Really? They only elect people who are completely informed on the latest research on the Origin of Life? Exactly how is that pertinent to working as an engineer?
IOW, even you realize his “challenge” is complete nonsense. And so you create an imaginary scenario in which he meant something other than what he wrote out in plain English.
Yeah, that’s not at all convincing.
It most certainly does. You stated no requirement on making parts from scratch.
That is, let’s give you all the components of a cell, can you put them together and have it work?
Parts of other cells are “given parts”, are they not? And they were put together? And they work? Challenge met.
No doubt you will quibble, and try to move the goalposts yet again. Yet it is clear that “new” parts could be made by modifying DNA from one cell, inserting it into another to “grow new parts”, then transferring these to create a third cell to create something even more unique. There is no technical barrier to doing this. Reusing existing parts is just a convenience, not a necessity.
False. Just straight up false. The ATP is being used in that protocell in RNA replication reactions.
Anyway, I’ve lost interest here. Once again I am satisfied that anyone who reads the exchange we’ve been having already has enough information to make up their mind.
Consider that you didn’t know the above linked paper existed before I posted it, declared that no such paper existed before having even checked, and even though I quoted you the abstract with key sentences in bold, you still didn’t understand what it said.
That’s all I need to completely undermine you being a reliable guide to what there is or could be answers to out there on the internet, and in scientific journals.
On the subject of biochemistry, molecular evolution, and research in the origin of life, you appear to me a total know-nothing and you have extremely lacking reading comprehension skills. Possibly because you consider the subject to be threatening to deeply held religious convictions, who knows? In any case, any further discussion here is a waste of time.
I didn’t say that, of course, it means they recognize the work he’s done, and it indicates he has competence in general.
I think what I said is clear, what can he possibly mean, other than creating an interactome, if you have a complete set of all the components? If there is only one reasonable meaning, then that is no doubt what he meant. This is not some convoluted statement I’m making.
Certainly, Tour said let’s give you all the components, can you put them together and make a working cell? Nothing was said about making parts from scratch.
No, taking a part or two, transferring them to a different cell, is not anything like taking all the components of a cell, assembling them, and have it work.
I don’’t see this in the abstract, they summarize what they did as follows: ““In this report, we explore passive diffusion of solutes across lipid bilayers as one possible uptake mechanism.” Nothing about using the ATP that diffused.
To make a pointed question, where have any of the researchers who were challenged answered any of them? Surely if all they had to do was point at a paper such as the one you mentioned, they would have done so. And where have I misunderstood the abstract? It’s all about diffusion.
But competence in what? OoL is about science, not engineering. Tour is not a member of the NAS.
Yes, it is. You’ve moved the goalposts all over the field. The interactome is a red herring in this context.
So you’ll argue about a paper when you haven’t read beyond its abstract? That’s sad.
I bolded it in my post. Are you actually, genuinely, blind, or dyslexic, or illiterate or something?
Really? Well…
So we go through this exercise again of you showing signs of blindness, or dyslexia, or illiteracy, or being completely ignorant of basic molecular biology.
They consider Tour a laughing stock. A lunatic. Like a flat-Earther. Genuinely not worthy of their time.
I agree with them.
Doug Axe hasn’t answered Art Hunt’s challenge after 21 years. Yet you don’t seem at all bothered by that. Why not?
I have to share in some of the blame for that one, to be honest. Turns out the experiment with an encapsulated catalyst is only mentioned in that 2001 paper, as ongoing, and the results were not published until 2007:
So in the abstract, you summarize what you have done. Leaving out the use of ATP, well that’s not a good summary, if you did that.
Um, what they said was that ATP could diffuse at a rate that could supply a function. That does not mean it was supplying said function.
Yet they can’t seem to answer him. Nor can you. Yet you claim victory. Now that’s really funny.
He did answer Hunt’s initial challenge, and Hunt claims Axe addressed only one of his points. I went through Hunt’s challenge, and showed him where he was mistaken and how, and where, and I’m waiting for Hunt’s reply. Then I addressed Hunt’s points he says Axe has not addressed, and again I await a reply.
He didn’t. You telling us that Axe wrote gibberish is not addressing Art’s point.
You have yet to address a single point anyone has made.
Yeah that’s on me. But the experiments have in fact been done, so it was still false when you said:
That wasn’t true, was it? The fact is you just have no clue what kind of research has been done.
I’m still waiting for you to show that there is any merit in Axe’s reply to Hunt. He offers nothing of substance to the first objection. The answer to the second is based on a supposed analogy with nothing to show it is valid. The answer to the third is a nonsensical after-the-fact rationalisation.
So, let’s be clear: You are admitting that Axe responded to, at most, only one of the points @Art raised, and otherwise has not responded. It has, instead, fallen to you to respond on Axe’s behalf. (And wouldn’t Axe be absolutely thrilled if he knew that?)
The question, then, remains: Why are your panties all in a knot about busy scientists not taking the time to respond to Tour’s “challenge”, but you seem completely unperturbed when Axe ignores challenges issued directly to him? Isn’t that just a bit hypocritical?
What Axe wrote in reply was not gibberish, and I have not said that. And other people in the Axe article thread are now addressing what Axe said in reply! I’m glad to see this. And this is evidence that Axe’s reply is not gibberish.
Wow. Just wow. What point have I not addressed? I’ve tried to address every point that has been made here, and in other threads I’m active in.
All you’ve done is tell us what Axe wrote. You did not say that it was gibberish. I’m saying it’s gibberish. You can’t explain why reducing a continuous variable to a binary one has any relevance to the evolution of beta-lactamase in nature. You could still think about diffusion if you want to learn why…
We are all pointing out how it is in no way responsive to the points made. You have yet to point out how it is responsive, because you can’t explain it.
But I’m missing where the actual use of ATP in a protocell is described…
