Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

RNA World Hypothesis

tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 4:00:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do you believe in the RNA world hypothesis? Why/why not?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 3:25:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 4:00:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe in the RNA world hypothesis? Why/why not?

I do.

100%.

Here's why.......

OK.......to begin...I believe that the strongest evidence for the RNA World Hypothesis is the fact that the ribosome--which is a huge (well, by molecular standards) molecular "system" that manufactures proteins--is a ribozyme.

I know. Not a typeo! LOL> The ribosome is made up of RNA as well as proteins.

When microbiologists look at these guys, they see that the the way they communicate--or transcirbe- is "put in motion" by RNA! As opposed to only proteins. This might explain or at least hint that the use of RNA by our primordial oozes ancestors enabled the further chemical reactions.

But before proteins.

I am not sure I worded that correctly.

I will try and find a link.

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 6:09:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 4:00:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe in the RNA world hypothesis? Why/why not?

I think the RNA world is fairly compelling given the nature of ribozymes, self catalization, and some of the RNA related vestigial chemistry.

I don't think it's necessarily the whole story; it simplifies some of the protein synthesis component, but not enough on it's own.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 7:21:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The RNA World Hypothesis, I believe, is not the whole thing. I do believe that it probably went from an RNA world to a RNA, Protein, DNA world, but I believe there is more to it than just what is posited in the RNA World Hypothesis.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:52:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 6:09:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:00:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe in the RNA world hypothesis? Why/why not?

I think the RNA world is fairly compelling given the nature of ribozymes, self catalization, and some of the RNA related vestigial chemistry.

But that only tells you that RNA played an early part in the formation of life - it doesn't actually say that the RNA Hypothesis is the explanation for it. There are a lot of abiotic hypothesis which do not require an RNA world - albeit a lot of very similar elements are thought to be at play (e.g. use of riboxymes, RNA double helixes, etc.)

I don't think it's necessarily the whole story; it simplifies some of the protein synthesis component, but not enough on it's own.

There is also the reverse hypothesis, too.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 1:23:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

Can you explain and cite how this has been shown?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 6:37:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 1:23:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

Can you explain and cite how this has been shown?

This seems to be one such reference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The process seems very problematic.

Here is an informative reference I found.
I have included snippets I found interesting, others may not.

3.2 Alternative Genetic Systems
The problems that arise when one tries to understand how an RNA World could have arisen de novo on the primitive Earth are sufficiently severe that one must explore other possibilities. What kind of alternative genetic systems might have preceded the RNA World? How could they have "invented" the RNA World? These topics have generated a good deal of speculative interest and some relevant experimental data.
~ ~

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis. They believe that a few more striking chemical "surprises" will establish that a pool of racemic mononucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, and that further experiments with different activating groups, minerals, and chiral amplification processes will solve the enantiomeric cross-inhibition problem.

The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the abiotic Earth would have been a near miracle. Time will tell which is correct.
http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:11:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 1:23:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

Can you explain and cite how this has been shown?

Quite a few nucleotides of RNA have been formed, actually.

Pyrimidine nucleotides have been abiotically synthesized by two studies I know [1][2]. Oligomers and polymers can form via. nucleotide base with inorganic catalytic clays [3].

[1]: Powner, Matthew W., B"atrice Gerland, and John D. Sutherland. "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions." Nature 459.7244 (2009): 239-242.
[2]: http://www.wired.com...
[3]: Franchi, Marco, and Enzo Gallori. "A surface-mediated origin of the RNA world: biogenic activities of clay-adsorbed RNA molecules." Gene 346 (2005): 205-214.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 1:55:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

I said *by chance*
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 2:11:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 4:00:54 AM, tejretics wrote:
Do you believe in the RNA world hypothesis? Why/why not?

I believe it is the best explanation for the origin of life so far. RNA is the only molecule capable of doing both self-replication and catalysis by itself.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 7:50:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 6:37:17 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/21/2015 1:23:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

Can you explain and cite how this has been shown?

This seems to be one such reference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The article talks about making RNA micro arrays by using a gold sheet, DNA and RNA. Tho I appreciate the demonstration that RNA can form in an abiotic scenario.. I thought we all understood it in the scope of abiogenesis.

RNA form in natural abiotic conditions. As an example of RNA forming before life on earth.


The process seems very problematic.



Here is an informative reference I found.
I have included snippets I found interesting, others may not.

3.2 Alternative Genetic Systems
The problems that arise when one tries to understand how an RNA World could have arisen de novo on the primitive Earth are sufficiently severe that one must explore other possibilities. What kind of alternative genetic systems might have preceded the RNA World? How could they have "invented" the RNA World? These topics have generated a good deal of speculative interest and some relevant experimental data.
~ ~


So complex imaginative stories of how it could be. Forget data, forget experiment, forget the chances of such a scenario actually happening.

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis. They believe that a few more striking chemical "surprises" will establish that a pool of racemic mononucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, and that further experiments with different activating groups, minerals, and chiral amplification processes will solve the enantiomeric cross-inhibition problem.


So instead of accepting as truth statements built on what we know and have in hand, BELIEVE ABIOGENESIS because there is no God and some day in the future Science will make "surprising" discoveries proving it. Sounds legit to me.

The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the abiotic Earth would have been a near miracle. Time will tell which is correct.
http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org...

It was miracle.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 8:00:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 11:11:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/21/2015 1:23:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

Can you explain and cite how this has been shown?

Quite a few nucleotides of RNA have been formed, actually.

Pyrimidine nucleotides have been abiotically synthesized by two studies I know [1][2]. Oligomers and polymers can form via. nucleotide base with inorganic catalytic clays [3].

[1]: Powner, Matthew W., B"atrice Gerland, and John D. Sutherland. "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions." Nature 459.7244 (2009): 239-242.
[2]: http://www.wired.com...
[3]: Franchi, Marco, and Enzo Gallori. "A surface-mediated origin of the RNA world: biogenic activities of clay-adsorbed RNA molecules." Gene 346 (2005): 205-214.

I guess plausible is a subjective term.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 9:34:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 8:00:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:11:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/21/2015 1:23:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

Can you explain and cite how this has been shown?

Quite a few nucleotides of RNA have been formed, actually.

Pyrimidine nucleotides have been abiotically synthesized by two studies I know [1][2]. Oligomers and polymers can form via. nucleotide base with inorganic catalytic clays [3].

[1]: Powner, Matthew W., B"atrice Gerland, and John D. Sutherland. "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions." Nature 459.7244 (2009): 239-242.
[2]: http://www.wired.com...
[3]: Franchi, Marco, and Enzo Gallori. "A surface-mediated origin of the RNA world: biogenic activities of clay-adsorbed RNA molecules." Gene 346 (2005): 205-214.

I guess plausible is a subjective term.

"Plausible abiotic conditions" in this case, means a set of conditions and chemistry that one has good reason to beleive existed in the early earth, or possible within the realms of probability given our analysis of past geochemistry, known geological systems and conditions today, and our understanding of the general chemistry of the earth.

It is plausible, for example, to use the chemical properties of current volcanic systems on earth today as pre-cursor chemistry; because we know they are rich in organic molecules, and chemically fertile; we know that earth was volcanic in the past, and that there was a period after the hadean where such systems are likely to have existed.

It is also plausible, for example, to think of complex volcanic systems, such as things like Yellowstone as an example, which gives us the rich energy and chemistry, and provides both area's for UV sheilding, and UV exposure.

If you wish to explain what is not plausible about such scenario's, feel free. Stating ones own incredulity on the matter is not a compelling argument for anything.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:27:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 7:50:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:37:17 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/21/2015 1:23:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

Can you explain and cite how this has been shown?

This seems to be one such reference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The article talks about making RNA micro arrays by using a gold sheet, DNA and RNA. Tho I appreciate the demonstration that RNA can form in an abiotic scenario.. I thought we all understood it in the scope of abiogenesis.

RNA form in natural abiotic conditions. As an example of RNA forming before life on earth.


The process seems very problematic.



Here is an informative reference I found.
I have included snippets I found interesting, others may not.

3.2 Alternative Genetic Systems
The problems that arise when one tries to understand how an RNA World could have arisen de novo on the primitive Earth are sufficiently severe that one must explore other possibilities. What kind of alternative genetic systems might have preceded the RNA World? How could they have "invented" the RNA World? These topics have generated a good deal of speculative interest and some relevant experimental data.
~ ~


So complex imaginative stories of how it could be. Forget data, forget experiment, forget the chances of such a scenario actually happening.

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis. They believe that a few more striking chemical "surprises" will establish that a pool of racemic mononucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, and that further experiments with different activating groups, minerals, and chiral amplification processes will solve the enantiomeric cross-inhibition problem.


So instead of accepting as truth statements built on what we know and have in hand, BELIEVE ABIOGENESIS because there is no God and some day in the future Science will make "surprising" discoveries proving it. Sounds legit to me.

The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the abiotic Earth would have been a near miracle. Time will tell which is correct.
http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org...

It was miracle.

Tes, good points.
We are on the same page for the most part.
I am not so quick to say miracle. but I am quick to point out that science has a handful of wishful thinking, and nothing else.
In the this case, miracle has equally probability with scientific conjectures, at a minimum, from an 'objective' viewpoint. More or less depending on core beliefs.

Those agents of science who do the business of science start with some bold assumptions. Axioms. Things assumed, based on faith, or trust, as they sometimes prefer, for the sake of convenience.
Faith versus trust, and the trust built on faith, so really........
So,
There is no god or supernatural.
All explanations are available to them today, potentially. Just a few more break troughs needed.
Existence, laws governing them, is/are constant and universal.
These are the conditions needed for them to do their work, so, for convenience, they are assumed true.
When they say "best possible", they mean, according to these assumptions and current knowledge, which may or may not be correct. False beliefs are a real possibility, rather than knowledge.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:33:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2015 1:55:48 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

I said *by chance*

Yeah, cause its impossible to replicate chance-based circumstances and situations in labs, experiments and computer simulations. All those random number generators aren't random or chance-based at all.

Cool beans.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:57:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 7:27:14 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:50:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/21/2015 6:37:17 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/21/2015 1:23:53 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/20/2015 5:48:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

*cough*bllsht*cough*.

RNA has been shown to form in plausible abiotic conditions; but thanks for playing!

Can you explain and cite how this has been shown?

This seems to be one such reference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The article talks about making RNA micro arrays by using a gold sheet, DNA and RNA. Tho I appreciate the demonstration that RNA can form in an abiotic scenario.. I thought we all understood it in the scope of abiogenesis.

RNA form in natural abiotic conditions. As an example of RNA forming before life on earth.


The process seems very problematic.



Here is an informative reference I found.
I have included snippets I found interesting, others may not.

3.2 Alternative Genetic Systems
The problems that arise when one tries to understand how an RNA World could have arisen de novo on the primitive Earth are sufficiently severe that one must explore other possibilities. What kind of alternative genetic systems might have preceded the RNA World? How could they have "invented" the RNA World? These topics have generated a good deal of speculative interest and some relevant experimental data.
~ ~


So complex imaginative stories of how it could be. Forget data, forget experiment, forget the chances of such a scenario actually happening.

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis. They believe that a few more striking chemical "surprises" will establish that a pool of racemic mononucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, and that further experiments with different activating groups, minerals, and chiral amplification processes will solve the enantiomeric cross-inhibition problem.


So instead of accepting as truth statements built on what we know and have in hand, BELIEVE ABIOGENESIS because there is no God and some day in the future Science will make "surprising" discoveries proving it. Sounds legit to me.

The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the abiotic Earth would have been a near miracle. Time will tell which is correct.
http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org...

It was miracle.

Tes, good points.
We are on the same page for the most part.
I am not so quick to say miracle. but I am quick to point out that science has a handful of wishful thinking, and nothing else.
In the this case, miracle has equally probability with scientific conjectures, at a minimum, from an 'objective' viewpoint. More or less depending on core beliefs.

Those agents of science who do the business of science start with some bold assumptions. Axioms. Things assumed, based on faith, or trust, as they sometimes prefer, for the sake of convenience.
Faith versus trust, and the trust built on faith, so really........
So,
There is no god or supernatural.
All explanations are available to them today, potentially. Just a few more break troughs needed.
Existence, laws governing them, is/are constant and universal.
These are the conditions needed for them to do their work, so, for convenience, they are assumed true.
When they say "best possible", they mean, according to these assumptions and current knowledge, which may or may not be correct. False beliefs are a real possibility, rather than knowledge.

These are assumptions made for the purpose of practicality, backed up by evidence. Our "knowledge" is based upon these assumptions as well. Even though we claim to "Know" that world war 1 occurred, we base this upon the assumption that historical documents are accurate, that this isn't some huge hoax, and that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago, with all objects and memories planted within us, and based on evidence that we understand that things like historical documents are in fact accurate.

This is the difference between faith and trust. We don't consider it "Faith" to know that world war 1 occurred. It is Trust based on practicality, based on evidence.

But I find it funny that you place the scientific "Conjecture" as you claim, on par with miracles. What exactly is a miracle, to you? Is it simply something that is statistically improbable, like winning the lottery, or getting a full house? Or is it, as described in books like the Old testament, things that actually contradict and defy physical laws and reality, like parting the sea, or healing a blind man simply by touching them?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 12:31:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 11:57:28 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/22/2015 7:27:14 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 6/21/2015 7:50:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:


Tes, good points.
We are on the same page for the most part.
I am not so quick to say miracle. but I am quick to point out that science has a handful of wishful thinking, and nothing else.
In the this case, miracle has equally probability with scientific conjectures, at a minimum, from an 'objective' viewpoint. More or less depending on core beliefs.

Those agents of science who do the business of science start with some bold assumptions. Axioms. Things assumed, based on faith, or trust, as they sometimes prefer, for the sake of convenience.
Faith versus trust, and the trust built on faith, so really........
So,
There is no god or supernatural.
All explanations are available to them today, potentially. Just a few more break troughs needed.
Existence, laws governing them, is/are constant and universal.
These are the conditions needed for them to do their work, so, for convenience, they are assumed true.
When they say "best possible", they mean, according to these assumptions and current knowledge, which may or may not be correct. False beliefs are a real possibility, rather than knowledge.

These are assumptions made for the purpose of practicality, backed up by evidence. Our "knowledge" is based upon these assumptions as well. Even though we claim to "Know" that world war 1 occurred, we base this upon the assumption that historical documents are accurate, that this isn't some huge hoax, and that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago, with all objects and memories planted within us, and based on evidence that we understand that things like historical documents are in fact accurate.

Assuming there is no god, and that laws governing the cosmos are constant and universal is hardly on a par with assuming WW1 occurred.
Assuming RNA spontaneously arose from abiotic matter is hardly on a par with assuming WWI occurred.

This is the difference between faith and trust. We don't consider it "Faith" to know that world war 1 occurred. It is Trust based on practicality, based on evidence.

Again with WWI, as if this is an assumption of science.
How is it that you assume that the laws governing the cosmos are constant and universal, if not faith, or, if you prefer, trust based on faith.

But I find it funny that you place the scientific "Conjecture" as you claim, on par with miracles. What exactly is a miracle, to you? Is it simply something that is statistically improbable, like winning the lottery, or getting a full house? Or is it, as described in books like the Old testament, things that actually contradict and defy physical laws and reality, like parting the sea, or healing a blind man simply by touching them?

A miracle would be something that defies the laws of the cosmos, something supernatural.
These laws may or may not be known to science.
As a practical matter, it could be described as an event on earth that violates any of the theories or laws science has identified (whether rightly or wrongly).
This does cause a problem, as sometimes natural events occur, which scientists who have used the SM said was not scientifically possible. Their theory said 'this will not happen', but it did, no supernatural indication.
So, these theories had to be modified.
That is what happened recently when one of these theories supported by the SM was shown false.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

So we know as a practical matter, that it is not unheard of for scientists to admit that the "best possible" explanation or expectation based on scientific evidence fails to be accurate.
That is true for current day events, that are much easier to study, compared to possible abiogenesis.
It does make abiogenesis look like much less than a 'sure thing'.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 2:19:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.

The chances of winning the lottery aren't improbably low. It is deemed "impossible" once it hits 10 to the -50.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:48:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 2:19:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.

The chances of winning the lottery aren't improbably low. It is deemed "impossible" once it hits 10 to the -50.

So, pray tell; where is your source for "RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less."

WHAT EXACTLY is this probability describing the chances of?
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:54:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 7:48:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/22/2015 2:19:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.

The chances of winning the lottery aren't improbably low. It is deemed "impossible" once it hits 10 to the -50.

So, pray tell; where is your source for "RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less."

WHAT EXACTLY is this probability describing the chances of?

Eugene Koonin. Sorry, I don't have the link anymore.

The probability of RNA forming by chance.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 1:04:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/22/2015 2:19:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.

The chances of winning the lottery aren't improbably low. It is deemed "impossible" once it hits 10 to the -50.

So is most thermodynamic systems, and yet we acknowledge that the system must still exist in a state, therefore making statistics necessarily useless in calculating whether something occurred or not.

Also, could you cite a source stating that something is deemed impossible once it hits 10^-50? Thinking back to my days in statistical analysis, something is deemed impossible only if the outcome is something that cannot happen, I.e. rolling a 7 on a normal six sided die.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 1:36:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:04:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/22/2015 2:19:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.

The chances of winning the lottery aren't improbably low. It is deemed "impossible" once it hits 10 to the -50.

So is most thermodynamic systems, and yet we acknowledge that the system must still exist in a state, therefore making statistics necessarily useless in calculating whether something occurred or not.

Also, could you cite a source stating that something is deemed impossible once it hits 10^-50? Thinking back to my days in statistical analysis, something is deemed impossible only if the outcome is something that cannot happen, I.e. rolling a 7 on a normal six sided die.

I am only suggesting Rna didn't develop by chance, and that the improbable odds suggest this.

I got the 10-50 from a video about the book, "Biological Information", but I'm sorry I don't have a link right now.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 1:44:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:36:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:04:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/22/2015 2:19:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.

The chances of winning the lottery aren't improbably low. It is deemed "impossible" once it hits 10 to the -50.

So is most thermodynamic systems, and yet we acknowledge that the system must still exist in a state, therefore making statistics necessarily useless in calculating whether something occurred or not.

Also, could you cite a source stating that something is deemed impossible once it hits 10^-50? Thinking back to my days in statistical analysis, something is deemed impossible only if the outcome is something that cannot happen, I.e. rolling a 7 on a normal six sided die.

I am only suggesting Rna didn't develop by chance, and that the improbable odds suggest this.


But again, this is something we see in statistical thermodynamics as well, and yet no one considers that just because a system is infinitely improbable, that it couldnt exist, or that it couldnt exist by chance.

I got the 10-50 from a video about the book, "Biological Information", but I'm sorry I don't have a link right now.

I could not find a book titled "Biological information". The closest i came was this,
http://plato.stanford.edu... Though it does not talk about impossibilities from statistics. That, and a name of a creationist conference.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 1:47:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:44:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:36:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:04:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/22/2015 2:19:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.

The chances of winning the lottery aren't improbably low. It is deemed "impossible" once it hits 10 to the -50.

So is most thermodynamic systems, and yet we acknowledge that the system must still exist in a state, therefore making statistics necessarily useless in calculating whether something occurred or not.

Also, could you cite a source stating that something is deemed impossible once it hits 10^-50? Thinking back to my days in statistical analysis, something is deemed impossible only if the outcome is something that cannot happen, I.e. rolling a 7 on a normal six sided die.

I am only suggesting Rna didn't develop by chance, and that the improbable odds suggest this.


But again, this is something we see in statistical thermodynamics as well, and yet no one considers that just because a system is infinitely improbable, that it couldnt exist, or that it couldnt exist by chance.

I got the 10-50 from a video about the book, "Biological Information", but I'm sorry I don't have a link right now.

I could not find a book titled "Biological information". The closest i came was this,
http://plato.stanford.edu... Though it does not talk about impossibilities from statistics. That, and a name of a creationist conference.

Yes, the book was written about the creationist conference. I am not a creationist, but I keep my mind open to all information sources.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:21:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 1:47:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:44:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:36:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:04:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/22/2015 2:19:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.

The chances of winning the lottery aren't improbably low. It is deemed "impossible" once it hits 10 to the -50.

So is most thermodynamic systems, and yet we acknowledge that the system must still exist in a state, therefore making statistics necessarily useless in calculating whether something occurred or not.

Also, could you cite a source stating that something is deemed impossible once it hits 10^-50? Thinking back to my days in statistical analysis, something is deemed impossible only if the outcome is something that cannot happen, I.e. rolling a 7 on a normal six sided die.

I am only suggesting Rna didn't develop by chance, and that the improbable odds suggest this.


But again, this is something we see in statistical thermodynamics as well, and yet no one considers that just because a system is infinitely improbable, that it couldnt exist, or that it couldnt exist by chance.

I got the 10-50 from a video about the book, "Biological Information", but I'm sorry I don't have a link right now.

I could not find a book titled "Biological information". The closest i came was this,
http://plato.stanford.edu... Though it does not talk about impossibilities from statistics. That, and a name of a creationist conference.

Yes, the book was written about the creationist conference. I am not a creationist, but I keep my mind open to all information sources.

Wouldnt you agree that something that comes from a creationist conference is far removed from being credible?
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:25:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/23/2015 2:21:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:47:25 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:44:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:36:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/23/2015 1:04:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/22/2015 2:19:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:29:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/20/2015 4:23:04 PM, janesix wrote:
I doubt it. The impossibly low probablility of RNA forming on it's own by chance is 10 to the -1000 or less.

Obviously, life doesn't form on it's own by chance.

So when you see someone win the lottery, and have the winning lottery ticket in their hands, I suppose you say "you won the lottery? Doubt it. The impossibly low probability of winning the lottery means that people do not win the lottery by chance."

That's pretty cool.

The chances of winning the lottery aren't improbably low. It is deemed "impossible" once it hits 10 to the -50.

So is most thermodynamic systems, and yet we acknowledge that the system must still exist in a state, therefore making statistics necessarily useless in calculating whether something occurred or not.

Also, could you cite a source stating that something is deemed impossible once it hits 10^-50? Thinking back to my days in statistical analysis, something is deemed impossible only if the outcome is something that cannot happen, I.e. rolling a 7 on a normal six sided die.

I am only suggesting Rna didn't develop by chance, and that the improbable odds suggest this.


But again, this is something we see in statistical thermodynamics as well, and yet no one considers that just because a system is infinitely improbable, that it couldnt exist, or that it couldnt exist by chance.

I got the 10-50 from a video about the book, "Biological Information", but I'm sorry I don't have a link right now.

I could not find a book titled "Biological information". The closest i came was this,
http://plato.stanford.edu... Though it does not talk about impossibilities from statistics. That, and a name of a creationist conference.

Yes, the book was written about the creationist conference. I am not a creationist, but I keep my mind open to all information sources.

Wouldnt you agree that something that comes from a creationist conference is far removed from being credible?

That's why I take everything with a grain of salt.

However, creationists and Intelligent design advocates have a habit of pointing out flaws and problems that might otherwise go unnoticed by me.