balance that provides a suitable environment for life support. Would you explain how radiation or absorption of certain amount of energy will increase the order and the information in the system, if is not not under the control of intelligence?
Do you struggle with understanding the fact that random events do not create order in a system and do not increase information in it.
That is a purely faith-based rationale, with no valid scientific justification. You are resorting to "common-sense" arguments that might *seem* logical to someone who hasn't studied thermodynamics, but are in fact quite bogus. "Order" is regularly created by random events: Consider "putting energy into" a bottle of oil & vinegar dressing by shaking it vigorously. What will you observe after the shaking stops? The random collisions of the polar & non-polar molecules cause the oil droplets to coalesce until the two phases are separated, thereby increasing "order".
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
What is the interpretation of added 2nd laws in this case?

The second laws of quantum thermodynamics http://www.pnas.o...abstract

is it just me or does anyone else see IRONY in the way jk is trying to interpret a definition

especially when he's been the worst one about ignoring definitions as well as re-defining words for the sake of his own religious delusions and then making up new definitions off the cuff that have NO basis in biology ... or using historically completely outdated definitions that haven't been even considered in decades WRT other issues...

or is that more along the lines of hypocrisy?

what do you think, little jimmy?

Given your refusal to accept the nomenclature/lexicon of your OWN field that you claim some measure of knowledge of... now you are trying to interpret physics? thermodynamics?
Hmm?

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2015
about this particular comment from renTROLL
Planet Earth is in precise energy balance that provides a suitable environment for life support
the funniest thing is how wrong it is

there are FAR more things (even here on Earth) trying to KILL us or cause us harm than good... but he assumes that this is a "precise energy balance that provides a suitable environment for life support"

The whole freakin universe is actively trying to kill us
don't believe me?
take a walk in outer space
take a deep sea dive
go to the top of Everest
expose yourself to any myriad of natural disasters without the tools designed for you by intelligent humans
(humans following the protocols of the scientific method which is where we derived engineering knowledge from, BTW - should you ever try to develop safety equipment or engineering feats based upon creationist ideas, you will definitely be killed off sooner than later)

as DLK points out
That is a purely faith-based rationale,
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2015
@Ren82
Stumpy, it seems that you become my second shadow. There is rarely a case to not comment me. The truth does not give you peace. What are your sins which make you so resistant to the truth? You know well that participants in this forum rarely read yоurs comments but despite this your persistence is impressive.

Or maybe he's your guardian angel Ha!
Listen Ren, topics in the Bible go back much further some as far as Sumer so do a bit more reading and you might understand eh?
'...They note that early meteorites carried with them ingredients that would react with nitrogen already in the atmosphere, producing a lot of hydrogen...' I'm wondering if there would have been enough meteorites to make the events 'probable'
@Whydening Gyre what do you think?

EnricM
5 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2015
Did they find this in Genesis?


Yes, Phil Collins had it all hidden in his closet.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2015
That is the proper interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics in this context.


What is the interpretation of added 2nd laws in this case?


There are no added second laws, there is only the second law. However, since the second law has a valid interpretation in terms of statistical mechanics, it is reasonable to ask what happens in quantum systems when the sample size becomes small enough that statistical fluctuations have a non-negligible effect. The paper that you linked represents a formal attempt to address that question, and you will notice that their results converge to the macroscopic second law when sample size is increased, so there is nothing "extra" in this theory.

.. the sun's biological energy ...
You are always bringing that up, it is unclear what you actually mean, since of course the sun has no "biological energy" of its own. Do you mean radiant energy emitted by the sun and absorbed by biological systems/organisms?
JVK
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2015
There are no added second laws...;


The second laws of quantum thermodynamics http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Reported as: http://phys.org/n...ics.html "...has uncovered additional second laws of thermodynamics which complement the ordinary second law of thermodynamics, one of the most fundamental laws of nature."

When anonymous fools simply reinterpret the findings or dismiss the citations I provide, like you just did, it is pointless to try to inform them. Like others, you will remain a biologically uninformed science idiot.

Do you mean radiant energy emitted by the sun and absorbed by biological systems/organisms?


Thanks for asking.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
A theory of internet comment threads on anything based on science or religion. In one corner we have Science Trolls and in one corner religion trolls...


Which corner would Dobzhansky be in -- if he was not still dead?

Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution http://www.jstor..../4444260

Excerpt 1) "It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist."

Excerpt 2) "...the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla."

See also:
Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

Clinically Actionable Genotypes Among 10,000 Patients With Preemptive Pharmacogenomic Testing http://www.medsca...24253661

Both attest to what happens via a single amino acid substitution.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
now you are trying to interpret physics? thermodynamics?


No. As you know, I have integrated them into a model of biologically based cause and effect.

Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: (a mammalian model of thermodynamics and organism-level thermoregulation) https://www.youtu...youtu.be

See also: http://jonlieffmd...skeleton
Excerpt: How can small pieces of DNA and RNA demonstrate such intelligent behavior?

The obvious answer is the creation of a nutrient-dependent thermodynamically controlled system for protein biosynthesis. It includes amino acid substitutions that stabilize the organized genomes of all genera via RNA-mediated events. The RNA-mediated events link non-living viruses to cellular life and cell type differentiation / proliferation via the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding and physiology of reproduction.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
on March 18, I wrote:

"Virus-driven thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation clearly link ecological variation from entropic elasticity to nutrient-dependent anti-entropic ecological adaptations and organism-level thermoregulation via the biophysically constrained physiology of reproduction, which enables changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance. The changes link amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species."

That fact has been confirmed across disciplines. The first indication of that fact came from science fiction novelist Greg Bear. See this book review: http://www.gregbe...ture.cfm

In the 2003 sequel, he integrated the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction and communication. Arguably, the fact that an English major with no science background could predict the fall of neo-Darwinism may be an embarrassment to theorists. If not, it should be.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
http://phys.org/n...nal.html
Why would a biologically uniformed science idiot like Captain Stumpy, or others here, continue to comment on things they obviously know nothing about. Does anyone who is not a science idiot come here for information. If so, why aren't they commenting?

See also from 2003: http://www.ncbi.n...14610949 "The major spectral effect of decreased temperature or increased sugar concentration was a decrease in absorbance at 960 nm and an increase in absorbance at 984 nm, interpreted as an increase in the degree of H bonding."

Science idiots can continue to believe in theories that link H bonding to mutations and evolution, or stop to think how that might be possible given everything known to serious scientists and science fiction novelists (in 2003) about virus-driven entropic elasticity and anti-entropic light-induced biologically-based cause and effect via glucose metabolism.
DarkLordKelvin
3.6 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2015
There are no added second laws...;


"...has uncovered additional second laws of thermodynamics which complement the ordinary second law of thermodynamics, one of the most fundamental laws of nature."

When anonymous fools simply reinterpret the findings or dismiss the citations I provide, like you just did, it is pointless to try to inform them.
Must you be a jackass ALL the time? If you understood the first thing about thermodynamics, you would understand why my synopsis of that PNAS paper is essentially correct; it describes a mathematical study of how the 2nd law is manifested in QM or highly correlated systems. The authors claim to discover new manifestations of the 2nd law, but that is a semantic point, like saying the Clausius definition is distinct from the definition "all processes increase the entropy of the universe". The authors themselves state that all of their "new" laws converge to the "traditional" 2nd law as their limitations are relaxed.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2015
Listen Ren, topics in the Bible go back much further some as far as Sumer so do a bit more reading and you might understand eh?

And it is HIGHLY probable they go back much farther than that.
Just an aside - remember that game in school where the teacher whispered something the a student in the first desk and we all had to pass it on one at a time to the person behind or next to us?
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
...They note that early meteorites carried with them ingredients that would react with nitrogen already in the atmosphere, producing a lot of hydrogen...' I'm wondering if there would have been enough meteorites to make the events 'probable'
@Whydening Gyre what do you think?

Not exactly sure why you picked on me to answer this one - but I'll bite...:-)
Hell, yeah, it's probable. Think about all the disparate particulate matter (if you can consider kilometer wide chunks of dirt particles) floating around in the early years of our solar system gravitationally pulling at eachother -
A collision between a larger body such as earth and a meteorite, asteroid or comet wasn't just probable, it was inevitable.
And if it wasn't for blender we call a solar system, we wouldn't even be here.
So, it would appear, that a static, "perfect", smoothly-planned Universe as envisioned by some, would be anathema to our very existence.
More CHANGE for everybody!
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
... all of their "new" laws converge to the "traditional" 2nd law as their limitations are relaxed.


I'm not a theoretical physicist, but I know what it means to relax the limitations of a law. In biology, for example, we see roughly the same thing reported in the context of Mendel's "law of segregation."

It could not be relaxed -- as if it were a LAW of physics. The report shows Mendel's LAW is broken by what is currently known about links from physics to the chemistry of protein folding and molecular biology of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man.

http://www.imgs.o...tml#O-26 "Statistically significant departures from expected Mendelian inheritance ratios (transmission ratio distortion, TRD) have been observed in experimental crosses and natural populations of plants and animals, including mice and humans"
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
my synopsis of that PNAS paper is essentially correct


Agreed. You get to play with the numbers and report ridiculous theories that might be essentially correct.

That's how theorists kill people. If all biologists did that, all of them would kill people, too. That's what evolutionary biologists have done with their ridiculous theories. See why serious scientists are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short

Serious scientists can't afford the luxury of unsupported theories. When they see that a Law of Biology is broken, they don't claim "But, we were essentially correct." They find out what went wrong with their synopsis because what went wrong led people to claim that results from theoretical physicists are based on nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense.

See: http://www.nature...-1.16535 "Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics"
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
Must you be a jackass ALL the time?


Why do you ask? Do you think that your assumptions about me are "essentially correct?"

I think you may be a biologically uninformed science idiot who believes in ridiculous theories that are "essentially correct." However, your belief in ridiculous theories does not make me a jackass -- until you successfully attempt to support them with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.

Until you are successful with such an attempt, or someone else is, every intelligent researcher knows who the jackasses are. Only the other biologically uninformed science idiots who participate here will grant you the credibility you think you deserve for getting things "essentially correct."

And, when they realize people like you are killing their loved ones, you will be happy to have maintained your anonymity "DarkLordKelvin"
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2015
This titanic thought will go into history. Such a whirlwind of stunning thinking is rare mental phenomenon. You subterfuge as a female in this discussion. And start to wondering what you are. Man or women. If you are a man do not get in the female arguing style. It can be modern, but contra productive. I have not heard from you plausible explanation for mechanism of evolution. And will not hear, because you do not have the necessary knowledge and it shows in the way you give nonspecific abstract explanations whose meaning you yourself do not understand. Unprofessional and superficial.

And back to the personal attack mode he goes...
As I told you before - 1+another 1 = the NEW 1. Universe doesn't care if they are equal in value or not. it just slaps them together to see if they fit...
Still waiting for a plausible explanation or argument on evolution from YOU....
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
Universe doesn't care if they are equal in value or not. it just slaps them together...


What kind of biologically uniformed science idiot makes statements like that?

https://youtu.be/VQngptkPYE8
Experimental Studies on a Single Microtubule (Google Workshop on Quantum Biology)

'Junk DNA' Used To Sort Species
http://www.asians...species/]http://www.asians...species/[/url]
http://www.asians...species/]http://www.asians...species/[/url]
anonymous_9001
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2015
ridiculous theories


Only in your imagination.

More experimental evidence of mutation and selection:

http://www.ncbi.n...23360105
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2015
@Whydening Gyre didn't mean to put you on guard as it were; it's just I feel pretty confident about asking you a question and get a reasonable reply. Sometimes I feel that there is too much biodiversity and wonder if Earth wasn't 'seeded' in someother way. I do realise that EVEN if that were so then I'd still be left with the problem of how the 'original seed' came into being and that would probably bring me back to what you say. (I'm being non-specific since I don't want to cross threads). Thanks anyway
I chose Sumer simply because, as far as I'm aware, it was the first known ordered society with schools, courts etc and of course, their numerous deities...Enki etc
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2015
Universe doesn't care if they are equal in value or not. it just slaps them together...


What kind of biologically uniformed science idiot makes statements like that?

The kind that understands the story is not in mis-represented minutia.
I should have included - if they fit - they stay together...
I don't have the training many of you do in the fine details (again, often mis-presented) of a mechanism, but I certainly understand the mechanism.
You don't...
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2015
@Whydening Gyre didn't mean to put you on guard as it were; it's just I feel pretty confident about asking you a question and get a reasonable reply. Sometimes I feel that there is too much biodiversity and wonder if Earth wasn't 'seeded' in someother way. I do realise that EVEN if that were so then I'd still be left with the problem of how the 'original seed' came into being and that would probably bring me back to what you say. (I'm being non-specific since I don't want to cross threads). Thanks anyway
I chose Sumer simply because, as far as I'm aware, it was the first known ordered society with schools, courts etc and of course, their numerous deities...Enki etc

Never "on guard". just curious.
Biodiversity (only a nomenclature), is simply a matter of all the different ways things get "added" together. And believe me, there's a lot of different ways...
We were "seeded"" by various chemical "additions" that resulted in amine structures. Which allow for even MORE additions"
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2015
And thank you, Mimath for the honour of your confidence.
I may not always be clear to the "trained" minds, but I am ALWAYS clear to open ones...:-)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2015
@Whydening Gyre forgot to mention that earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...'That ratio for Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko turns out to be about 25 times less than that of the expected protosolar value....'
All interesting stuff.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
More experimental evidence of mutation and selection:


Mention mutations and it's automagically experimental evidence.

Biodiversity (only a nomenclature), is simply a matter of all the different ways things get "added" together. And believe me, there's a lot of different ways...


Mention biodiversity and it automagically evolved

A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution http://www.nature...306.html

"We cannot conceive of a global external factor that could cause, during this time, parallel evolution of amino acid compositions of proteins in 15 diverse taxa that represent all three domains of life and span a wide range of lifestyles and environments. Thus, currently, the most plausible hypothesis is that we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms."
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
Re: "...we are observing a universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms."

News article excerpt: "...everything necessary for life to evolve could have done so from just hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light..."

Was the sun there before the "...universal, intrinsic trend that emerged before the last universal common ancestor of all extant organisms."?

If so, it was the anti-entropic epigenetic effect of the sun's biological energy that created the light-induced amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in plants and animals.

The different cell types and physiology of reproduction made fixation of the amino acids possible and the fixation of the amino acid substitutions links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of all genera.

"Let there be light" is the operative / creative phrase, not let's mutate and emerge.
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
Anti-entropic solar energy http://rna-mediat...-energy/

Virus-driven thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation link ecological variation from entropic elasticity to nutrient-dependent anti-entropic ecological adaptations and organism-level thermoregulation via the biophysically constrained physiology of reproduction, which enables changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance. The changes link amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all species."

http://www.asians...species/
Excerpt: Non-coding RNAs such as microRNAs (miRNA) are now recognized as important regulators of gene expression.

http://dx.doi.org...as.12565 "... the massive creative power of a cooperative RNA consortium (QS-C) remains crucial for life."

"...constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source..." http://www.amazon...99661731
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
The observation of an evolutionary Stokes shift has profound implications for the study of protein evolution and the modeling of evolutionary processes. http://www.ncbi.n...3361410/

It places what biologically uninformed science idiots think is mutation-driven evolution into the context of the biophysically constrained RNA-mediated chemistry of protein folding that links thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation to epigenesis and epistasis via nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled fixation of amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all individuals of all species from microbes to man.

See for comparison, the anonymous fool's citation, which does not consider the physics or chemistry and claims mutations do it all.

A population-based experimental model for protein evolution: effects of mutation rate and selection stringency on evolutionary outcomes. http://www.ncbi.n...23360105
JVK
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2015
earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...


Great. Is there a reason you failed to include a citation to the work for comparison to reports by others?

For example: http://www.pnas.o...abstract
"It is highly plausible that the entire meteoritic N-isotope range can be accommodated simply by the photochemical effect (including self-shielding and mutual shielding and perturbations) during photodissociation of N2. The bulk nebular N-isotopic ratio is represented by the Sun and Jupiter, while the terrestrial ratio and the ratios from the meteoritic materials represent considerable processing from the original starting values, and the bulk of the processing must have occurred in the solar nebula."

This removes the "deep space" origins from further consideration by placing the anti-entropic epigenetic effect of solar energy into the context of amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2015
When anonymous fools simply reinterpret the findings or dismiss the citations I provide, like you just did, it is pointless to try to inform them. Like others, you will remain a biologically uninformed science idiot
@jimmie
ROTFLMFAO
so... YOU misinterpret the article AND the study and then claim that DLK dismissed it or didn't understand it? ROTFLMFAO
tell you what... want to provide a detailed account of what YOU think the study says and lets post it to the AUTHOR.. because even in the synopsis, it says
these additional second laws become equivalent to the standard one. We also prove a strengthened version of the zeroth law of thermodynamics, allowing a definition of temperature
so AGAIN< you are proven a complete IDIOT and your "interpretations" still stand at 100% WRONG!

PS, DLK knows FAR more about QM & thermo than you do
give it up
you are simply parroting creationist diatribe now... NO SCIENCE AT ALL
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2015
This removes the "deep space" origins from further consideration by placing the anti-entropic epigenetic effect of solar energy into the context of amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation.
WTF kind of word salad is THAT?

While you are trying to "interpret" that study... did you take into consideration the QUOTE in the significance part of the link you posted?
In this paper, we account for the wide range (approximately a few thousand permil) of nitrogen isotopic composition measured in solar system materials. Several theoretical models have been proposed to explain the nitrogen isotopic enrichments measured in meteorites (especially in organic matter) and in cometary ice (NH3 and/or HCN). These models include ion−molecular isotope exchange reactions and isotope self-shielding in the disk. However, a major limit is that there are no experiments to substantiate any model.
you don't know BIOLOGY but you want to tell us about Astrophysics?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2015
"Let there be light" is the operative / creative phrase, not let's mutate and emerge.
@jimmie the IDIOT troll!

and according to your own idiot source (the historical comic fiction of new and old testaments) you can read in your GEN 1:14-18 that your so called sky faerie created plants GEN 1:12 and more long before he created the so called LIGHT that you are saying is the
the sun's biological energy that created the light-induced amino acid substitutions that differentiate cell types in plants and animals.
so, again, you are proven, with YOUR OWN SOURCES that you are a complete idiot pushing a religious DIATRIBE and nutcase PSEUDOSCIENCE over proven, actual science

and before you start denigrating mutation and mutation driven evolution again... just remember that YOUR OWN MODEL CAUSES MUTATION DRIVEN EVOLUTION

ROTFLMFAO
you can't even READ, can you?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2015
Mimath224 offered
@Whydening Gyre forgot to mention that earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...'That ratio for Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko turns out to be about 25 times less than that of the expected protosolar value....'
All interesting stuff.
Hmm, are you implying that because ONE comet has small N that all the billions of others also don't and/or that there isnt enough amoungst all of them to contribute to any ammonia upon collisions with planetary bodies ?

Its easy to find a single grain of sand Eg on beach of Western Australia which has no Thorium or at a level not significant even if you added up 10 billion such grains, should I thus conclude that there is no Thorium - for a mineral sands extraction process to collect Thorium ?

Can u clarify please, why u would make such a comment re ONE comet in the context u have, its perplexing and suggests u haven't understood statistical sampling methodology ?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2015
@Mike_Massen, not implying anything at all just made the observation that it was a '...first measurement...' which was a quote from ESA. Unfortunately you have taken my one comment and implied precisely what you accuse me of. I was involved with QC,QA ISO systems for many years both at the practical and theoretical level in industry for many years and wouldn't make claims about anything, OR ANYBODY, based on a single event.
DarkLordKelvin
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2015
Mimath224 offered
@Whydening Gyre forgot to mention that earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...'That ratio for Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko turns out to be about 25 times less than that of the expected protosolar value....'
All interesting stuff.
Hmm, are you implying that because ONE comet has small N that all the billions of others also don't and/or that there isnt enough amoungst all of them to contribute to any ammonia upon collisions with planetary bodies ?

Can u clarify please, why u would make such a comment re ONE comet in the context u have, its perplexing and suggests u haven't understood statistical sampling methodology ?


Actually, it's legitimate to make CAUTIOUS statements about the ramifications of the low N-C ratio, and the high D-H ratio, found on that comet, with respect to existing "panspermia" theories. Although it's a first case, It's still more likely to be representative than an outlier.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2015
@Whydening Gyre forgot to mention that earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...'That ratio for Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko turns out to be about 25 times less than that of the expected protosolar value....'
All interesting stuff.

I don't think Mimath was saying that I forgot. I think that he just forgot to put in a hyphen after typing my name to say that HE forgot...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2015
This titanic thought will go into history.

Ya never know, it just might...
Such a whirlwind of stunning thinking is rare mental phenomenon. You subterfuge as a female in this discussion. And start to wondering what you are. Man or women. If you are a man do not get in the female arguing style. It can be modern, but contra productive.

You telling me I think (hit) like a girl?
A juvenile perspective... and quite misogynist.
And actually - a compliment.
I have not heard from you plausible explanation for mechanism of evolution. And will not hear, because you do not have the necessary knowledge and it shows in the way you give nonspecific abstract explanations whose meaning you yourself do not understand.

When was the last time you (or anyone) SPECIFICALLY detailed an "abstraction"?
(Just an observation - women are better at it...)
JVK
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2015
created plants GEN 1:12 ... long before he created the so called LIGHT


Genesis 1: 3 (KJV)
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

See also: The phylogenetic utility and functional constraint of microRNA flanking sequences http://rspb.royal...20142983

The "functional constraint of microRNA flanking sequences" links the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of light to the amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all individuals in all genera.

The authors of the article that could be the topic of discussion here linked UV light to the de novo creation of amino acids. That differentiates life from non-living viruses via nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated metabolic networks and genetic networks.

Comparison: "...constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world." http://www.amazon...99661731
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2015
Mention mutations and it's automagically experimental evidence.


Good thing they did far more than just mention it. From the abstract-

In this work, we applied phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE) as an experimental platform to study evolving protein populations over hundreds of rounds of evolution. We varied evolutionary conditions as T7 RNA polymerase evolved to recognize the T3 promoter DNA sequence and characterized how specific combinations of both mutation rate and selection stringency reproducibly result in different evolutionary outcomes. We observed significant and dramatic increases in the activity of the evolved RNA polymerase variants on the desired target promoter after selection for 96 h, confirming positive selection occurred under all conditions.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2015
Re:
phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE) as an experimental platform to study evolving protein


It exemplifies the link from viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs and is obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which means it links ecological variation to ecological adaptations.

Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2015
"It exemplifies the link from viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs and is obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which means it links ecological variation to ecological adaptations."

The same old unsupported bs from jvk.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2015
miRNAs are not involved in the PACE process at all. miRNAs are responsible for post-transcriptional silencing and gene expression regulation. They don't alter DNA sequence. Here's a brief schematic of PACE. Familiarize yourself with it.

http://www.nature..._F1.html

The variable here being how well the promoter sequence binds the polymerase, not anything involving miRNAs.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2015
Genesis 1: 3 (KJV)
@moron jimmie
that explains all the OTHER stars PER YOUR OWN BOOK, moron!

that is why i LISTED THE OTHER GEN chapters! but since you can't read:
THIRD DAY was grass & trees, but AFTER THAT
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
KJV
Want me to provide the concordance definitions too prove you stupider?
this means that you STILL have a 100% FAIL rate with INTERPRETATION of ANYTHING
from your own work (and mutations) to YOUR OWN RELIGION

so your own book and references are proving you to be a LIAR
AGAIN

Do you TRY to be this stupid or is it a natural thing for you?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2015
"It exemplifies the link from viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs and is obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled, which means it links ecological variation to ecological adaptations."

The same old unsupported bs from jvk.


Anyone who thinks the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled link from ecological variation to ecological adaptation is not a fact established by experimental evidence should provide an alternative to this model: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Concluding sentence: "Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific 'fit'."

See also: Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction http://www.scienc...05009815
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2015
Anyone who thinks the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled link from ecological variation to ecological adaptation is not a fact established by experimental evidence should provide an alternative


For about the fifth time now:

http://www.nature...672.html
http://www.scienc...14012688
http://rsif.royal...19?rss=1
http://faculty.ch...ications
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2015
Anyone who thinks the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled link from ecological variation to ecological adaptation is not a fact established by experimental evidence should provide an alternative to this model:
to piggyback on ANON's post...

besides jk's models inherent FAILURES as noted here: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

there is a MUCH simpler model that makes far more reaching and power predictions that have been OBSERVED as well as demonstrated time and again: Evolution

epic fail for JK AGAIN!
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2015
there is a MUCH simpler model that makes far more reaching and power predictions that have been OBSERVED as well as demonstrated time and again: Evolution


Only the simple-minded biologically uninformed science idiots that participate here would conclude that "Evolution" is a model "...that makes far more reaching and power predictions..."

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact." http://www.huffin...211.html
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2015
For about the fifth time now


The anonymous fool (Andrew Jones) does nothing more than repeat himself. See instead:

http://news360.co...9000011# "...life boils down to two basic principles: sequence and folding. We know, for example, that the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA contains our genetic blueprint, but the way that our DNA is folded and wrapped up in each chromosome helps determine which genes are easily accessible for copying. Proteins – sequences of amino acids – fold into intricate shapes before assuming their duties. So it is no surprise that the third main molecular sequence in the cell – the RNA, made up of single strands of nucleotides – folds as well. Nucleotides are built to pair up – DNA to its matching strand in the genome, DNA to RNA for copying, RNA to the small RNAs that effect translation to protein. And when it is on its own, that tendency to pair up causes the RNA strand to fold over on itself."
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2015
to piggyback on ANON's post...
besides jk's models inherent FAILURES as noted here


Please see and compare the criticisms by Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) to my review of RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.

Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model. http://www.ncbi.n...24959329

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Everything known about cell type differentiation has since been placed into the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, and also linked to differences in the epigenetic effects of viral microRNAs and anti-entropic nutrient-dependent microRNAs.

All that has been integrated into what is currently known about how metabolic and genetic networks are linked via nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions in all cells of all individuals of all species. https://www.youtu...G_9EEeeA
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2015
See instead:

http://news360.co...9000011# "...life boils down to two basic principles


Instead of what? What is that supposed to be an alternative to? Nucleic acid folding is certainly not at odds with Neo-Darwinism.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2015
Nucleic acid folding is certainly not at odds with Neo-Darwinism.


"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact." http://www.huffin...211.html

Everything currently known about links from physics and chemistry to the conserved molecular mechanisms that link the sensory environment to cell type differentiation in all genera via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and the physiology of their reproduction refutes the ridiculous assumptions that evolutionary theorists were taught to believe are facts.

http://www.amazon...99661731 was published on the same day as http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2015
1) http://www.amazon...99661731 Mutation-Driven Evolution was published on the same day as
2) http://www.ncbi.n...24693353 Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.

Conclusion from 1) "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world."

Conclusion from 2) "Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific 'fit'."

Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model. http://www.ncbi.n...24959329 Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) conclusion: "James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others' research. It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published."
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2015
Re: The ridiculous claim by Andrew Jones that: "James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others' research. It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published."

Compare to Villarreal (2014) Force for ancient and recent life: viral and stem-loop RNA consortia promote life http://dx.doi.org...as.12565 "... the massive creative power of a cooperative RNA consortium (QS-C) remains crucial for life. QS-C was made known to us only recently by virus evolution (e.g., HIV-1). Its role in the origin of life, the emergence of complexity and the creation of group identity should now receive our combined attention" (p. 8).

See Search Results for 'viruses' http://rna-mediat...=viruses
See also: Search Results for 'viral microRNA' http://rna-mediat...microRNA
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2015
See Jones' thesis: Lipid Encapsulation of Self-replicating Ribozymes
http://www.scribd...s#scribd

"Despite their challenges, ribozymes have made an interesting niche for themselves in the fieldof abiogenesis. The evolution of a successful RNA polymerase ribozyme is a lofty goal. While it sdiscovery would not be the be-all and end-all of abiogenesis research, it would represent an important stepping stone between prebiotic chemistry and life. The encapsulation of such a ribozyme is also an important step, as it would enable a system of heredity and evolution through natural selection. Based on progress in current research, it is only a matter of time before that ribozyme is discovered."

The research reported in the topic of this discussion failed to link the de novo creation of amino acids and lipids to anything else. Is anyone else but Jones waiting for discovery of the
ribozyme?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2015
Re: "...encapsulation of such a ribozyme is also an important step, as it would enable a system of heredity and evolution through natural selection."

In my model, experience-dependent selection of food links nutrient metabolism to fixation of amino acid substitutions that differentiate the cell types of all cells in all individuals of all animal species via epigenetic effects on the physiology of their reproduction, which is linked to light-induced amino acid substitutions in plants via their physiology of reproduction.

See also: A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution http://www.ncbi.n...23206328

and

Single-residue insertion switches the quaternary structure and exciton states of cryptophyte light-harvesting proteins http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Are you as ignorant of biologically-based cause and effect as Andrew Jones?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2015
Only the simple-minded biologically uninformed science idiots that participate here would conclude that "Evolution" is a model "...that makes far more reaching and power predictions..."
!jk
it is a THEORY...
a SCIENTIFIC THEORY proven time and again not only with observed details but with science... which is something that you CANNOT claim with your "model" nor can you claim any actual overwhelming scientific evidence which refutes Evolution

wanna know WHY?
Because you are promoting PSEUDOSCIENCE as well as a RELIGIOUS perspective, which will never be able to find the evidence to overwhelm scientific facts

you keep trying to say that ACTUAL science is supporting your stupidity but every time we query an author or look at the science, it says THE OPPOSITE

because you are a PSEUDOSCIENCE RELIGIOUS crackpot
very simply put
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2015
Are you as ignorant of biologically-based cause and effect as Andrew Jones?

the funniest thing is:

For every Andrew Jones post, you provide about 3-5 1000character posts
FOr every scientific and validated FACT that Jones links, you flood the site with 3-5 THOUSAND characters of irrelevant or (more often thatn not) MISINTERPRETED science and claims that actual studies support your conclusions

and we all know what your track record is with regard to interpreting other peoples studies

you have a 100% FAIL rate
you don't understand biology and FAILED out of college (self admitted)
you've been caught lying about diagnostic medicine experience ( a FELONY)
you've admitted to Creationist beliefs
but somehow we are supposed to IGNORE the pseudoscience and believe you now?

EPIC FAIL AGAIN
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2015
@Whydening Gyre, quite right '[I] forgot to mention...' sorry about that. Wonder if they'll be able to do the same with Halley's comet on it's next visit or perhaps something better. As I understood Halley's comet was found (later) to have a greater proportion of Deuterium than is found in our oceans suggesting that similar comets were unlikely to have seeded our oceans. Unfortunately, don't think I'll be around when that is confirmed or not.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2015
I didn't see any question to me (just an insane C&P MO en masse from one party - but that party have had massive meltdowns before, followed by long periods of silence), until this:

@rr: "So the changes there contributed to evolution much less half haphazardly, less detrimental, and more often than mutation."

Your point? DNA repair and mutation is part of evolution. [ http://en.wikiped...volution ]

"A metaphysical question: Does evolution stop from repair that can repair all damage? Place me in the "no" camp where researchers consider damage normal to at least brain activity)."

I don't do metaphysics, that is philosophic story telling, but your question appears empirical. At the same time it appears incoherent, so I have no further response on that.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2015
Pity the discussion went from the new evidence of how life emerged to a discussion of how life is sustained, which is 2-300 year old science, which the creationists (and the insane acting party) can educate themselves infrom textbooks.

[Speaking of creationists - which really shouldn't be trolling science sites, but then again religions support immoral behavior - I wish the realized how idiotic it looks when they write as if their magic is real and they have no evidence for it. =D]

But at the end, an interesting topic:

@Mimath:

- "earlier this month Rosetta made the first measurements of molecuar N at a comet...'That ratio for Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko turns out to be about 25 times less than that of the expected protosolar value....'".

- "Halley's comet was found (later) to have a greater proportion of Deuterium than is found in our oceans suggesting that similar comets were unlikely to have seeded our oceans."

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2015
[ctd]

Ah yes, volatile delivery, vital for life emergence! There are 3 main paths now as I understand it.

1. The volatiles were always there.

They do not have to cook off during planet accretion, which earlier geophysicists believed, and there is a SETI Talk on that. ("the MAD planet"). And Ceres have more water than Earth, an asteroid belt planetesimal going into Earth (and Mars et cetera) happens easily in planet system formation models.

2. Early & 3. Late volatile delivery.

Again, the nearby disk is an excellent deliverer. With up to 50 % of the water coming from the molecular cloud making the disk accordinbg to D/ ratios, the comet participation tops at 20 % at most from D/H.

In fact, little to none according to a paper that also looked at the nitrogen isotope ratios, which is where asteroids and comets differ most. (There are a few comets that have the Earth D/H ratio.)

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2015
[ctd]

Unfortunately the nitrogen find is a) low and b) from ROSINA mass spectrometer, which doesn't look at nearby isotope mass differences as Philae's Ptolemy did. And the first Ptolemy mass spectra has no nitrogen in it!

I'm eagerly waiting, and hoping, that the other Ptolemy sniff tests had enough nitrogen...

[The SETI Talk on the Earth-Moon collision: The Surprising State of the Earth after the Moon-Forming Giant Impact - Sarah Stewart (SETI Talks); https://www.youtu...mWs71EMk ]
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
FOr every scientific and validated FACT that Jones links, you flood the site with 3-5 THOUSAND characters of irrelevant or (more often thatn not) MISINTERPRETED science and claims that actual studies support your conclusions


This is where the pseudoscientific nonsense is. Welcome back Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
See instead: http://comments.s...228.1298

Excerpt: "This is not really a new understanding. It is more experimental evidence that links nutrient-dependent feedback loops from chromatin loops to the physiology of reproduction in the context of life history transitions. The transitions link entropic elasticity from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via the biophysically constrained chemistry of anti-entropic nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding and the pheromone-controlled physiology of
reproduction.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2015
Statement from Villarreal:

I'm sorry to hear of this misuse of my statements.  It sounds like he is making selective statements to support some belief he holds. My point was simply that virus variation should not be simply thought of in terms of error.  But rather that viruses (and eventually host as viruses join host genomes) depend on diversity to solve problems.  This view does not preclude natural selection, but adds to it a much more capable process.  It is not difficult to conduct laboratory experiments in which a selection scheme can be applied that will strongly favor a particular variant ('mutant').
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
I'm eagerly waiting, and hoping, that the other Ptolemy sniff tests had enough nitrogen...


And then what? How do you plan to link quantum smell from quantum physics to quantum biology and quantum consciousness without mention of the works by other who -- in this century -- have already done it, or are still doing it in the context of what is known about biologically based cause and effect?

See: http://blogs.scie...steries/

Excerpt: He proposed that our scientific understanding of reality is radically incomplete, and that some sort of anti-entropy, order-generating force remains to be discovered.

For comparison, most of the participants here have no scientific understanding of reality and, like Torbjorn_Larsson_OM, tout only the pseudoscientific nonsense that is the basis of their 'reality' (e.g, on the psych ward).
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
I'm sorry to hear of this misuse of my statements.
--Villarreal

Did you tell him I claim that the balance of viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction, which enables the fixation of the amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to man?

The particular variant arises in the context of ecological variation linked to nutrient-dependent RNA-directed DNA methylation and the RNA-mediated biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding. That's different than placing the variant into the context of mutations and evolution, which requires people to believe in nonsense like this:

"...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world." http://www.amazon...99661731
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) consistently reports responses to claims that I have misrepresented the works of others. He provides his contacts with a misleading partial representation, and elicits the response he needs, so that he can make it appear as a refutation, or a denigration of my published works.

Search Results for 'Villarreal'
http://rna-mediat...llarreal

See, among others:
http://rna-mediat...e-it-is/
http://rna-mediat...actions/
http://rna-mediat...ptation/
http://rna-mediat...of-life/
http://rna-mediat...ylation/
http://rna-mediat...-theory/
http://rna-mediat...hanisms/
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
... It is not difficult to conduct laboratory experiments in which a selection scheme can be applied that will strongly favor a particular variant ('mutant').


If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based. (p 1014) http://onlinelibr...384/full

Villarreal "...learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago..." That does not invalidate his virus-driven approach to ecological adaptation. It invalidates the mutations approach and replaces it with what Dobzhansky (1973) knew.

"...alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127).
http://www.jstor..../4444260

See also: http://www.ncbi.n...24693353



JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
Instead of trying to bait serious scientists and cause them to claim they reject the obvious fact that "...alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127).
http://www.jstor....4444260, Andrew Jones should accept the fact that he is a biologically uninformed science idiot. He has forced serious scientists into positions where they are "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short

Clearly, Andrew Jones, and others like him are willing to keep killing your loved-ones by touting their ridiculous theories despite the refutations in the context of everything currently known about RNA-mediated events.

http://www.rnasociety.org/ "We're a non-profit, international scientific society with more than 1000 members dedicated to fostering research and education in the field of RNA science."
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2015
He provides his contacts with a misleading partial representation


Nope. I very clearly tell them about your view that mutation and natural selection don't contribute to evolution or adaptation and that you attempt to use their works to support your views.

Villarreal clearly supports mutation and selection, so using his works in an attempt to refute that very idea is ridiculous.

You continue using your false dichotomy of substitutions/mutations. Mutations alter codons, which results in substitutions. They're not totally separate processes.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
MUTATIONS
orco mutant mosquitoes lose strong preference for humans and are not repelled by volatile DEET http://www.ncbi.n...3696029/

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTIONS
Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor
http://www.nature...964.html

WHAT FALSE DICHOTOMY?
See also: Use of a structural alphabet to find compatible folds for amino acid sequences http://dx.doi.org...pro.2581

Clearly, mosquitoes don't propagate if they can't find food, and they can't find it if mutations perturb the protein folding required for the RNA-mediated de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes.

For other examples of the biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding linked from ecological variation to ecological adaptations and biodiversity see: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
Villarreal clearly supports mutation and selection


No he does not! His model links viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs to the finely-tuned balance between entropic elasticity and anti-entropic RNA-mediated cell type differentiation that links ecological variation to ecological adaptation in species from microbes to man via what is known about the physiology of reproduction in all genera.

The fact that he cannot express what he knows in terms that link physics to the chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding and cell type differentiation makes him a specialist, like Vosshall, not a biologically uninformed science idiot like you, who approaches specialists with your bait and gets them to bite on it.

Mutations perturb protein folding, which is why they are linked to physiopathology by serious scientists who are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease http://www.scienc...88.short

Your disease is ignorance and you enlist others.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2015
I'm sure Vosshail and Villarreal will be happy to hear that JVK thinks they are incapable of expressing themselves.

@JVK

You aren't fit to carry their jockstraps.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
Anyone who currently expresses themselves in terms of neo-Darwinian theory is a biologically uninformed science idiot, or specialist who cannot link physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms to biologically-based cause and effect.

"If you learnt evolutionary biology and genetics a decade or more ago you need to be aware that those debates have moved on very considerably, as has the experimental and field work on which they are based" (p 1014)" http://jp.physoc....007.full

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact." http://www.huffin...211.html

http://www.rnasociety.org/
http://rna-mediated.com/
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
He doesn't support mutation and selection? That's one of your most blatant lies yet. The end of his statement:

This view does not preclude natural selection, but adds to it a much more capable process. It is not difficult to conduct laboratory experiments in which a selection scheme can be applied that will strongly favor a particular variant ('mutant').
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
See instead: http://comments.s...228.1298
@jk
you seem awful proud to be TROLLING a serious science magazine... and i hope they kick your butt off the site for your creationists stupidity too
reported
Villarreal clearly supports mutation and selection

No he does not!
WTF?
what part of this did you MISUNDERSTAND?

I'm sorry to hear of this misuse of my statements. It sounds like he is making selective statements to support some belief he holds
SO
EVEN WHEN the AUTHOR SAYS that you are STUPID and are not able to INTERPRET what they wrote with logic or intelligence, they are WRONG and they support your diatribe ANYWAY?

now THAT is the TRUE MARK OF PSEUDOSCIENCE
denial of SCIENCE as well as LOGIC to push a LIE

you really should have stayed in school, jk
you might have learned something...
idiot
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
SO
EVEN WHEN the AUTHOR SAYS that you are STUPID and are not able to INTERPRET what they wrote with logic or intelligence, they are WRONG and they support your diatribe ANYWAY?


Exactly. Villarreal DIRECTLY contradicted Kohl's claim about him and yet he continues to insist he doesn't support mutation and selection. That's delusion, pure and simple.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
Mutations perturb protein folding...http://www.scienc...88.short
@the IDIOT jk
for starters, the link you have there to ScienceMag in NO WAY supports your stupidity regarding anti-mutations and them all being bad, etc

Secondly, your OWN MODEL causes mutations

third: your continuing flagrant disregard of Lenski and Dr. Extavour only show that you are NOT a scientist nor are you able to differentiate between logical SCIENCE and your illogical delusional creationists religion

in fact, when your comments were forwarded re: your "interpretations" of Dr. Extavour's work, then we PROVED that not only did you NOT UNDERSTAND IT, but your use of it to support your own failed belief system was WRONG

so i say again: you have a 100% FAIL rate "interpreting" other science and studies
and you proved it YET AGAIN above with Villarreal
I'm sorry to hear of this misuse of my statements. It sounds like he is making selective statements to support some belief he holds
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2015
you seem awful proud to be TROLLING a serious science magazine...


I appreciate the fact that the comments are moderated.
http://comments.s...228.1298

the link you have there to ScienceMag in NO WAY supports your stupidity regarding anti-mutations and them all being bad, etc


What do you think "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" means?
http://comments.s....1247472

What do you think this means? "...the interactions between pre-mRNA and proteins fine-tune alternative splicing in a manner that can gradually create new protein functionalities without the need to create additional genes and without affecting existing proteins [4-6]." http://genomebiol...15/1/401

See also: http://www.ncbi.n.../9047261
"Small intranuclear proteins also participate in generating alternative splicing techniques of pre-mRNA and, by this mechanism..."
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2015
It sounds like he is making selective statements to support some belief he holds


Editorial for "Regulatory RNAs in the nervous system"
"Particularly well-characterized is the role of microRNAs (miRNAs) in the post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. MicroRNAs are short(~21 nt) nc-RNAs that arise from processing of a long primary transcript via a complex and well-described biosynthetic process. MicroRNAs bind to mRNAs (usually in the 3′untranslated region) and regulate gene expression by repressing mRNA translation and/or inducing degradation of the target mRNA. Up to now, several thousands of miRNAs have been predicted and identified in animals, plants and viruses (www.mirbase.org) and some microRNAs are highly conserved, facilitating the analysis of microRNA in non-model species."

http://journal.fr...w13-2015
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2015
It sounds like he is making selective statements to support some belief he holds


I believe the biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding links conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man. It is a belief based on facts about amino acid substitutions.

All in the (bigger) family Excerpt: "Jerome Hui of the Chinese University of Hong Kong found that in both insects and crustaceans, the same set of micro RNAs control expression of the genes for those enzymes." http://comments.s...6219.220

See also: The phylogenetic utility and functional constraint of microRNA flanking sequences http://rspb.royal...20142983

What do you think Luis P. Villarreal believes about the biological facts that link viral microRNAs and anti-entropic nutrient-dependent microRNAs to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all genera?
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2015
This view does not preclude natural selection, but adds to it a much more capable process. It is not difficult to conduct laboratory experiments in which a selection scheme can be applied that will strongly favor a particular variant ('mutant').


Does anyone think Luis P. Villarreal believes "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world." http://www.amazon...99661731

If not, what's the alternative? I think it's belief in this fact "... the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127). http://www.jstor..../4444260

Two optional beliefs seem clear. They pit a ridiculous theory against facts that link physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2015
I appreciate the fact that the comments are moderated
if they are allowing you to post your creationist stupidity, then they are NOT moderated
blahblah...means?
it actually spells that out in the first paragraph, ya moron
Molecular biology and evolutionary biology have been separate disciplines and scientific cultures: The former is mechanistic and focused on molecules; the latter is theoretical and focused on populations. However, these domains are beginning to converge in laboratories addressing molecular mechanisms that explain how evolutionary processes work, and bring these processes to bear on medical problems such as cancer and infectious disease. Each discipline can be viewed as a missing link in the other's description of biology, and in medicine.
and AGAIN< you are proven to be 100% WRONG when you TRY TO INTERPRET science
OldWiseGuy
2 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2015
Captain Stumpy & JVK still at it? Have you beat your Darwinian Evolution theory into some sort of quasi scientific fact? It's too bad some intellectuals can not fathom or believe in something that can not be proven such as God when their own theories are in many cases unprovable. It scares them so instead they attack the presenter throw words as stones against something they deny but seem to know so much about. When they stand before a throne they couldn't imagine and a God they disbelieved in it will be too late to admit they were wrong. But I stand strong in saying they have a right to their opinion, no matter how wrong it may be. Now throw your insults for as you dishonour my & others like with with an opinion you merely show your real intelligence, or lack there of. Peace be with you always.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2015
When they stand before a throne ...
@old
1- your delusional belief of a sky faerie will never judge me
2- said faerie is based upon plagiarized older religions
3- i also
stand strong in saying they have a right to their opinion, no matter how wrong it may be
the problem comes when idiots like you start to fish for support, succor or acolytes on a SCIENCE site

science is about PROOF, EVIDENCE and repeatable experiments
evolution has passed all those hurdles to the point of scientific theory

you are living in a dream based upon a faith that has LIED to you, and that is PROVEN as well, from your fallacious historical comic bible to your MYTHS about where you come from

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

you're not praying hard enough since i am not stopping...
is it because you're faerie is not real?

Go back to your religious sites and troll
THIS IS A SCIENCE SITE
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2015
Transcriptome Analysis of the White Body of the Squid Euprymna tasmanica with Emphasis on Immune and Hematopoietic Gene Discovery http://journals.p....0119949

The article indirectly links light-induced amino acid substitutions in plants and animals to the nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in the bioluminescent bacteria of the bob-tail squid that enable its nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled reproduction.

Villarreal probably doesn't know that the links from viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs establish the link between entropic elasticity and the anti-entropic biological energy from the sun.

Immune and Hematopoietic Genes link the works of Christ et al, on regenerative medicine to works by Church et al., via what is known about heterochronic parabiosis (exchange of blood for longevity) http://www.nature...569.html
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2015
What do you think "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" means?http://comments.s....124747

What specifically in the paper supports your understanding(well, lack of understanding in your case of course) and misrepresentation of the paper?
Did you read the paper? or anything beyond the title?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2015
Have you beat your Darwinian Evolution theory into some sort of quasi scientific fact?

Darwin had nothing to do with evolution other than presenting a logical means of looking at it.
It's too bad some intellectuals can not fathom or believe in something that can not be proven such as God when their own theories are in many cases unprovable.

Too bad some religionists cannot believe in an observational reality that belies their own un-provable "Theory" (of a god).
Stop being afraid of your own eventual demise (cuz that's all that's really going on in your head).
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
Did you read the paper? or anything beyond the title?


They placed Dobzhansky's claim in its proper perspective.

"... the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127). http://www.jstor..../4444260

RNA and dynamic nuclear organization http://comments.s....1252966

See also: http://comments.s...6219.220

You don't seem to be paying attention to what is consistently reported in the extant literature. Were you taught to believe in the pseudoscientific nonsense of a theory that was invented based on a definition of the word "mutation?"

http://www.huffin...211.html
"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes..."
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
Darwin had nothing to do with evolution other than presenting a logical means of looking at it.


His logic was to place "conditions of life" before consideration of "natural selection" and he knew nothing about genes or mutations. The finches beaks and the head crests of pigeons and all other variants among extant species are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

That fact makes the ridiculous claims of neo-Darwinian theorists more ridiculous that any serious scientist will accept. Acceptance of such ridiculous claims is, however, expected from biologically uninformed science idiots.

They are the only people with the reduced intellectual capacity that is required to believe anything they're taught, without learning about anything else that suggests what they were taught to believe in is pseudoscientific nonsense.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2015
They placed Dobzhansky's claim in its proper perspective.

"... the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla" (p. 127). http://www.jstor..../4444260


Substitutions are the result of mutations.

http://www.ncbi.n...11922107
http://www.ncbi.n.../2192981
http://www.nature...-6524898
http://www.nature..._F1.html

There isn't anything particular about the term "substitution" that automatically means "beneficial". Substitutions can be either positive or negative. Either way, they're the result of base and codon changes in the DNA, which are mutations.
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
...base and codon changes in the DNA... are mutations.


How are the mutations linked from protein biosynthesis and degradation to biodiversity? You have no explanation of biologically-based cause and effect. You do what all biologically unformed science idiots always do: tout the pseudoscientific nonsense of theory.

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact."

MUTATIONS
orco mutant mosquitoes lose strong preference for humans and are not repelled by volatile DEET http://www.ncbi.n...3696029/

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTIONS
Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor
http://www.nature...964.html
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
Substitutions are the result of mutations.

One of 4 links was recent and it was to an article on ataxia. (failure of muscular coordination)

See for comparison:
Olfaction, ecology, and intelligence http://perfumingt...ligence/

Obviously, most participants here lack the intelligence exemplified in the other organisms.

"Dr. Lieff's 10 Most Intelligent Animals for Discover Channel"

Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) and Captain Stumpy are two of the best examples of intelligence that falls below the typical level of what is required to be considered in the context of ecological adaptation.

Are they they mutants who failed to evolve intelligence, or just biologically uninformed science idiots?
JVK
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
https://www.neb.c...ce=modal

More substantial support for epigenetic effects on cell type differentiation comes from what has been learned during the past decade about the role of small non-coding RNA molecules. The small non-coding RNA molecules are called microRNAs (miRNAs). MiRNAs alter intrarcellular signaling by changing the balance between miRNAs and messenger RNA (mRNA) . The changes are linked to health and to pathology (Mori et al., 2014).

For clarification:
Amino acid substitutions are linked to heath via their fixation in the context of the physiology of reproduction.

Mutations perturb protein folding and are linked to pathology.

Life did not begin with mutations. It began with the creation of light-induced amino acid substitutions and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in plants and animals. There's a model for that. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2015
@jk
well, if you say
Mutations perturb protein folding and are linked to pathology, which means they are not beneficial
but then you also say your own model causes mutations...
remember when I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
so NOW you are saying YOUR OWN MODEL causes perturbed protein folding that is linked to pathology and it is NOT beneficial... so why do you keep posting it?
TROLLING?
i will tell you why: it is PSEUDOSCIENCE
you don't even know WTF you are talking about... proven by ABOVE!
i guess that makes YOU the
biologically uninformed science idiot
either that or mutated into horrendous stupidity

mensa my left butt cheek!
i am seriously going to call you on that one
NO mensa chapter would put up with THAT much stupid!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2015
Life did not begin with mutations. It began with the creation of light-induced amino acid substitutions and RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in plants and animals. There's a model for that. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
@jkTROLL
1- there is absolutely NO empirical evidence or even experimental evidence supporting your stupidity or claims
2- as to your linked MODEL... there is also a well thought out and far more literate as well as scientifically accurate REFUTE to your stupidity: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

Jones critique of your model should be your stepping point to say "creationism is WRONG" but instead you are ignoring the empirical evidence and trying to find ANYTHING that might help you... and that includes making sh*t up and lying about the science in the studies
wanna know WHY ?
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.