1) I read your link. It does not mention cytosine. Further, the hotter, the quicker cytosine breaks down. So, you link is useless for many reasons. 2) I am not here to prove one theory or another. I am simply pointing out that RNA replication is not the pathway. Obviously, there is some valid pathway. Oh, are you here to prove a particular opinion/religion?
Good, as I have been saying, science cannot prove a viable cytosine source to the RNA replication model.
Chinglu suggests the bottom equation shows degradation of cytosine, as per the arrow direction. Notice, one loses a NH3 molecule in that direction into the enivornment. In an environment rich in NH3, the reversible reaction would have a higher concentration in the cytosine direction. In a very high NH3 environment, the arrow would likely reverse, and Cytosine would be the dominant product of the reversible reaction. I wonder if the early earth environment was high in NH3 gas?
So in other words you have no idea what cytosine is. That figures. Next time just ask the people who bothered to advance their knowledge of the world to explain science to you. Stop pretending to know what you're talking about. OMG then all the calderas must be biologically dead. Useless to you because you're unqualified to understand its relevance. You just think you are. But admission noted. In the Bible you mean. Not in biology. Just nothing the evidence reveals since your objective is to discredit science you never bothered to study. I'm here at my leisure responding to the crap you're peddlng as science, exposing it as the creationism you think readers are too stupid to detect.
You must prove cytosine construction in the vents you proposed. How long will that take? I simply tried to explain to you that you do not have a viable mechanism. Otherwise, connect it to some paper. How long will that take?
No, the opposite is true. Chinglu can't disprove anything that has to do with math or science, despite all of his delusions of grandeur to the contrary, because he never bothered to study the requisite material. Therefore, for the umpteenth time, science stands and Chinglu falls. And as falls Chinglu, so falls all of Creationism. It all moronic propaganda pretending to be selling science. God did not magically suspend the laws of nature and put the first living cell on Earth through the power of the Holy Stork, or any other character of his imagination. Nor did God temporarily allow cytosine to last a million years at boiling temperatures without degrading. Proving nothing that Chniglu thinks reverses the mountains of evidence that he seems to need to convince himself that it's plain stupid to interpret myth, legend and fable as literal truth. Only a moron would think that questioning the stability of any nucleotide can falsify abiogenesis. But, boy, do the morons love to harvest ongoing questions in science as proofs! Of course the first living cell may have been sent here in a UFO, protected from entry into the atmosphere. Or else the aliens set up their terraforming instruments and created all the alien cytosine needed to fabricate the first prokaryote. Or is was a crumb that fell from their food replicator when they stopped to enjoy a picnic in the wonderful methane atmosphere they so love. Or it was a scrap of dander that fell from one of their pseudopods when they went for refreshing dip in a nearby caldera. Gee, anything's possible. That's why we rely on best evidence. And we try to restrain ourselves from being smart-asses in regard to the facts and evidence science is collecting. :shrug:
I don't have to prove squat. You're the plaintiff. The burden of proof is on you. It took me under 60 seconds to find a link to Aquifex. You just punted, because you have no idea why it's significant. no you tried to deny that Aquifex has a viable mechanism, because you aren't a biologist, just as you never were a physicist or mathematician as I mentioned concerning your relentless posts about the "truth" of relativity. I already provided sufficient facts controverting your complaint. The motion for summary judgment is granted by operation of law. Case dismissed. Go find some other venue to pester folks about your ideas on Divine Intervention.
Yes I am the plaintiff. But, I do not have to prove your worthless proposals. So, you can't prove your own proposals? Is that correct? Aquifex has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Good then you admit that it doesn’t matter how fast it degenerates (the rest of my remark which you ignored) if there is an abundant supply of fresh cytosine available for replication. Now the trick is this: the RNA need only replicate a little faster than the cytosine degrades. How fast is that? Or, if you wish, you can deduce that the available cytosine was, on average, plenty stable enough, since, after all, life did arise after all, as Origin suspects. Or you can answer the paper that Origin gave you, which proposes a pre-RNA stage, which builds plenty of nucleotides in advance of the RNA “Adam”. Or you can propose that aliens transported it here in a UFO or teleported of some kind (if it can’t handle thermal vents it sure can’t handle burning up on entry into the atmosphere). Or you can get on with your pet proposal, that Odin or Vishnu or Yahweh or some other fantastic terraforming Sky Daddy put it here, simply by defying all the laws of nature. Gee, I wonder which of your proposals has a ghost of a chance of being correct? Hence the burden of proof is on you. Prove that the RNA-world hypothesis fails under the paper you are quote-mining. (But be sure to read the paper Origin submitted.) Not only have I not proposed anything, but my posts are not without merit. I directed you to hyperthermophilic bacteria which contain cytosine and none of your concern (heat) is preventing them from succeeding in their steaming hot little chemical niches. That tells you something is wrong with the “cytosine is fragile at high temps” proposal. Figure out the place where pre-biotic cytosine is being produced (e.g. range from the thermal vent) and tell us what the temperature is there. For all you know, it’s all being produced in frigid waters. What does the RNA-world hypothesis say about it? Or, reply to Origin’s author, and prove that’s it’s impossible that a pre-RNA stage existed, which built all the cytosine needed regardless of temperature (but you still need to figure out what the temperature was). Or prove that alien or Divine terraforming was the cause. I have not proposed anything. You have. And it's a tired old boneheaded creationist complaint, trying to justify literal interpretation of religious myth. All I did was to direct you to the existing hyperthermophiles which all, by the way, have DNA built out of cytosine and the rest of the nucleotides. It has to do with cytosine existing in the presence of heat, which is your complaint. Therefore it renders your argument meritless, as I said above. You haven’t established a particular hypothesis which you’re trying vainly and in vain to defeat. You’ve intimated RNA so we have to assume you mean RNA-world. You haven’t shown where any proponent of RNA-world has stated the ambient temperature (and while you’re at it, you might as well state the pressure) of formation of pre-biotic RNA. The general assumption that life probably arose near thermal vents does not mean the ambient was hot. It means the water was anywhere from hot to cold, depending on depth (range) but rich in inorganic carbon compounds, sulfides, hydrogen gas, transition metals, and/or methane. But none of that matters, does it. :shrug:
This does not falsify abiogenesis, but it does call into question the replicator hypothesis for life. The problem with the replicator theory, beyond the cytosine bottleneck, is it come in too late in the timeline to be rational. It needs a degree of magic based on the god of chance. The main conceptual complaint that the Evolutionists have with the Creationist POV, is its timeline begins only 6000 years ago. This point in the time line is not consistent with all the data that shows life and the precursors of life appearing earlier. The replicator approach goes much further back into time, but from POV of the biggest picture of life; abiogenesis, it also comes in late in the timeline. Other things like cytosine have to already be here. To someone, like myself, who uses a variable like water, that was there from the very beginning of the timeline and is still critical and irreplaceable to life, the replicator theory appears like a science version of mythology. It amounts to an atheist version of god, stemming from the god of chance. This mythology does not begin with full animals in Eden, but the simplest critter in water. It was magical moment in atheist mythology. The god of chance and casino math attributes features to data that can be proven not to exist. We all have risk for a car accident, yet many people go their entire life without accident. How can one have risk but no long term impact? Can we isolate this version of risk in a jar or beaker to see how it differs from risk with results? The theory does not say these are different but still can we isolate this variable into a beaker anyway to make sure it is real and not imaginary? If all risk is the same, is risk like a fog or gas that is the same for all, but condenses into droplets so some get more and other get none? If this is the case, once we isolate the substance called risk, a before and after picture, should show it gaining and losing based on the data. There is a magic quality to this mythology that remains a mystery. This mystery magic lifted RNA replicators from the mud, with the fog of odds condensing into one big droplet. I like the idea of a more logical and rational way that does not depend in the mystery and magic properties that chance gives to data, which we cannot see or measure, even though the religion of odds says it is there. The only way to measure it is via the self serving dogma of the math that creates this variable. It cannot be collected independently of the math; objective POV.
What is the source of your cytosine? And, what is your mechanism if you had cytosine to generate the original RNA?
It’s not mine. It’s yours. Or perhaps you mean to say it’s Gilbert’s? Of course you would have to know what you’re talking about to explain “whose” cytosine it is, which I think is beyond your scientific aptitude (otherwise you would have presumably taken college Biology & Chemistry, as a minimum, before launching into this attack.) What does Origin’s link (Shapiro) say is the source of prebiotic cytosine? It’s not my mechanism, but one of Nature’s. If you actually cared about the question rather than simply trying to drive a Creationist stake through the heart of demonic evolutionary biology, then you’d research the question and report your findings here instead of using the thread as a ruse to bait college educated folks to spoonfeed you facts so you can vomit them up and cry about how unconvinced you are. Just do your own homework and state the facts as you know them. Cut the bullshit and this will stay within the intended framework of intelligent discussion. Hell, even a troll such as myself knows how to Google: In the presence of CaCO(3) and different inorganic oxides, namely silica, alumine, kaolin, and zeolite (Y type), neat formamide undergoes the formation of purine, adenine, cytosine, and 4(3H)-pyrimidinone, from acceptable to good yields http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full Here we show that in concentrated urea solution—such as might have been found in an evaporating lagoon or in pools on drying beaches on the early Earth—cyanoacetaldehyde reacts to form cytosine in yields of 30-50%, from which uracil can be formed by hydrolysis. These reactions provide a plausible route to the pyrimidine bases required in the RNA world9. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v375/n6534/abs/375772a0.html And be truthful. Noting that you complained to Origin, after he furnished you Shapiro’s paper: You’re lying, to shore up your creationist nonsense. Cite page and paragraph number where Shapiro said “the RNA pathway” [sic] is “cut off”. Again, the burden of proof is on you, since you’re the complainant. So far all you’ve provided are bald assertions and your Creationism-biased opinions, with little or no classroom hours in science evident in anything you’ve posted (here or elsewhere) to give credence that you even have a clue what you’re talking about. From Shapiro: On the basis of this evidence, it appears quite unlikely that cytosine played a role in the origin of life. This statement renders your OP moot, if Shapiro is to be taken as the last word on the question. But of course the devil’s in details, isn’t it, my fundamentalist brother? It proves nothing. It adds a possible caveat to Gilbert’s assumptions 20 yrs ago that all the nucleotides were freely available from the primordial soup. This was a work in progress since the 1960s when scientists first inferred that RNA came first. As the evidence began rolling in, as the tools evolved, then--predictably--there were updates to the first hypothesis, including the caveat that cytosine might be problematic. However, in Shapiro’s honest quest to fully account for the process (since this is science, not religion, and therefore we have something called accountability which you creationists immunize yourselves against) it seems to have encouraged other researchers to delve a little deeper into those diabolical details that seem to keep cursing you. So stop insisting that every technical debate going on among experts is something akin to evidence that science is fundamentally broken. No your problem is that you aren't actually interested in learning about the world around you, but rather this is a guise for shoring up your literal interpretation of myth. You obviously haven't done a simple search (other than quote mining a single source) before jumping into the ring unprepared for the answers you're getting. Or don’t your brethren teach “Ask and you shall receive”? :shrug: Now get off the gas. Stop trying to insert yourself and your superstitious world view into matters of legitimate research. :spank:
The below is from the Shapiro article. "No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine, even in a specialized local setting, at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition. On the basis of this evidence, it appears quite unlikely that cytosine played a role in the origin of life." This renders the rest of your post insignificant.
Like the heavy mathematics chinglu, I'm not quite into this detailed biological stuff.....Except to say, that it is quite obvious that speaking Universally, Abiogenesis cannot be invalidated or falsified. In fact it is the only answer available to us. So in answer to your apparent question, simple chemical reaction/s!! I am of course ignoring the mythical concept of some all powerful deity of choice, that originally gained "form" probably when we first climbed down out of the trees. Although we are unable to explain the detailed intricate inners of Abiogenesis, Evolution and the BB, the evidence, common sense and logic available to us, does dictates that all three are quite obviously true and in the top echelons of scientific theories.
Try to understand my post. It shows the cytosine pathway to RNA replication is highly unlikely and certainly not a provable pathway. That is all this is about. I was looking to see if someone knew another cytosine pathway.
