[tic mode on] You mean we have all be duped and lied to over all these years? It's all been one big conspiracy???? Well, go ahead...Tell us how it all came to be? But remember, anything to do with your mythical God is not a scientific answer. [tic mode off] Actually chinglu, you either need to do some reputable reading outside of your church, and you will see that Evolution, just like Abiogenesis, with regards to life on Earth, and Life in the Universe have a mountain of evidence supporting them, not the least being that they are actually the only scientific answers that exist. Your deity illusion is something that has been the ruin of man since he climbed down out of the trees, but the only way we knew at that time, to explain things. Why at times, [and in certain parts probably still do] man invoked his mythical deity in mountains, rivers, the Sun, and the Moon! But we have grown up since those times....most of us anyway. And science has shown us that this silly mythical deity is just not needed at all.
Wrong, non-responsive and dishonest. The bolded text was first cited by me. As I said, it renders all of your assumptions irrelevant. This whole thread is based on the false assumption that abiogenesis depends on cytosine derived from mineral sources (although you never could articulate that this is what you're claiming). And I rebutted that with evidence that you're simply ignorant of developments in the field. It has been "produced". What part of evidence don't you understand? As usual you are clinging to your superstitious (and probably political/business-related) beliefs rather than responding to the evidence on the table. Nothing in your argument is left standing, since, without rebuttal from you overturning the facts of cytosine production from mineral sources, explained in the two cites I gave above, then by default you admit to each and every fact alleged therein. All of your logic, therefore, necessarily falls. Case dismissed. :spank:
At least the Catholics were honest enough to admit, over the last 100 yrs. ago, that evolution was probably correct and true, at least that science does not fall under the purview of the Church. That leaves this whole issue as apologetics of literal interpretation of myth, which is among the worst fallacies that any religious person can commit, cast as an attack on science. Of course, chinglu has been proven false by Shapiro (as to whether abiogenesis depends on prebiotic cytosine). He's also been proven false by the folks who report on the "production" of cytosine from naturally occurring chemicals. chinglu just isn't honest enough to admit that he's wrong when all the facts point in that direction. But I like the way you said that . . . we have grown up since those times. I would almost argue that this isn't a religious matter as much as a problem of retarded development. Of course the two often go hand in hand. (Esp. with regard to the fundies.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, however, doesn't RNA use uracil anyway? So, I mean, even if we disregard entirely the idea mineralogical cytosine in the first place then so what? All it means, especially if we accept the RNA first hypothesis, is that the first life forms used uracil based RNA. Big deal.
For the sake of argument, let us assume there was a source of cytosine to help feed the need of RNA replicators. In RNA, cytosine is paired with guanine. However, cytosine is inherently unstable, and can change into uracil (spontaneous deamination). The practical problem that appears is, if we use the trial and error model to form evolving genes, all genes that rely on any cytosine will be changing, with time, to uracil. The uracil will then base pair with adenine, changing the gene during the next cycle. Would this logical drift, superimposed upon the assumption of random changes, make it possible to form the basic cell machinery needed to get the replicator over the hump? The magic trick behind statistical math. One thing that is not taught in science, is statistical modeling uses data assumption that cannot be proven, independently. The data assumptions of statistics are based on the circular logic of the math itself, with these assumption not independently provable in the lab apart from the circular logic. For example, the odds of me winning the lottery are say 1 in 10,000,000. After the lottery is over and I win, my odds were actually 1 in 1 based on hard data, apart from the circular logic, since i have the winning ticket. If i did not win, my odds were actually zero, as proven with after the fact data. The method gives all the data the same irrational attributes, sort of a magic power that you assume is there, but which can't be quantified apart from the assumptions of the method. We can't collect these odds of winning in a beaker, pour it on anyone, so they win. It is an imaginary placeholder. If it was real one could collect it. Since it uses imagination, the circular logic method of statistics can be used prove God, as long as you are not required to verify the data assumptions of the circular logic independent of the method, like science does with statistics. Christianity claims God is all loving and is everywhere in all things. The proof of this will be proven by the statistical changes that lead to progress and positive outcomes. We can see these all around us appearing here and there. If we have a risk of cancer by eating grapes, and you get well or never get cancer, God snatched good away from the jaws of risk. The math will show this. Science, uses a dual standard in terms of data assumptions and will expect us to prove God in the data, apart from the circular logic. What I would suggest to religious people is to take advantage of statistical to prove God in the data, with the circular logic and math of statistics that gets to avoid proving the data assumptions. Traditions in Christianity, have always had Satan as the antagonists of God, with the Satan connected to bad and evil things that happen. We will equate Satan to risk factors and chaos. God by being good, also permeates the data. God is like a white smoke, and is fighting to the dispel the gray mist of risk that also permeates the data. As long as the math has predictive power it is valid. For example, we can do a risk analysis, such as the risk of being struck by lightning in the storm. Risk is everywhere trying to do bad. It can pull lightning bolts in any direction it needs. We all have it like a disease due to the devil in the storm. After the storm ends and the risk goes away, the output products of risk do not appear in most of the sample population in the data field. Almost nobody gets any injury. This is due to God intervening against the antagonist called risk. The high level of safe people proving God with the same data used by risk analysis. The math will always work, even with the circular logic of the God aspect, that opposes the risks. If the risk of getting hurt are 1 in 1000 the odds of God helping are 999 in 1000. This is the preponderance of the data and therefore needs to be considered the main variable since more data is better than less data. The age of reason appeared, centuries ago, to get rid of these magic data trick approaches of circular logic based math, so one religion does not gain enough power to set up the dual standard to promote its own superstitions with circular logic. Logical and rational methods are the cure for the chaos religion in science. Magic science makes it harder to do real science since its religious angle (uncalibrated mind) is repressive to reason and enlightenment.
That was the second thing I considered saying to chinglu after I went looking for the date that Creationists started arguing against cytosine (I think it's ca. 2001 or so). He seems intent on alleging that primordial RNA had to contain the cytosine nucleotide, plus the free cytosine needed for synthesis from base pairs. Also, I think he's stuck in the ca. 1960 hypothesis by Gilbert which assumed that this was the case (all four bases were present in the soup), which was in part founded in the fact that Miller-Urey had at least synthesized adenine. I was also going to say that RNA-world has its detractors, so who cares if it's wrong altogether? I doubt it, but it won't stop the research, and I suspect that some day there will be some pretty clear and convincing evidence that even the Creationists will be gagging on. It does seem that some pretty complicated set of reactions may have occurred (if RNA-world turns out to be true) to set up all the precursors, which need a generation or two of good curiosity seekers to unravel. The Creationists could just as well have come down on the fragility of RNA itself. They didn't really need to single out cytosine. But then, they are dismissing the central point, that abiogenesis is a fact proven by the mere existence of life (ruling out alien terraforming of course Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). But chinglu needs to catch up with the topics he's attacking. Here's where I would probably take some of the talking points: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/
Sounds expertish. I produced a paper that shows cytosine is unlikely to RNA replication. Now, if you are proposing a new pathway, provide links.
No, you produced a link that argues against the 1960s era assumptions of the first cut at RNA-world hypothesis, which has nothing to do with replication per se. It's the overall assumption that the primordial soup contained all the precursors. Origin provided the rebuttal paper by Shapiro which explains that, if all the precursors were too sparse, then there was a preliminary process, yet to be defined. In other words, Shapiro says your OP is moot. And, as Origin said (as did Shapiro and millions of people who ever confronted this nonsense) "life obviously exists" therefore the assumptions of your OP are not only moot, but absurd. Further, I posted two papers that further discredit your fallacious claims, in that the investigators "produced" ample sources of the precursors, contrary to your bogus claims otherwise. You never bothered to address those two papers. Therefore they are presumed adopted and your OP falls. On multiple counts. It's dead as a doornail. You just don't know how to admit defeat when your posts have been overturned by a preponderance of the evidence. But that's not surprising. How many times have we (not you) labored over the same old tired creationist arguments? :shrug:
The Shapiro link was provide by me in post #8. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141853-Cytosine&p=3199949&viewfull=1#post3199949 And Shapiro wrote RNA replication is unlikely as the precursor to life because it requires cytosine and he proves a stable source of cytosine was not available in a prebiotic earth. I have provided quotes to this paper in thread thread supporting this conclusion.
The link to Shapiro was provided by origin. Your link doesn't count since you are misrepresenting and/or lying about what Shapiro said and/or you never bothered to read it and or you don't understand what it says. Two statements by Shapiro negate your OP: 1. That a Pre-RNA world existed, and 2. That cytosine was not essential in the pre-RNA world. Therefore your premise is defeated. Furthermore, you have affirmed, by failing to deny, the two reports of "production" of cytosine (you still fail to define what that means) which I posted. Hence your argument is defeated by all three sources. But keep ignoring the rebuttal. It's typical of creationist dishonesty. :shrug:
This post is pure fiction. I provided the link and proved it. You wrote Prove your assertions from the article. And, I said Shapiro claimed RNA replication was not a viable pathway to life. He stated the below in the article.
No you just did't bother to read what I wrote. I said your link to Shapiro doesn't count since you mangled what he actually wrote. Origin repeated the link back to you with the correct interpretation. You're just expecting readers to be really really stupid. And for the most part I suspect they're smarter than you think. You mean you can't read? How about starting with the last sentence you cited from Shapiro in your post immediately above: Are you incapable of understanding the plain meaning of words, or is this some kind of pathological game you're playing? Yes he said that. The last sentence completely trumps your entire argument. That's what makes this dialogue so absurd. It's as if you have no comprehension of common speech, or else you're simply running game here. If you can't comprehend Shapiro's plain speech, then I suppose I can't expect you to understand mine. Too bad. You still lose. Your arguments are defeated by this statement alone, if we rely only on Shapiro as a sole authority. Since you've foolishly stuck your neck out on that, you've crashed and burned before you ever got off the ground. This probably the sorriest abuse of logic I've encountered at this site. But since you've found your way to committing it, you can't possibly be expected to understand why it's a no-go. All I can suggest is that you enroll in night school and try to defeat whatever mental issues or thinking errors are blinding you from the absurdity of your posts. Unless of course, this is all a sham, and you're just pretending to have a disability of some kind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I guess only you know what your game actually is. And the jury is still out on whether this is a ruse under the guise of a covert creationist stance. All a person can say is: so what? :shrug: You don't appear capable of intelligent dialogue, or else you're simply unwilling to do more than to prank your audience. How's that working for you? You must have at least a crank or two supporting you so far. But so what. Nothing you've said is logically coherent, not in this thread, nor in any other thread I've seen you posting in. So what's really going on, that's what the halfway well informed readers would want to know.
Better still, instead of asking all and sundry to prove what mainstream science takes as standard and evidenced, why don't you, just for once, show some evidence supporting your concept. You have been lambasted in the SR thread and shown to be grossly in error, you have been invalidated many times in the past on similar subjects, and it appears you have also lost it here. The incumbent model stands chinglu, with Evolution, Abiogenesis and SR. You need to show they are wrong. You have not ever done that...ever. And you never ever will do it....ever.
Let me approach this from another angle. Instead of fight the current, let me swim with the current since it is easier. Say we don't have cytosine, but we still have the other three bases. If we had simple replicators, the result would be extensive improper base pairs, since uracil has no cytosine as a mate. This is not useful as a template, however, the extensive improper hydrogen bonding will make it easier for the RNA to separate, since the average hydrogen bond is at higher potential. This is not a good template, but it will provide training wheels for RNA separation processes to develop. Once a source of cytosine appears the templates will firm up while still retaining separation tricks. What this also suggests is if the poor template relationships, were used to make protein, the protein would be building up variety, faster that with a good template. The goal would be the protein grid developing autonomy leading to other features, before the templates firm up. Protein in water will create unique folds which defines the volume with lowered entropy; leads to order.
Well Shapiro make it clear, you must make your "thesis" work in a prebiotic earth environment. What he basically showed was scientists made RNA replication work in the lab but this would not function in prebiotic conditions. No one has been able to refute this. You have the same problem. You must prove your idea works in a prebiotic earth environment.
