capacitor, you are very right. However, you misunderstood.
As far as we know, life only exists on earth. It is disingenuous to state that the only boundaries on early life processes were the space of the universe.
We had a lot more set boundaries in place- temperature, radiation levels, composition of the earth, etc.
**Does a purely random process bind itself by itself alone? **
Not necessarily, but if there is feedback and a source of amplification (neither of which demands an intelligent designer) then, yes, it can. How to get feedback? Well, a self-replicating process can be stumbled upon randomly.
jb
If I might interject some relevant facts into this discussion:
Since the “RNA” world hypothesis (that is, the hypothesis that life started as a series of reactions involving self-replicating RNA, which evolved to build proteins as helper molecules) we’ve made a few important discoveries:
It’s very easy to create RNA under conditions like the early earth- IIRC it’s easier than making amino acids.
RNA ribozymes capable of self-replication have been discovered in Tetrahymena, as edwino mentioned.
In the lab, natural selection has been shown to be capable of very quickly producing functional ribozymes from an initially completely random mix of RNA’s. Among the ribozymes studied are ones capable of copying RNA, although as of yet we have only come close- not all the way- to creating a ribozyme with the self-replicating capacity of the Tetrahymena one. However, this study indicates that any calculations showing that it’s fantastically unlikely to get a functional ribozyme at random are, in a word, just plain wrong.
The structure of the ribosome (the cell’s machinery for assembling proteins) has been determined. The functional parts of the ribosome are made purely of RNA; the protein content of the ribosome merely serves to help stabilize its structure by filling in gaps.
Could you give me a quick run-down on the chemistry allowing for something that edwino has suggested requires at least three separate reactions and sets of reactants to occur easily in any conditions approximating Earth’s early oceans? I would be particularly intersted in how this is easier than the construction of relatively simple organic molecules such as amino acids. Has anyone actually created RNA from inorganic molecules in a single start, single vessel reaction? I assume they have, otherwise there would be no reason to declare it very easy. I’m surprised there wasn’t more publicity for such an astounding discovery - genetic material created spontaneously from inorganic precursors.
So someone has actually produced a ribozyme from inorganic components in a single vessel, single start reaction? Or have they simply calculated the probabilities of getting all the neccesary elements together, and declared that it is more likely than the total number of reactions that have occured on the surface of the Earths oceans ever? (which was apparently the case with the spontaneous protein creation hypothesis). If not then I fail to see how this changes the probabilities at all. No one has ever denied that with sufficient enzyme fragments it’s possible to catalyse the formation of more enzymes. This is simply the RNA version of the same theory. The problem is you still need the RNA/enzyme fragments in the first place. You also need to keep them in conditions where they won’t decay and where they have acess to more of the required raw materials (in this case presumably free floating RNA strands) and limited competitors. I would be interested in seeing a link to this as well, or at least hearing whether the RNA fragments used were truly random, or actually sliced up bits of known functional RNA.
Oh, is that all! Nothing important then. Seems much like saying that the chassis nd bodywork of a car “merely serves to help stabilize its structure by filling in gaps”.
Like I said, just because something is theoretically possible doesn’t make it probable.
I have (IIRC) Eschenmoser’s review article in a notebook of mine, but the notebook in question is in the shelf over the bed, and I can’t get to it tonight without waking my wife. I’ll try to post more info tomorrow.
**
I meant what I said- given a mix of random RNA sequences, selection quickly creates functional ribozymes. They did not start from “inorganic components” (incidentally, it’s impossible to get RNA from “inorganic components” without using nuclear reactions, because RNA contains carbon and “inorganic components” by definition do not.)
**
Since you are apparently unfamiliar with the experiments in question, I’ll describe them in more detail:
Scientists create a large number of random RNA sequences, and find some test that will select for a particular ribozyme activity- for example, the ability of the RNA to cut itself loose from a substrate. They wash the loose RNA off the substrate, copy it with a messy RNA polymerase, and attach the next generation of RNAs to a substrate. The RNAs that best cut themselves loose are copied again, and so on. The nuclease activity I describe is just one example; given the right setup, you can select for a lot of things, including self-replication.
**
Free floating RNA strands? Do you even know how RNA replication works?
**
As I said before, they were truly random.
“Seems much like” to you, perhaps, but to those of us who have actually bothered to study such things, it seems very different. When I heard Tom Steitz give a talk on his ribosome structure, he felt that the protein was nonessential. But then again, that’s no surprise, since the ribosome was already known from biochemical studies to retain most of its activity after the protein was removed.
It seems to me that you would do well to know the evidence a little better before you criticise it so derisively. Have you even so much as read the relevant talk.origins faqs?
Just a quick nitpick–carbon dioxide, carbonates, carbonites, and various other weird things are often considered “inorganic,” even though they do contain carbon.
Personally, I don’t see the point of this debate… here’s a quote from Gaspode:
**
Simply put, yes, there IS new evidence that has surfaced in the last 10 years. Hopefully Ben’s review will help things, although you may wish to review Cech’s Nobel Prize (late 80s?)
I have a (let’s say) one in ten million chance of being struck by lightning. My odds are pretty low.
However, had I been struck last week, it would be intellectually dishonest to say that divine intervention MUST have been responsible, seeing as how the odds were so low.
You can’t treat the probability of a future event the same way as something that’s already happened.
jb
If you want to posit a god that set up what we call Laws, then fine. There is certainly no way that anyone can dispute such a view. Science only takes us to that level, and has to stop at the ‘why’ of the laws. But after that point, such laws are suffiecient to explain biological evolution. When you cry that athiests are using evolution to preach against God you have it exactly backwards. Evolutionists are merely trying to defend their science from a bunch of people who want to insist that God must be pulling the strings or evolution can’t possibly work.
Then what has this to do with the question? No one here is disputing that organic molecules are capable of self-replication. This is established fact. You now need only explain the origin of the organic molecules.
WTF? This isn’t a minor boo-boo. When someone who’s posts imply a knowledge of biochemistry makes a statement like this, I don’t mind admitting the big red light on my bullshit detector starts flashing. It’s inconceivable to me that someone with an in-depth knowledge of cellular biochemistry could have failed to find at some stage a reference to inorganic CO[sub]2[/sub]. Something’s not right here, the level of basic ignorance doesn’t fit with the implied level of expertise.
I thank you, however had you believed me familiar with them, why did you seek to bring them to my attention I the first place?
Which goes to prove that organic molecules are capable of self-replication in controlled environments. Eureka.
More fully than you it would appear! My formal training is about 10 years old, as I have already implied. Aside from that it has been updated solely by reading ‘popular’ science periodicals such as “Scientific American” and “New Scientist”. What exactly is it about free-floating RNA strands that you find so implausible?
And a car will maintain most of it’s activity if the chassis is removed or rusted through. For how long and how effectively is another question.
[/quote]
It seems to me that you would do well to know the evidence a little better before you criticise it so derisively.
[/quote]
derisive adjective expressing contempt or ridicule.
Can you please give me an example of where I expressed contempt or ridicule of the evidence? I have made it clear that I am almost completely ignorant of the evidence, which makes it difficult to display either contempt or ridicule. I am however not completely ignorant of your attempts at logic. I have displayed skepticism towards the conclusions you have drawn from the evidence, apparently with good cause since you seem unable or unwilling to explain how “It’s very easy to create RNA under conditions like the early earth”. You seem to be implying that because yet another organic compound capable of self-replication under carefully controlled conditions has been discovered that this somehow makes it easy to knock up life in an afternoon.
If I combine this logical leap with your ignorance of basic chemical terms I have to conclude my skepticism of your beliefs is well founded.
Huh? jb
Your lightening analogy escapes me.
There is no debate in the illustration that lightning was the cause of your (presumed) burns and heart problems. We can ask why if we want to, but the causes of lightning are fairly well understood, and can be experimentally duplicated, at least on a small scale.
If on the other hand someone is found lying in a snow drift unconscious, and has burns to the soles of his feet and is suffering from heart problems, we would do well to look for causes. Lightning is the obvious cause, but if witnesses claim the sky was clear, there was no thunderclap and there is no way to experimentally provide evidence of lightning strike being probable, then we start looking for other possibilities. If we discover that a nearby transformer station has exploded, and that the person could have been thrown there by the explosion then we might want to conclude that this is the cause of the injuries. An explosion in a transformer station causing injuries to a human is far less probable than a lightning strike, and requires far more intelligent intervention, but in this case it is internally consistent and fits all the facts.
You can’t treat the probability of a future event the same way as something that’s already happened. However in this case we’re not sure what, if anything, has happened. We only no the current state.
I’m not saying that divine intervention is necessary to make something improbable happen. What I’m saying is that if two theories exist to explain something for which a cause cannot be definitively and scientifically etablished then a choice must be made: A or B. If one theory fits some of the facts and is highly improbable and internally inconsistent, and one fits all the facts, but is of unknowable (but admittedly high) improbability and internally consistent, then which theory should we choose using logic?
Of course logically I could reject both and try to seek an option C.
Gaspode, I agree with most of your suppositions, but I got the ol’ occam on the brain.
Given enough time, i find it perfectly reasonable that small simple self-replicating molecules could arise. And I mean a shitload of time. Even though they wouldn’t be considered “alive”, natural selection still affects them. Over time, as the earth changes, so do the molecules.
Some random change in one of these chemicals could allow it to self-replicate (think ice crystal growth- bad analogy to the chemical, but good to help think of it as self-continuing). The chemicals which adapt better to the environment wipe out the older chemicals. Give this time.
Soon (relatively speaking) you will have a big soup of moderately complex self-replicating chemicals. Give this more time, and you get better chemicals. Soon you have proto-RNA, which is semi-dependant on some other chemical process, V. As the proto-RNA becomes quasi-RNA, some other chemical, W, takes advantage of V’s niche. V is wiped out, quasi-RNA changes to take advantage of proliferation of W, W replicates more.
Improbable? Yes, but not in a predictable way. You can’t draw any inferences about a past state of affairs based on the improbability of it. That’s why I was talking about lightning.
To wit. I pull a card out of a hat. Suppose there were four trillion different cards in the hat (it’s a big hat- I’ve got a huge head). My odds of picking out that card were pretty low.
Had you said “he’s going to pick the ace of spades”, you would have had a the same odds. Had you gotten it right, it would have been very creepy (and perhaps divinely inspired).
But you can see the difference between the first odds and the second? First not creepy, second creepy.
Life arising is like the first one- you can’t derive creepiness by talking about the low probability of a past event.
jb
jb
As I’ve said, I’m fairly converant with the old ‘wack a UV source through an amino acid soup and you get protien’ experiment. The RNA version seems to be basically the same, but using far more complicated molecules and hence becomes more improbable. I don’t dispute that theoretically it could happen. However as I have said, theoretically the layers of gold and quartz found in a lava flow could generate AI, and this AI could have gone on to become the Earth Mother Gaia. Not very likely but I’m sure theoretically possible. No evidence either. Evolution and creationism work the same way.
My understanding is that one can only apply Occams razor if you have two theories that both equally explain the known facts but one requires more dieties. If they are not equal on all grounds applying Occams razor becomes silly.
As an example, I come across a house in a forest on an alien world where I know no human has ever been. I have no evidence of intelligent life on this world either. I postulate two theories: one that an intelligence built it using tools, and one that it spontaneously evolved from fallen trees and wind driven iron ore smelted by the friction of moving at super high speeds. If I apply Occams razor then I reject the one requiring an intelligent builder because theory two dispenses with all ‘dieties’. It’s a bit silly though isn’t it? Both theories effectively require a supernatural intervention if we define supernatural as anything allowing the ridiculous to happen.
The card analogy also eludes me. I’m not looking for creepy, I’m looking for a theory that fits the facts and is internally consistent. Your analogy deals with a situation where all the possible picks are equally ‘beneficial’.
However with the origin of life the card has effectively been retroactively called. The probabilities are really as high as they are. If the ace of spades hadn’t turned up you wouldn’t know about it. I have heard many times the argument : ‘We know it’s ridiculously improbable, but it must have happened because we exist.’ That reasoning only works if there is no other theory that more satisfactorily fits the facts and is equally probable.
Consider this analogy. A fire is racing towards you on an open prairie. It almost catches you and you pass out. You come too miraculously unburned in the middle of a creek, the fire many miles away. Do you immediately say:
‘Ah, I must have been picked up by a zoo-escapee tiger with a misplaced maternal instinct that carried me here, and now has left. It is very unlikely yet I know it must be so because if it were not so I would not be alive to know it.’
or
‘Ah, a freak tornado has plucked me from the flames and deposited me here. It is very unlikely, yet I know it must be so because if it were not so I would not be alive to know it’
or
‘Ah, a passing zeppilin lifted me form the fire and placed me here. It is very unlikely yet I know it must be so because if it were not so I would not be alive to know it’
All theories are unlikely, some perhaps more so than others, but in ways that can’t be readily calculated. You can’t say that any one is right simply because if it weren’t true you wouldn’t exist. There are other possibilities that might be true that fit all the known facts.
So now from what I understand your view, the controls of the environment, with lower levels of the building blocks of life, with originally a high random algorithm used in manipulating the ‘blocks’ into life, along with the rules of natural selection of rejecting ‘bad blocks’ so that the randomness would be reduced, would all be sufficient to develop, or ‘create’ life, on Earth as we know it. Am I correct?
It’s a fairly common definition to say that “organic compounds” are by definition those that contain carbon. If carbon dioxide is sometimes considered to be “inorganic carbon”, then yes, I think I’ve made a minor boo-boo. Do you also consider formaldehyde and methane to be inorganic, or are you demanding that I provide a synthesis of RNA from CO2?
**
Why is it such a big deal to you?
**
To be precise, it proves that the probability of a random RNA sequence being functional is not as low as some might suggest. I believe I already explained that.
**
What I find implausible is the idea that they would be used as the raw materials for RNA replication. Nucleotides, not RNA strands, are the raw materials.
But hey, you’re the expert. I’m only a professional molecular biologist. Maybe if I read “Scientific American” instead of Genes VI and “Structure” I’d know as much as you do.
**
What’s the big deal, then? If the ribosome retains most of its activity in the absence of protein, then why are you acting as if the RNA world hypothesis is sunk by the fact that it doesn’t retain 100% of its activity? You’re just grasping at straws.
**
Maybe when you said, ‘Oh, is that all! Nothing important then. Seems much like saying that the chassis nd bodywork of a car “merely serves to help stabilize its structure by filling in gaps”.’? Personally, I found that derisive. It certainly wasn’t a reasoned analysis.
**
I complain that you ridiculed the evidence I presented, and you reply that you can’t ridicule it because you’re completely ignorant of it?
**
Oh, great. I say that I can’t get the notebook down because my wife is asleep, and you claim that that means your skepticism is justified. :rolleyes: You’re really grasping at straws, aren’t you?
Sorry, but you’re descending into personal attacks and acrimony. If anyone is seriously interested in the work of Steitz and Eschenmoser, I’ll be glad to discuss what I know.
OK Ben. You appear to be having difficulty following an argument extending more than two posts, so Ill re-post everything and break it down bit by bit.
But Ben, mate, you said in your OP that the ribozymes were produced from random RNA, now you’re saying nucleotides. You are having problems explaining yourself. If you find it implausible that RNA was used, why did you say it was used? If you find it implausible that it was free-floating, could you please answer my first question and explain why?
**Consider it a lagniappe. **
You know, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that word, had to go find me dictionary. But what’s the given, that molecules self-replicate, or that you have explained their origin? If the former then I still don’t understand why you brought it up. If the latter, please explain.
**It’s a fairly common definition to say that “organic compounds” are by definition those that contain carbon. **
Which would probably get you somewhere, except that of course is not what you said. You seem to have forgotten, so I’ll quote you.
**you also consider formaldehyde and methane to be inorganic, or are you demanding that I provide a synthesis of RNA from CO2? **
I’m not demanding anything. The basis of my argument is that the creation of life from inorganic precursors is highly improbably to the level of being impossible. I asked whether, in the instance you quoted, the researchers concocted complex, self-replicating organic molecules from inorganic precursors. You said that no organic molecule could be synthesised from inorganic precursors. I demand nothing. You posted a statement, I asked for clarification as it related to the OP. You tried to trivialise the answer by using an inaccurate definition. What makes you think I’m demanding anything?
**To be precise, it proves that the probability of a random RNA sequence being functional is not as low as some might suggest. I believe I already explained that. **
Firstly you explained no such thing.
How does it prove any such thing. Can I see a reference to this scientific proof? Please don’t just refer to the article. As a professional biochemist you know the requirements for a scientific proof.
**But hey, you’re the expert. I’m only a professional molecular biologist. **
This is fairly pissy. I’ve made it quite clear I’m not an expert. I don’t even particularly doubt you are a professional biochemist. You do however have trouble following an argument for more than two steps. You have difficulty expressing your knowledge to non-experts (a common failing in many scientists). You also for some reason are ignorant of one of the most basic facts of chemistry (ie the definition of organic vs. inorganic).
You apparently have had difficulty following this argument over multiple posts as well, so I’ll re-post and break it down as well.
Where did I even imply that the hypothesis was sunk by that fact? I suggested that your trivialising of an essential element of an organic molecule by use of the word ‘merely’ was fallacious. Nothing more. You have done nothing to disprove this.
Straw man! Tag.
And another case where I apparently need to re-post and simplify.
I already stated that I was sceptical of your conclusions, for reasons that I have explained immediately above. This is an example of that scepticism. This is not contemptuous of the evidence. Try again please.
**I complain that you ridiculed the evidence I presented, and you reply that you can’t ridicule it because you’re completely ignorant of it? **
You understand this fully. What is your point?
**Oh, great. I say that I can’t get the notebook down because my wife is asleep, and you claim that that means your skepticism is justified. **
No, as I said I have no problem with the evidence supposedly contained in your notebook, though 24 hours later I still don’t see it. What I made quite clear is that my scepticism of you is based on an inability or unwillingness to support your assertions. That is, IMHO, a healthy mentality in any debate. Maintain scepticism until assertions are supported. Do you have a problem with this? Do you behave differently? When and if I see some evidence supporting your conclusions my scepticism will vanish.
**Sorry, but you’re descending into personal attacks and acrimony. **
Don’t be sorry, I’m doing no such thing. I’m stating the facts as I see them. If you can do better to dispute my interpretation of the facts than you have so far done, feel free. I think that’s what GD is for. Trying to re-phrase what you said, and misinterpreting what is clearly stated doesn’t go a long way to convince this little black duck. I’ll freely admit to addressing you quite bluntly, but as a great man once said, if you wish to speak frankly to me, you must be prepared to have me speak frankly in return. Of course if you can give me one example of a personal attack then please post it here. I will apologise profusely. I hope that had I degenerated into personal attacks the Mod’s would have pulled me up.
**If anyone is seriously interested in the work of Steitz and Eschenmoser, I’ll be glad to discuss what I know. **
That’s probably a good idea, because you haven’t given me much confidence that what you do know has much bearing on this discussion.
The guy’s name was Dr. Sidney Fox. An obituary of Fox appears at http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/. I believe he performed the original amino-acid-synthesis experiments with some guy named Miller.
What surprises me, though, is that far less attention has been paid to his later discovery of proteinoid microspheres. These purely-synthetic critters are about bacteria-sized and exhibit a lot of bacteria-like behavior (including mitosis!), but have no DNA/RNA. And all he had to do to synthesize proteinoid microspheres was heat up a block of proteinoids (molecules made of short chains of amino acids) and dunk it in a weak saline solution for a few minutes. Proteinoids themselves can be synthesized by baking amino acids under an ultraviolet lamp.
Gaspode, Ben misspoke but his point is still valid. Before there were any living things, the Earth was swimming in organic compounds. Organic compounds can be created quite easily without living things to manufacture them. Look at Titan, Saturn’s largest moon. It has oceans of methane (CH[sub]4[/sub]). No one is claiming that there are any bateria on Titan producing that methane. If you read Scientific American you’ll remember a few months back they had an article on the composition of nebula. Most of the carbon in these clouds is in organic form, coumpounds high in carbon but low in hydrogen and other elements (usually highly conjugated systems, like fused phenyl rings).
As Jeff_42 gave an example of an experiement that showed that under the conditions of the early Earth complex organic compounds can be formed from simple ones in the absense of living things. The experiment I believe he was refering to was done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. An electric spark was created in an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, and water vapor. From this experiement they produced some amino acids. Subsequent experiments altered the atmosphere somewhat (adding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas). Through these experiments scientists were able to produce all 20 amino acids, sugars, lipids, the purine and pyrimidine bases present in the nucleotides of DNA and RNA, and ATP (if phosphate was added to the mix) abioticaly*. The case seems strong for a abiotic Earth containing abundent monomers for the chief polymers of life.
*The above was adopted from Biology by Neil A. Campbell.
I claimed that in the lab they took an initial pool of random RNA sequences, and, by applying natural selection to them, produced functioning ribozymes. Obviously the raw materials for producing new copies of the RNA strands are nucleotide bases.
To draw an analogy, it’s as if I were to say that Shakespeare produced Hamlet from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s history, and you were to complain that, in reality, he produced it from pen and ink.
Frankly, I don’t see where this was confusingly phrased at all. I made a plain statement: starting with a pool of RNA strands, they produced ribozymes. You, not I, introduced the bizarre idea that RNA strands were being used as the raw materials for building new copies.
**
I believe that I have already explained this. Look, I just provided some information that I thought people here might find of interest. You seem to have interpreted everything through the lens of your own personal interest in the production of RNA from “inorganic” materials and then laid the fault at my feet when you read your own expectations into my post.
**
Sheesh, so I made a mistake in terminology. As has already been pointed out, the real point here is that you don’t need to start from inorganic carbon, because prebiotic environments can be rich in organic carbon. I can’t help but wonder why my terminology is such a sticking point for you; surely you realize that, by your own definition, the Miller-Urey experiment started from organic matter.
**
Then your argument is a straw man, because there is no particular reason why one must start with inorganic precursors; methane, formaldehyde, cyanide, and other organic materials are quite acceptable to anyone but yourself.
**
Since you seem to be having trouble:
They started with a mix of random RNA sequences.
They pulled out a functioning ribozyme.
They did it several more times, and pulled out several other functioning ribozymes.
Ergo,
It’s not that unlikely for a pool of random RNA sequences to contain functioning ribozymes.
**
What sort of reference would you like? As a professional biochemist, I would be content to look at the relevant article and read the proof which is presented therein. Apparently for a person such as yourself, that does not suffice.
**
Then why are you the only one who seems to be having problems understanding?
**
But the protein in the ribosome is not essential. How many times must I tell you that?
**
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that there was a time limit. :rolleyes: As I said, I couldn’t get to it because my wife was asleep. I checked the notebook today, and it turns out that the paper is (IIRC) at work.
**
So if I tell you I’ll get you the cite when I have a chance, that means I’m unwilling or unable to support my assertions?
Doc, I accept everything you say on chemistry matters. None of this is new information to be. The one thing we don’t agree on is that Ben misspoke. If you re-read the post you will see that I asked whether the experiment involved inorganic precursors. Seemed like a simple request for clarification. From there we could hopefully take the discussion one step further. Instead of simply answering Ben decided to cloud the issue with incorrect and misleading statements. I sought to clarify them, and suggested that his ability to make such an error is surprising to say the least.
Try this:
When you mention only one potential precursor I think it’s safe assumption that it is the raw material. If you suggested that starting with cloth and a brush da Vinci drew the ‘Mona Lisa’, I would assume the raw material was cloth. If you then went on to say it was cotton processed into paper that is also fair enough. To suggest that my assumption that it was cloth that was used is ‘bizarre’ without clarifying at any stage what you said demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the meaning of your own words.
start verb 1 [no obj.] come into being; begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space:
starting point noun a place that marks the beginning of a journey.
a basis for or introduction to study, discussion, or further development.
So can we reckon from the point in time when RNA strands already existed? Did the experiment come into being with RNA strands already there? Did the journey of discovery leading to the production of ribozymes begin with RNA strands? If I assume you know what ‘start’ means then this contradicts everything you’ve said in the post above. If you don’t understand what start means then I suggest you purchase a dictionary and refrain from suggesting that the conclusions others draw from you ambiguous statements are bizarre, and simply clarify what you have posted when it leads to confusion. This is not by any stretch of the definition a plain statement.
So you’re saying it has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever? If it does have any bearing then I think I’m justified in challenging it in GD aren’t I?
Nope, according to what I’ve written above I interpreted it through the lens of an English dictionary.
And as a result clouded the issue. Having done that you clouded it still further by suggesting it wasn’t in fact a mistake in terminology but in fact “a fairly common definition to say that “organic compounds” are by definition those that contain carbon”
I thought that in the interests of fighting ignorance I might clarify this, along with utilising it as justification for doubting either your knowledge or your motives and ability in expressing that knowledge.
Yes, thank you, pointed out by me amongst others
Because, as I have said, it clouds the issue, promotes ignorance and is misleading. The fight against ignorance continues on all fronts.
Yes, your point?
When did I ever say you ‘must’ start with organic precursors? Now if I were looking for a straw man I wouldn’t enter an enclosed space with a naked flame if that statement were around
Speaking of clouding the issue, and continuing the fight against ignorance.
“Some carbon-containing compounds such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO[sub]2[/sub], carbon disulphide (CS[sub]2[/sub], compounds containing the cyanide group (CN[sup]_[/sup]) …are considered for convenience to be inorganic compounds.” Chang, R. Chemistry, Third edition, Random House 1988.
And after my quote from Britannica above made it quite clear that cyanides are inorganic I’d almost suspect you of deliberately attempting to cloud the issue with this one.
Again I will ask you where I said they weren’t acceptable to me?
Again you seem to be having trouble following a line of argument, so again I will re-post and simplify.
Ben, you should know as a professional biochemist that this is not proof that ‘It’s very easy to create RNA under conditions like the early earth- IIRC it’s easier than making amino acids’.
Firstly you have gone from creation of RNA to pools of RNA forming nucleotides
Secondly and more importantly ‘likely’ in this sort of discussion requires statistical significance to support it. Was someone really able to calculate the statistical likelihood of the ease of creation of RNA under conditions like the early Earth? I find it hard to believe, and if not then you have no proof of your statement.
That is unless you are following another line of argument, in which case your statement that “ the probability of a random RNA sequence being functional is not as low as some might suggest.” is yet another blatant straw man! What others have suggested ‘the probability of a random RNA sequence being functional is…. low’? If it’s someone outside this discussion what is the relevance of this point?
See the paragraph immediately above!
I don’t know. Is it because I am the only one here who isn’t very familiar with the work you are describing? Is it because I am the only one using dictionary definitions of apparently ambiguous words and terms like ‘start’ and ‘raw materials’? Is it because I’m the only one listening to you? Does it matter? I have pointed out quite clearly that your statements are difficult to comprehend, unless you care to argue with a dictionary.
Yet again I will re-post and simplify
You didn’t have to tell me at all. I’ve been well aware of that fact for many years. There is a big difference between comments like
“the protein in the ribosome is not essential”,
“the ribosome was already known from biochemical studies to retain most of its activity after the protein was removed”
and this comment:
“the protein content of the ribosome merely serves to help stabilize”. Two are statements of fact and one is an interpretation and deliberate minimisation of facts without supporting evidence. Can you see the difference this time?
If so you are ready to proceed to:
a) “the protein content of the ribosome merely serves to help stabilize its structure by filling in gaps.”
b)”the chassis and bodywork of a car “merely serves to help stabilize its structure by filling in gaps”.”
c)“the ribosome was already known from biochemical studies to retain most of its activity after the protein was removed.”
d)“And a car will maintain most of its activity if the chassis is removed”
These statements belong in similar pairs. Can you tell me which statement is ‘much like’ statement b) and which two are ‘very different’? If so do the same for statement c).
If not I can try to explain more fully.
This argument has nothing to do with the facts, it has to do with your trivialisation of those facts and assertions that my comparisons are in fact ‘very different’ from the truth.
There isn’t! Did I say that there was or is this yet another strawman?. If it isn’t why do you believe you should be able to deprive me of my right to remain sceptical of your statements before I see any evidence?
I remain sceptical until presented with evidence to explain how “It’s very easy to create RNA under conditions like the early earth”. You seem to be implying that because yet another organic compound capable of self-replication under carefully controlled conditions has been discovered that this somehow makes it easy to knock up life in an afternoon. That evidence I want to see.
entries found in the The New Oxford Dictionary of English database (1)
unable adjective lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something: *was unable to conceal her surprise. *
Did you, at the time of my writing my statement, have the skill, means, or opportunity to provide me with a cite? If not then the answer to your question above is ‘Yes’. You could have answered that one yourself with a dictionary!
BenYou give me the distinct impression that you feel offended that I will not accept everything you say at face value. Understand that a statement like “It’s very easy to create RNA under conditions like the early earth” is going to be hard for anyone to swallow. Added to this you have on three separate occasions made misleading and confusing technical mistake on the same subject, once in direct contradiction to evidence from a very reputable and reliable source. Added to this your posts are confusing and you have refuted statements of mine with assertions you have been unable to support. This doesn’t make me inclined to take what you say at face value on this subject.