DNA built from "scratch"?

Evolution, Natural Selection, Medicine, Psychology & Neuroscience.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#21  Postby felltoearth » Sep 27, 2018 6:31 pm

truelgbt wrote:In my opening statement I said methane and ammonia have nonliving sources. But methane and ammonia also have living sources. By a 95:5 ratio no less. Bacterial fermentation is listed at the top as a source of methane along with volcanoes at the bottom.

Introducing any substance that is a product or byproduct of DNA is clearly a big no-no for origin-of-life experiments.


You realize that ratio is compared the overall presence on earth. Local concentrations can be much higher.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 10865
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#22  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 27, 2018 9:14 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
theropod wrote:I think we just need to go ahead and build a replicator, and then we can convert energy into any material we choose. We could produce whole living organisms, or any part thereof. Then, and only then, would science denialist semi-accept that life is no more than chemistry. Maybe. Sort of. Almost.

RS

Well, I am certainly no science denialist: I implicitly trust that the physical universe functions independently and is not reducible to any God. However, I also implicitly trust that chemistry is not the source of life; despite the evidence which indicates that it IS... What that means is that despite my rejection of God being the source of the physical I am nevertheless absolutely certain that life is His property.


Which god? There are people who are abolutely convinced, even unto the red font, bolded and italicised, that life is the property of Lord Brahma. And they are in possession of exactly the same evidence for their convictions as you are.

There are others who possess the same evidence of God as I?! You know not what you speak.

He does. Do you really think you're the first person to make these assertions? You're not even the first on this site, by far.

Destroyer wrote:There are absolutely no others who have evidence and can reason that God is non-existent and yet simultaneously existent.

To use your own phrasing; You know not of what you speak.

Destroyer wrote: In other words, all others who believe in God are convinced that He is the legitimate creator of this physical universe: they are compelled to have faith in supernatural causation. I categorically reject any supernatural causation or involvement with this universe; and, yet, I still insist and can logically reason God to be intimately associated with this universe.

It's rather silly to use your rectum as a source of information.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29642
Age: 29
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#23  Postby Destroyer » Sep 28, 2018 8:41 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Blackadder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Well, I am certainly no science denialist: I implicitly trust that the physical universe functions independently and is not reducible to any God. However, I also implicitly trust that chemistry is not the source of life; despite the evidence which indicates that it IS... What that means is that despite my rejection of God being the source of the physical I am nevertheless absolutely certain that life is His property.


Which god? There are people who are abolutely convinced, even unto the red font, bolded and italicised, that life is the property of Lord Brahma. And they are in possession of exactly the same evidence for their convictions as you are.

There are others who possess the same evidence of God as I?! You know not what you speak.

He does. Do you really think you're the first person to make these assertions? You're not even the first on this site, by far.

Destroyer wrote:There are absolutely no others who have evidence and can reason that God is non-existent and yet simultaneously existent.

To use your own phrasing; You know not of what you speak.

Destroyer wrote: In other words, all others who believe in God are convinced that He is the legitimate creator of this physical universe: they are compelled to have faith in supernatural causation. I categorically reject any supernatural causation or involvement with this universe; and, yet, I still insist and can logically reason God to be intimately associated with this universe.

It's rather silly to use your rectum as a source of information.

I hear you.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1730
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#24  Postby Arcanyn » Sep 29, 2018 1:12 pm

truelgbt wrote:In my opening statement I said methane and ammonia have nonliving sources. But methane and ammonia also have living sources. By a 95:5 ratio no less. Bacterial fermentation is listed at the top as a source of methane along with volcanoes at the bottom.

Introducing any substance that is a product or byproduct of DNA is clearly a big no-no for origin-of-life experiments.


You are aware that methane is the most common compound of carbon in the universe? And the same with ammonia being the most common compound of nitrogen in the universe? We live in a universe that is mostly hydrogen, so when other elements are formed, the vast majority of the time they will be combined with hydrogen (heck, even the noble gases are sometimes found bound to hydrogen, in the form of ions such as HHe+, albeit in very low concentrations). So your requirement for an origin of life experiment is basically that it is only valid if it excludes the most common substances in the universe. Which is just a little disingenous, as it makes your position basically one of "origin of life simulations are invalid if they manage to accurately simulate the conditions present when life arose".
Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. Only when someone is free from constraints and consequences do they show their true character.

Sign the petition for the William Lane Craig/David Icke debate here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/craigickedebate/signatures
User avatar
Arcanyn
 
Posts: 1431
Age: 34
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#25  Postby Rumraket » Sep 29, 2018 3:40 pm

truelgbt wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
truelgbt wrote:This reminds me of my disappointed reaction to the Miller-Urey experiment which also started by introducing products of DNA (methane, ammonia) which, IMHO, is almost equivalent to "stacking the deck" or "planting evidence" into the experiment. Yes, I understand they were trying to mimic the prehistoric environment of methane from volcanoes, for example, but studies show that about 95% of methane on earth is due to life forms, i.e. products of DNA, so methane itself can, and is, largely considered to be a product of DNA.

This makes no sense at all. There are clearly nonbiological sources of methane. You even write yourself that 95% of extant methane is produced by life, but then 5% isn't. So using methane can't be stacking the deck in any way.

So going back before the origin of life, there was volcanoes, and they would have produced some methane.


Methane and ammonia are not just products of volcanoes; they are also produced by bacteria in much larger quantities than volcanoes by a ratio of 95:5. Therefore methane and ammonia are not just associated with DNA, they are considered products of DNA i.e. products of life, not just by me but the scientific community in general. You will not find any article denying that methane and ammonia are associated with bacteria. They are.

Disregarding whether those ratios are correct, the statement is completely irrelevant. The relevant questions to ask are: What compounds were plausibly available in the prebiotic environment before life originated? Whether those molecules are also byproducts of life today is besides the point.

From what compounds did life originate? Well if ammonia and methane was actually available in the prebiotic environment before life existed, then it is entirely possible they were involved in the actual origin of life. And then the next relevant question is, where was it available, in what quantities, and what local environmental energy sources, physical processes, and environmental cycles could have acted on them? And if they did, what would that produce if anything?

Whether life that later evolved and has DNA then also evolved the ability to produce these compounds is completely irrelevant. Were they or were they not available in the prebiotic environment before life had evolved? If they were, then using them in an experiment is entirely fair. Again, then the next questions to ask is where they were available, in what quantities, and so on.

truelgbt wrote:The higher standard for performing an experiment to generate 'life' in the lab is to exclude ANYTHING associated, even remotely, with life. No methane, no ammonia, etc. But that's just me. I prefer a higher standard.

Your "higher" standard is nonsensical, because there is no limit to this. Pretty much EVERTHING is known to be somehow associated with life. There is life that produces hydrogen and even water. In fact many chemical reactions in your body have water as a byproduct. Why stop there? Your're made of carbon and oxygen atoms too, and even electrons, so why not exclude those? Your standard is illogical.

The only relevant question to ask is which compounds were plausibly available in the prebiotic environment. To get clues about that we can ask geochemists and planetary astronomers to see what could be produced by basic geological and atmospheric chemical reactions, and what is found on lifeless planets and in interstellar clouds. Those are then the relevant compounds to potentially include in an experiment.

truelgbt wrote:The lower standard, IMHO, is to introduce all kinds of products of life into the experiment such as methane, ammonia, organic materials, etc. So, for example, if you are trying to generate life in an experiment and introduce materials already produced by life into the experiment, what have you demonstrated?

Well if there is some physical mechanism by which those compounds can assemble into more complex structures plausibly related to life, and they do so without any of the evolved molecular machinery found in life, then you will have demonstrated a physical mechanism that could plausibly be relevant to the origin of life.

Again, if those compounds used are already known to have been available in the prebiotic environment before life even originated, because they can be and were produced nonbiologically, then that directly relevant to the origin of life.

truelgbt wrote: In other words, if your experiment begins with products of DNA, and your experiment ends with products of DNA, what have you demonstrated?

DNA doesn't have products. It's like a hard-drive, it doesn't really "do" anything by itself. It contains sequence-information which is read and executed by some rather elaborate protein and RNA molecules, which themselves were produced by such RNA and protein molecules all the way back to however they first originated.

So the answer to your question actually depends very much on what the starting and ending compounds are. It is irrelevant whether those starting compounds are themselves constituents of DNA, or mid-or-end-products somewhere in cellular metabolism.

It could be the case that one of the ways that RNA or DNA first emerged was by a nonbiological organic chemical reaction involving ammonia and carbon monoxide (say). So if an experiment that mimicks a plausible natural environment (perhaps a volcanic setting of some sort) produces a DNA precursor from ammonia and carbon monoxide, then that experiment has demonstrated that a particular volcanic setting can produce DNA precursors from ammonia and carbon monoxide.

Again, the relevant question is: Was ammonia and carbon monoxide, as used in this hypothetical experiment, actually available in those quantities in such volcanic settings before life originated?

It is completely irrelevant whether organisms that live today can make ammonia and carbon monoxide. What is relevant is if they also existed and could be produced in the prebiotic environment before life. This is again where geology and planetary astronomy becomes relevant to answering such questions.

truelgbt wrote:I am not trying to be difficult but just asking the difficult questions that everybody should be asking.

But your questions are nonsensical if not stupid, so noone should be asking them. They should be asking, among other things, what compounds were actually available in the pretiotic environment?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13055
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#26  Postby Macdoc » Sep 29, 2018 4:44 pm

The chew toy is getting rather tasteless..does not even seem to improve with toasting. :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 14962
Age: 71
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#27  Postby truelgbt » Oct 03, 2018 8:43 pm

laklak wrote:
truelgbt wrote:

Introducing any substance that is a product or byproduct of DNA is clearly a big no-no for origin-of-life experiments.


It's clearly not.


Wrong. Methane clearly is a product of life/DNA:

This is found everywhere on the net:

Where does METHANE come from naturally?
Human-related Sources. In the United States, the largest methane emissions come from the decomposition of wastes in landfills, ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock, natural gas and oil systems, and coal mining.
truelgbt
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: trev
Posts: 78

Country: aussie
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#28  Postby truelgbt » Oct 03, 2018 8:46 pm

laklak wrote:
truelgbt wrote:

Introducing any substance that is a product or byproduct of DNA is clearly a big no-no for origin-of-life experiments.


It's clearly not.


Wrong. Ammonia clearly is a product of life/DNA:

This can be found anywhere on the net:

What is the main source of ammonia?
Gaseous ammonia (NH3) is the most abundant alkaline gas in the atmosphere. In addition, it is a major component of total reactive nitrogen. The largest source of NH3 emissions is agriculture, including animal husbandry and NH3-based fertilizer applications.
truelgbt
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: trev
Posts: 78

Country: aussie
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#29  Postby Macdoc » Oct 14, 2018 9:32 am

Space must be a "lively place"


What Cassini learned about Saturn during its death dive
According to the spectrometer team, Cassini's nose hit the "jackpot" as it sniffed out the unknown region between the planet and its closest rings. This is key because Saturn's upper atmosphere extends almost to the rings.

In a new study, researchers determined that complex organic compounds are raining a chemical cocktail of dust grains from the closest ring, D ring, into the upper atmosphere. The spectrometer revealed the rings to be composed of water, methane, ammonia, carbon monoxide, molecular nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

"Turns out, ring rain is more like a ring downpour," said Waite, lead study author. "While [the spectrometer] was designed to investigate gases, we were able to measure the ring particles because they hit the spacecraft at such high velocities they vaporized. Water ice, along with the newly discovered organic compounds, is falling out of the rings way faster than anyone thought -- as much as 10,000 kilograms of material per second."
Water ice was expected, but the other organics were not.


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/04/worl ... index.html
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 14962
Age: 71
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#30  Postby Rumraket » Oct 14, 2018 10:02 am

Macdoc wrote:The chew toy is getting rather tasteless..does not even seem to improve with toasting. :coffee:

It's odd that he completely ignored my post and just continues to harp on about "products of DNA" when it's utterly irrelevant. Water is a product of DNA too in the sense he's talking about ammonia, and so is carbon dioxide. But these compounds are also known to be produced nonbiologically, and exist in space.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13055
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#31  Postby LucidFlight » Oct 14, 2018 11:02 am

Macdoc wrote:ain't it just fun having a chew toy ...

[snip chew toy GIF]

ah ..this one is better

Image

evo deniers are soooo tasty :coffee:


Careful with that last one; you'll have KiR in here talking about that festival in Yulin.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Charley
Posts: 10330
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#32  Postby Macdoc » Oct 14, 2018 2:35 pm

If a tiger can have a pet ...then so can the Yulinese :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 14962
Age: 71
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#33  Postby truelgbt » Oct 15, 2018 1:35 am

Anytime an experiment starts with a substance which is KNOWN to be produced by the very thing you are trying to generate in the experiment, you weaken the implications of the experiment's results - you do not strengthen it.

For example, let's start with phosphates, sugars, and nitrogen bases and try to see if DNA is the end result. That is what so many here are proposing that is just SO convincing to them. Would anyone be impressed?

Such an experiment wouldn't even get off the ground. Such an 'experiment' would be just asinine if you ask me. And so is the Miller-Urey - how they even got to the status they did is beyond me.
truelgbt
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: trev
Posts: 78

Country: aussie
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#34  Postby truelgbt » Oct 15, 2018 1:41 am

Rumraket wrote:It's odd that he completely ignored my post and just continues to harp on about "products of DNA" when it's utterly irrelevant.


Utterly irrelevant to you because like so many others here, you 'settle' for any small scraps of so called validation. The Miller-Urey is at the bottom of the scrap heap.
truelgbt
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: trev
Posts: 78

Country: aussie
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#35  Postby Rumraket » Oct 15, 2018 1:43 am

truelgbt wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's odd that he completely ignored my post and just continues to harp on about "products of DNA" when it's utterly irrelevant.


Utterly irrelevant to you because like so many others here, you 'settle' for any small scraps of so called validation. The Miller-Urey is at the bottom of the scrap heap.

You have failed to provide any rebuttal to what I wrote, which substantively argues against what you have so far provided. Your ability to merely repeatedly assert your central conclusion is not itself an argument and does not constitute a rebuttal to the provided arguments against it.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13055
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#36  Postby Rumraket » Oct 15, 2018 1:58 am

truelgbt wrote:Anytime an experiment starts with a substance which is KNOWN to be produced by the very thing you are trying to generate in the experiment, you weaken the implications of the experiment's results - you do not strengthen it.

No, for reasons already explained. The only relevant question is if those compounds were available in the prebiotic environment in sufficient quantities. If they were, then it doesn't matter than life would then later evolve the capacity to make them. If they already existed, then they were available and that is the only salient, relevant fact.

truelgbt wrote:For example, let's start with phosphates, sugars, and nitrogen bases and try to see if DNA is the end result.

Well if those compounds really were available together, in the relevant quantities, in the prebiotic environment, then there's nothing wrong with conducting an experiment starting on that premise.

That is of course a big question, and there is no consensus on this, so for that particular collection of compounds I would agree that an experiment started on that premise is begging the question. But this is different from saying that an experiment will by definition be begging the question by starting with these compounds merely because living organisms can make them today. It doesn't matter that life today can make those compounds, what matters is only whether they were available in the quantities used in the relevant experiments, in the prebiotic environment.

truelgbt wrote:That is what so many here are proposing that is just SO convincing to them.

Nobody here has proposed anything about phosphates, sugars, and nitrogen bases, nor that it "SO convinces them". You made that up deliberately to make it look silly, but nobody has actually done what you accuse them of here.

truelgbt wrote:And so is the Miller-Urey - how they even got to the status they did is beyond me.

This just reveals you don't understand the Miller-Urey experiment. There are reasons to think the results of the Miller-Urey experiment are not relevant to however life on Earth originated, chiefly that the simulated conditions actually differ from what geologists today think the Earth's primitive atmosphere was composed of.

But the problem isn't that the starting compounds are "byproducts of DNA", because for reasons explained now several times, that is irrelevant. Even water is a byproduct of DNA in the same sense you use the term "byproduct", and so is carbon dioxide. Yet both water and carbon dioxide is thought to have been abundant on the primitive Earth before life originated, so it can't be begging the question to use water and carbon dioxide in an experiment in prebiotic chemistry.

Again, the pertinent questions are:
What compounds were available on the early Earth?
In what quantities?
Were they available together and for how long?
What physical processes operated in these environments?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13055
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#37  Postby Greyman » Oct 16, 2018 12:58 pm

truelgbt wrote:
laklak wrote:
truelgbt wrote:

Introducing any substance that is a product or byproduct of DNA is clearly a big no-no for origin-of-life experiments.


It's clearly not.


Wrong. Methane clearly is a product of life/DNA:
Methane is found on most planets of the solar system, several satelites including the Moon (as outgas from the surface), Halley's Comet and Comet Hyakutake , the exoplanet HD 189733 b, the atmospheres of M-type stars, and in interstellar clouds.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 490
Age: 51

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#38  Postby truelgbt » Oct 27, 2018 9:03 am

Greyman wrote:
truelgbt wrote:
laklak wrote:
truelgbt wrote:

Introducing any substance that is a product or byproduct of DNA is clearly a big no-no for origin-of-life experiments.


It's clearly not.


Wrong. Methane clearly is a product of life/DNA:
Methane is found on most planets of the solar system, several satelites including the Moon (as outgas from the surface), Halley's Comet and Comet Hyakutake , the exoplanet HD 189733 b, the atmospheres of M-type stars, and in interstellar clouds.


For example, in the USA, what percent of methane is DNA-produced and what percent is not? Please be honest.

This quick info is all over the net:
What is the largest source of methane gas?
Agricultural sources. Livestock management—including emissions from enteric fermentation (67 percent) and management of animal waste (27 percent)—accounts for the largest share of U.S. methane emissions from agricultural activities.

Hence, the Miller-Urey experiment relied largely on DNA products of LIFE to try and produce life....this is called STACKING THE DECK heavily in favor of the 'researchers' if they be called that. Cheaters. An illegitimate experiment IMO.

Am I a skeptic of this type of bullshit? Hell yeah, and so should everybody else who is truly skeptical of such poorly designed work.

Someone do a better job next time. Thank you.
truelgbt
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: trev
Posts: 78

Country: aussie
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#39  Postby Rumraket » Oct 27, 2018 10:10 am

truelgbt wrote:
Greyman wrote:
truelgbt wrote:
laklak wrote:

It's clearly not.


Wrong. Methane clearly is a product of life/DNA:
Methane is found on most planets of the solar system, several satelites including the Moon (as outgas from the surface), Halley's Comet and Comet Hyakutake , the exoplanet HD 189733 b, the atmospheres of M-type stars, and in interstellar clouds.


For example, in the USA, what percent of methane is DNA-produced and what percent is not? Please be honest..

Completely irrelevant. If methane exists in nonbiological environments, and did in fact exist on Earth before life originated, then what the FUCK does it matter what happens on Earth now? It doesn't.

You keep not being able to fathom this elementary point. What matters is what our planet was like BEFORE life originated here. It doesn't matter what our planet is like NOW. Did Methane exist in appreciable quantities on Earth before life originated? We have good reasons to think so given what we know about geochemistry, physics, and observations from astonomy.

Hence, the Miller-Urey experiment relied largely on DNA products of LIFE to try and produce life....this is called STACKING THE DECK heavily in favor of the 'researchers' if they be called that.

They're not stacking the deck if methane actually was available in the prebiotic environment.

What matters is what our planet was like BEFORE life originated here. It doesn't matter what our planet is like NOW. If methane was present before life originated, then it doesn't matter that living organisms that later evolved can also make it today.

The question is what chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth, and a relevant factor is what compounds were available in the prebiotic environment before life originated.

If methane was present before life, then it is irrelevant if life later evolved to be able to make it.

Can you get your head around this?

Cheaters. An illegitimate experiment IMO.

Then your opinion is without merit for reasons already explained.

Are you going to get it through your head some time soon? What matters is what our planet was like BEFORE life originated here. It doesn't matter what our planet is like NOW.

Methane is even detected on Mars, and so far we have found no life there. If we were to conduct an experiment in what kind of chemistry could happen on Mars, then including Methane in that experiment in the same concentrations as found on Mars would be completely fair. In fact it would be very weird to exclude it.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13055
Age: 38

Print view this post

Re: DNA built from "scratch"?

#40  Postby truelgbt » Jan 11, 2019 7:37 am

If I say I can impress you by making sugar crystals and you ask with what?
My answer: with sugar water.

Are you going to be impressed?
Bottom line: Making something by using the product of that something may impress you but me....
truelgbt
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: trev
Posts: 78

Country: aussie
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Biological Sciences

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron