ChatterBank3 mins ago
Dna And Its Origins
189 Answers
In the light of new findings, DNA is even more beautiful and complex than we imagined, considering that it was in existence in the early life-forms on the planet, doesn't any theory of the origin of life by a blind series of chemical accidents seem preposterous ?
Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in this.
Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in this.
Answers
Hmm. They are different achievements
14:01 Sun 11th Oct 2015
Khandro, every time someone does something, it is unique, though it's merits may be debateable. Theories aren't waiting to be discovered, they are a construct from the intellect of a person and require more creativity than many if not most 'works of art'. There is more to science than scribbling some numbers and hoping your peer group will think they look nice.
Oh by the way you always use bluster when you don't have a reply, it doesn't work, it never did.
Oh by the way you always use bluster when you don't have a reply, it doesn't work, it never did.
@Khandro
//@jomifl.... How do you think the DNA, evident in the very earliest forms of life on Earth got there? Either give your theory, or cool it. //
As was pointed out in the previous thread - I forget how long ago and don't understand why it's not showing in 'related threads' - people like me (I cannot speak for jomifl) can only repeat things we've read, seen on TV, heard on radio (The Infinite Monkey Cage is the title of a Radio 4 series, about science (but also contains humour)), I am by no means a professional research scientist.
If I was and I knew the answer, I still wouldn't tell you. If you don't accept orthodox science, you certainly wouldn't accept stuff from the 'bleeding edge'.
You like Hawking though. Shades of "Appeal to Authority", amusingly enough. :)
//Hypo; As usual, your long rambling //
Your name vill also go in ze book!
//post, like an electric fire, gives out more heat than light. Hiding behind bluster and distortions //
I learned from the master. You.
// you fail also to give any credible answer to the above question. //
It's way above my pay grade, sorry to say. I can google stuff and paste links and do my best to turn scientific concepts into terms which neophytes, such as yourself, can relate to but that's my limit.
You on the other hand *infer* a creator being from the existence of complexity at the molecular scale with *absolute certainty*, a research budget of zero, a research duration of (??) minutes, a publication list of zero and, due to no published papers, a citation count of zero.
So I match you exactly, except for the absolute certainty part.
//@jomifl.... How do you think the DNA, evident in the very earliest forms of life on Earth got there? Either give your theory, or cool it. //
As was pointed out in the previous thread - I forget how long ago and don't understand why it's not showing in 'related threads' - people like me (I cannot speak for jomifl) can only repeat things we've read, seen on TV, heard on radio (The Infinite Monkey Cage is the title of a Radio 4 series, about science (but also contains humour)), I am by no means a professional research scientist.
If I was and I knew the answer, I still wouldn't tell you. If you don't accept orthodox science, you certainly wouldn't accept stuff from the 'bleeding edge'.
You like Hawking though. Shades of "Appeal to Authority", amusingly enough. :)
//Hypo; As usual, your long rambling //
Your name vill also go in ze book!
//post, like an electric fire, gives out more heat than light. Hiding behind bluster and distortions //
I learned from the master. You.
// you fail also to give any credible answer to the above question. //
It's way above my pay grade, sorry to say. I can google stuff and paste links and do my best to turn scientific concepts into terms which neophytes, such as yourself, can relate to but that's my limit.
You on the other hand *infer* a creator being from the existence of complexity at the molecular scale with *absolute certainty*, a research budget of zero, a research duration of (??) minutes, a publication list of zero and, due to no published papers, a citation count of zero.
So I match you exactly, except for the absolute certainty part.
@Theland
Re: first cause
Do you have any idea what causes molecules to move around?
Temperature is a measure of molecular velocity but, in a planet's atmosphere or in solution, there is a limit in how far they can travel before colliding with a neighbouring molecule.
Macromolecules recieve a perpetual pounding from water molecules (smaller molecules travel faster for any given temperature) and everything else in solution. This is why proteins spontaneously lose their structure, as time passes. Structure is the key to function (enzymes, especially) so the cell needs to run a production line to recycle/replace the broken ones.
So, the ultimate first cause is heat, causing molecules to move. Sunlight or deep ocean hydrothermal vents or hot springs.
Re: first cause
Do you have any idea what causes molecules to move around?
Temperature is a measure of molecular velocity but, in a planet's atmosphere or in solution, there is a limit in how far they can travel before colliding with a neighbouring molecule.
Macromolecules recieve a perpetual pounding from water molecules (smaller molecules travel faster for any given temperature) and everything else in solution. This is why proteins spontaneously lose their structure, as time passes. Structure is the key to function (enzymes, especially) so the cell needs to run a production line to recycle/replace the broken ones.
So, the ultimate first cause is heat, causing molecules to move. Sunlight or deep ocean hydrothermal vents or hot springs.
Theland
There are 33,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in 1 ml. of water. To produce this water the same number of atoms of oxygen and twice this number of hydrogen atoms reacted together. At atmospheric pressure this would have happened in a flash (literally)...so you can see how many molecules there are in the Earth how quickly they can combine. Hydrogen and oxygen are an extreme example, most reactions are a lot slower.
There are 33,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in 1 ml. of water. To produce this water the same number of atoms of oxygen and twice this number of hydrogen atoms reacted together. At atmospheric pressure this would have happened in a flash (literally)...so you can see how many molecules there are in the Earth how quickly they can combine. Hydrogen and oxygen are an extreme example, most reactions are a lot slower.
jomifl; Perhaps you should talk to a real mathematician now you are bandying numbers around (I don't think Jim's a pure mathematician but he's pretty good).
Mathematicians over the years have argued that the numbers just do not add up. Information theorist Hubert Yockey argues that the information needed to begin life could not have developed by chance; he suggests that life should be considered a 'given' like matter or energy. Leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistmar Institute, Philadelphia in 1966 on 'Mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution'. At the symposium a mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong, none of the mathematicians were persuaded that the fault was theirs, and one said "There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology".
Mathematicians over the years have argued that the numbers just do not add up. Information theorist Hubert Yockey argues that the information needed to begin life could not have developed by chance; he suggests that life should be considered a 'given' like matter or energy. Leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistmar Institute, Philadelphia in 1966 on 'Mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution'. At the symposium a mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong, none of the mathematicians were persuaded that the fault was theirs, and one said "There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology".
I'd have to look up more detail to make any bolder statement, but if something is empirically observed then it follows that no amount of pure mathematicians screaming at you that "it just doesn't add up" should make a ha'pennorth of difference -- at least not to the empiricist. Mathematicians may well need to check their figures, or more likely the assumptions that led to them.
To be fair, evolution is not completely empirical, because it would occur on timescales too great to be observed properly, so we have to make do with connecting the dots in a coherent and plausible way. But if a mathematician points at something that is happening and tell you that it cannot happen, then the mathematician is the one who has one wrong somewhere. The clue in this is the "current conception of biology" phrase, that is better interpreted as "we don't understand things as well as we need to", rather than "evolution is numerically wrong". The former is entirely typical of biology, that remains a science that you can do a lot of good work in with comparatively little mathematics beyond, say, statistical techniques. (Ditto biophysics, which is probably the most important field of science in trying to understand this sort of thing, but is also fairly new and with plenty of potential.)
It's probably better to think of the results of that conference as fitting into a chain of reasoning similar to:
Gravity works pretty well.
Except for Mercury.
So I guess we need to modify the theory.
and the logic you appear to be wanting to apply would be closer to turning the third step (that led, ultimately, to General Relativity) into discarding, rather than trying to modify. I'd hope that the symposium attendees 50(!) years ago might have tried the first approach first. The passage of time since, in which Evolution has grown in strength, suggests that the doubts of the mathematicians back then have been at least partly addressed (I hope!).
To be fair, evolution is not completely empirical, because it would occur on timescales too great to be observed properly, so we have to make do with connecting the dots in a coherent and plausible way. But if a mathematician points at something that is happening and tell you that it cannot happen, then the mathematician is the one who has one wrong somewhere. The clue in this is the "current conception of biology" phrase, that is better interpreted as "we don't understand things as well as we need to", rather than "evolution is numerically wrong". The former is entirely typical of biology, that remains a science that you can do a lot of good work in with comparatively little mathematics beyond, say, statistical techniques. (Ditto biophysics, which is probably the most important field of science in trying to understand this sort of thing, but is also fairly new and with plenty of potential.)
It's probably better to think of the results of that conference as fitting into a chain of reasoning similar to:
Gravity works pretty well.
Except for Mercury.
So I guess we need to modify the theory.
and the logic you appear to be wanting to apply would be closer to turning the third step (that led, ultimately, to General Relativity) into discarding, rather than trying to modify. I'd hope that the symposium attendees 50(!) years ago might have tried the first approach first. The passage of time since, in which Evolution has grown in strength, suggests that the doubts of the mathematicians back then have been at least partly addressed (I hope!).
@Khandro
Okay, I'll bite. What mutation rate did they quote?
And what organism did they use as a basis for that quote?
Units might be "mutations per thousand base pairs, per millenium"
organism might be E. Coli but doesn't have to be.
Yes, it doesn't have an eye but some swimming multi-cellular* creatures (ie with cilia) show phototactic behaviour and have light-sensitive cells which respond to directional light sources.
* I edited that from uni- to multi- just to be on the safe side. More googling required, to refresh the 'leetle grey cells'.
Okay, I'll bite. What mutation rate did they quote?
And what organism did they use as a basis for that quote?
Units might be "mutations per thousand base pairs, per millenium"
organism might be E. Coli but doesn't have to be.
Yes, it doesn't have an eye but some swimming multi-cellular* creatures (ie with cilia) show phototactic behaviour and have light-sensitive cells which respond to directional light sources.
* I edited that from uni- to multi- just to be on the safe side. More googling required, to refresh the 'leetle grey cells'.
jim; //I'd have to look up more detail to make any bolder statement, but if something is empirically observed then it follows that no amount of pure mathematicians screaming at you that "it just doesn't add up" should make a ha'pennorth of difference -- at least not to the empiricist.//
Thanks, that's all well and good, but what exactly, has been 'empirically observed' since 1966 -(which was incidentally within the timespan of the discovery of DNA).
Nothing has been stated on this thread other than mathematical, statistical arguments and the unsubstantiated belief that life had to begin on Earth.
Thanks, that's all well and good, but what exactly, has been 'empirically observed' since 1966 -(which was incidentally within the timespan of the discovery of DNA).
Nothing has been stated on this thread other than mathematical, statistical arguments and the unsubstantiated belief that life had to begin on Earth.
Not sure why you are jumping on jomifl's numbers, by the way. he's basically correct about molecules in water to 2 sf, and a quick glance at most chemical reactions suggests similar orders of magnitude in terms of number of reactions per second. A lot can happen in a stupidly short amount of time on molecular scales.
Well, that's why I'd added the next bit:
"To be fair, evolution is not completely empirical, because it would occur on timescales too great to be observed properly..."
For myself, I'm satisfied that evolution as a theory makes reasonable intuitive sense, that the timescales involved are large enough (my work considers processes where the characteristic timescale is about as far away from a second in terms of orders of magnitude as the beginning of life is, so I'm used to things happening stupidly quickly), and that we aren't nearly far enough on in the study of the field to be so quick as to rule it out as preposterous, numerically or otherwise.
"To be fair, evolution is not completely empirical, because it would occur on timescales too great to be observed properly..."
For myself, I'm satisfied that evolution as a theory makes reasonable intuitive sense, that the timescales involved are large enough (my work considers processes where the characteristic timescale is about as far away from a second in terms of orders of magnitude as the beginning of life is, so I'm used to things happening stupidly quickly), and that we aren't nearly far enough on in the study of the field to be so quick as to rule it out as preposterous, numerically or otherwise.
Khandro, you are labouring under a misapprehension re. the development of life being a random process because it woudn't have been urey random. It is not as if all the molecules on Earth were shaken together, some reactions took place very quickly thus altering the reactions possible, as further reactions took place some reactions were rendered less likely and new reactions were made possible with the appearance of new molecules. You may be able to see that the reactions followed a sequence with more complex molecules being formed as time progressed. With enough starting material and a supply of energy to make and break chemical bonds then (to my mind) it would be a surprise if some self replicating molecules did not arise. It could have perhaps happened soooner or later but of necessity we are only here after the event, so at least we know roughly when it happened.
The likelihood of this happening in the Oort cloud as I believe you have implied is less likely because at the low temperature and lack of liquid water and energy input chemical reaction would progress at a relatively snail like pace.
The likelihood of this happening in the Oort cloud as I believe you have implied is less likely because at the low temperature and lack of liquid water and energy input chemical reaction would progress at a relatively snail like pace.
// (I don't think Jim's a pure mathematician but he's pretty good). //
dont worry Jim I know who you really are - you will get plenty of cringe making comments like that over the next 50 y
[ = can a part III mathematician add ? ] omfg
Hypo - rate mutation:
I take 10 to the minus 5 10 - 5 for any base for one replication
is that too low ?
( well you did ask for mutation rates )
dont worry Jim I know who you really are - you will get plenty of cringe making comments like that over the next 50 y
[ = can a part III mathematician add ? ] omfg
Hypo - rate mutation:
I take 10 to the minus 5 10 - 5 for any base for one replication
is that too low ?
( well you did ask for mutation rates )
jim; //Not sure why you are jumping on jomifl's numbers// I have in no way 'jumped' or questioned jomifl's numbers, and jomifl, I apologise if you think I'm being 'sneaky'. It is simply that your figures - which I know are given purely as an example of large numbers - are the first to appear on this thread and prompted me to search for the quote from mathematicians on the subject, of whom you say yourself do the 'really creative stuff.'
But I do not want to be steered off course, I asked Jim "what exactly, has been 'empirically observed' since 1966" the time of that symposium, and eschewing the internet, the date was from the first quote I could find in my books.
And Hypo what clever men spoke of 50 years ago on the subject of mathematics makes it no less true, - unless you know otherwise. You need to find a better reason for your attempted ridicule, or you risk looking ridiculous yourself, particularly in your apparent disdain for Aristotle, who got very few things wrong.
But I do not want to be steered off course, I asked Jim "what exactly, has been 'empirically observed' since 1966" the time of that symposium, and eschewing the internet, the date was from the first quote I could find in my books.
And Hypo what clever men spoke of 50 years ago on the subject of mathematics makes it no less true, - unless you know otherwise. You need to find a better reason for your attempted ridicule, or you risk looking ridiculous yourself, particularly in your apparent disdain for Aristotle, who got very few things wrong.
Now I have been on the internet and looked up more on Hubert Yockey he has said;
"One of the reasons that science has not correctly addressed how to solve the problem of the origin of life-and accepted more widely that it is unsolvable-is that it has lacked a definition of the distinction between living and non-living matter."
Dr. Yockey is the first scientist to define the distinction between living and non-living matter, which he does as follows:
“The existence of the genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. There is nothing in the non-living physico-chemical world that remotely resembles the reactions that are determined by a sequence (i.e., the genome) and codes between sequences (i.e., the genetic code) that occur in living matter.”
"many scientists do not understand the distinctions between DNA, which is material, and the genome and the genetic code, which are non-material."
"One of the reasons that science has not correctly addressed how to solve the problem of the origin of life-and accepted more widely that it is unsolvable-is that it has lacked a definition of the distinction between living and non-living matter."
Dr. Yockey is the first scientist to define the distinction between living and non-living matter, which he does as follows:
“The existence of the genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. There is nothing in the non-living physico-chemical world that remotely resembles the reactions that are determined by a sequence (i.e., the genome) and codes between sequences (i.e., the genetic code) that occur in living matter.”
"many scientists do not understand the distinctions between DNA, which is material, and the genome and the genetic code, which are non-material."
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
How it Works6 mins ago
Food & Drink8 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago