Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Show me one instance of DNA (forming) outside of a living cell. My proof is inherent in my statement.
Seeing as how it's currently accepted that RNA came about before the emergence of DNA, it's not possible for DNA to occur outside of a cell, so you're question is based on a poor understanding of the subject you're questioning.
On a side-note: RNA if observed to self-assemble in simulations of early earth environments.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Seeing as how it's currently accepted that RNA came about before the emergence of DNA, it's not possible for DNA to occur outside of a cell, so you're question is based on a poor understanding of the subject you're questioning.On a side-note: RNA if observed to self-assemble in simulations of early earth environments.
But JIA ignores anything that is contrary to his belief. Therefore, anything that proves that life can form on its own is ignored.
Ribozymes are "RNA molecule[s] that catalyze[s] a chemical reaction."
So like RNA. Except:
Investigators studying the origin of life have produced ribozymes in the laboratory that are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis under very specific conditions, such as an RNA polymerase ribozyme.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Ribozymes are "RNA molecule[s] that catalyze[s] a chemical reaction."So like RNA. Except:
quote:
Investigators studying the origin of life have produced ribozymes in the laboratory that are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis under very specific conditions, such as an RNA polymerase ribozyme.
Where did you find the quote about the investigators etc.?
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Seeing as how it's currently accepted that RNA came about before the emergence of DNA, it's not possible for DNA to occur outside of a cell, so you're question is based on a poor understanding of the subject you're questioning.On a side-note: RNA if observed to self-assemble in simulations of early earth environments.
True or False: no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA
Google is your friend.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
True or False: no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme
True or False: Observation of self-assembly of biological materials (RNA, amino acids, liposomes, etc.) from non-biological materials is evidence for abiogenesis.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But JIA ignores anything that is contrary to his belief. Therefore, anything that proves that life can form on its own is ignored.
True, but it's kinda funny (and at times mildly depressing) watching him walk around factual evidence.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RibozymeTrue or False: Observation of self-assembly of biological materials (RNA, amino acids, liposomes, etc.) from non-biological materials is evidence for abiogenesis.
True, but it's kinda funny (and at times mildly depressing) watching him walk around factual evidence.
""So long as you provide the building blocks and the starter seed, it goes forever," said Gerald Joyce, a chemist at the Scripps Research Institute and co-author of the paper published Thursday in Science. "It is immortalized molecular information."
Joyce's chemicals are technically hacked RNA enzymes, much like the ones we have in our bodies, but they don't behave anything like those in living creatures. But, these synthetic RNA replicators do provide a model for evolution — and shed light on one step in the development of early living systems from on a lifeless globe. "
In addition, once the replicators started going, they would occasionally suffer mutations - some would die out, but others would be more successful at replicating, thus coming to dominate the population.
After 77 generations, all the original replicators were gone - taken over by the new variants, stronger and mightier than before.
Whoa - if this isn't a compelling case for evolution! Right before our eyes!
There is a limitation, though... for the experiment to produce artificial life, not only does it need to reproduce, it needs to develop new functions, which these replicators seem unable to do..."from New Scientist:
"More fundamentally, to mimic biology, a molecule must gain new functions on the fly, without laboratory tinkering. Joyce says he has no idea how to clear this hurdle with his team's RNA molecule. "It doesn't have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution.""
http://www.sciencenews.net.au/scientists-create-artificial-selfreplicating-rna/
This RNA cannot develop new functions therefore it is not capable of producing proteins.
JIA, why don't you answer my questions if you expect me to answer yours?
Thats so selfish...
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is a limitation, though... for the experiment to produce artificial life, not only does it need to reproduce, it needs to develop new functions, which these replicators seem unable to do...
Ribozymes aren't life, they are components of it. Thus, ribozymes, artificial or natural do not need to "create life" or gain new functions. (I know you're obsessed with a point of creation, but there was likely not a single instant when life was made)
Darwinian selection does not apply to non-life or the components of life, but to life only. Ribozymes cannot, by definition, evolve.
That, however, doesn't erase the fact that ribozymes (the things that made EVERY protein in your body?) disprove all your other crap posits.
Certainly, you don't expect other machines, such as your computer, to spontaneously gain functions within a short period of time. A little tiny molecule is no different. It requires time and selection. And no about of you misrepresenting concepts in your narrow understanding will overcome that fundamental fact.
Also, next time...take scientific facts from papers, not from some lady's science blog. I know you think if someone said it its "true"... unfortunately the rest of the world has higher standards.