it’s really weird that you keep insisting that an experiment answer questions that the experiment was not intended to answer
5 Likes
We actually don’t know that and in part depends on how you define life. The relationship of RNA, protein, and the translation system to the ultimate origin of living cells(assuming only a replicating cell is to be called life) is unknown.
1 Like
Can someone help @michael_okoko? He has quoted my definition, chosen two examples that violate my definition, then claimed they fit my definition to criticize my points. I’m at a loss how to help.
I’m claiming molecule X behaves like molecule X. But excerpting this little bit and playing games with the words to make it say something I did not intend is not helpful to either of us.
You’re reading into my post something it doesn’t claim and then demanding that I explain what my post doesn’t say. That’s why I skipped it.
Well, yes, I’m pointing it out. I guess you don’t like that!
It’s really weird for you to suggest I’m saying something I’m not saying.
More detail concerning the road between these milestones:
The abstract:
Although the mode of action of the ribosomes, the multi-component universal effective protein-synthesis organelles, has been thoroughly explored, their mere appearance remained elusive. Our earlier comparative structural studies suggested that a universal internal small RNA pocket-like segment called by us the protoribosome, which is still embedded in the contemporary ribosome, is a vestige of the primordial ribosome. Herein, after constructing such pockets, we show using the “fragment reaction” and its analyses by MALDI-TOF and LC–MS mass spectrometry techniques, that several protoribosome constructs are indeed capable of mediating peptide-bond formation. These findings present strong evidence supporting our hypothesis on origin of life and on ribosome’s construction, thus suggesting that the protoribosome may be the missing link between the RNA dominated world and the contemporary nucleic acids/proteins life.
3 Likes
Here’s what your wrote:
None of those issues you raise there were intended to be addressed by this experiment, yet you are criticizing if for not addressing them.
Clear now?
1 Like
He’s doing just fine.
No, you were referring to multiple molecules. If you’re not implicitly claiming that “life molecules” are inherently different (a form of vitalism, which is repeatedly discredited), your statement becomes a meaningless tautology. Therefore, his question to you is perfectly appropriate:
You’re playing games, Marty, not Michael.
No, it was indefensible, because the experiment was about “life molecules” producing different “life molecules” outside of a living system.
You literally defined “life molecules” as:
You’re tying yourself in knots.
Well, no, you are producing the non-sequiturs.
1 Like
It follows from your complaints. You don’t have to say it when it is logically implied.
1 Like
Its the other way around.
True.
Yup.
False. I made no claims about the aforementioned molecules fitting your definition. Instead, I assumed your definition was right and asked that question about carbon dioxide not being present before life (however you define it) “began” to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument.
This makes no sense.
More importantly this is irrelevant to the study of contention. They were not concerned about molecules, but whether complexity could emerge following the application of Darwinian evolution in a population of self-replicators.
Read your post again:
Emphasis mine.
What is special about the way life molecules behave? And how does the behaviour of these life molecules conflict with anything in that study?
3 Likes
Of course! Because that’s what the paper is doing!
Again, this paper uses molecules that were not present on early earth (pure right handed ribose, phosphates, activated nucleotides, and an E. coli translation system), an environment that was not present on early earth, sees the molecules do what molecules like that do in life settings, then claims this is evidence of something that could have led to life on early earth. There is zero evidence that the molecules named existed on early earth before life began.
The authors might as well have a hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese with a sulphur dioxide atmosphere, shown that green cheese mold can grow in that environment, and then claimed that this supports their hypothesis.
@swamidass, this is why a lot of people don’t waste time on these forums. The atheists gang-mug people who point out issues. They claim either we’re ignorant, stupid, or a scoundrel, or alternatively (as in this case) they intentional read into a post things it doesn’t intend and then claim we’re either ignorant, stupid, or a scoundrel. Why they are defending this paper so aggressively, I truly don’t know. I don’t share their faith, and it seems to drive them nuts.
Is the intention to have the last word by simply chasing people away? Is that how these forums should be?
That’s not my intention.
There is bad behavior all around, unfortunately.
Surely not in this thread.
1 Like
My emphasis added. Please give observed examples of the processes observed in this study occurring “in life settings.”
1 Like
No, it isn’t. You have employed several straw men here.
As another example of your jumping to objectively false conclusions, I’m not an atheist.
7 Likes
The paper does no such thing. Its obvious you don’t understand it.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1907169116
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300640
Now you need to walk back some of those. More importantly, you are still employing a strawman argument.
Strawman.
Really?
Strawman. Yawn.
I am not an atheist, but verily I say unto you, you have been spitting strawmen all along. You have a poor understanding of that paper
I believe in the Trinity and I am also defending this paper against the misrepresentations you are making of it. You also seem to have fantastic imaginations about some of the atheists here.
2 Likes
Replication of RNA? Mutations? 
No, the study and you employ straw men.
You sure act like one. If it walks like a duck…
No. The specific process that was witnessed here: The “transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network.”
What examples can you provide of that?
2 Likes
What straw man does the study employ?
Yes, there is lots of good evidence that the translation system itself is the product of an evolutionary process in some sort of RNA world(and evidence that there was an RNA world). Creationists usually ignore such evidence(they offer no explanation for the existence of this evidence) and focus instead on gaps in our knowledge, or narrow-scope experiments not designed to explore all the relevant questions, to argue that the origin of life is impossible and that experimental efforts to probe it are either failures or misleading.
All these creationist arguments fail upon closer inspection, as @Marty is demonstrating with his continued mindless assertions in this thread. Creationists appear to get intensely TRIGGERED by origin of life research.
2 Likes
No one’s touting either one. Did you even read the paper?
I just pointed out yours. Show me one of mine. I don’t see that you know what the straw-man fallacy is, Marty.
In what way do I act like one? Are you trying to say that pointing out your serial misrepresentations constitutes disbelief in God?
3 Likes
What is this evidence, and, what evidence is there that the translation system existed in the time frame between the beginning of RNA world and the emergence of complexity?