Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2070808

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 03:25:11 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.56> wrote:

>> >> >> >> > you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with gravity
>> >> >> >> > and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to produce
>> >> >> >> > a living cell that does not as yet exist.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> And extremely simple cells have been produced in the lab by perfectly
>> >> >> >> natural processes during abiogenesis research.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >just the same as it does not surprise me that RNA taken off the shelf as an isolate from a living organism,
>> >> >> >should still be able to carry out the same functionality as it would when it is actually in the living cell,
>> >> >> >that a non-living component of a cell should still carry out chemical behaviors that are similar to living
>> >> >> >cells is not unexpected.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Where did I mention any of that,
>> >> >
>> >> >i mentioned that. i mentioned that because it was relevant to the conclusions
>> >> >drawn from the thermalprotein bit.
>> >
>> >> The work described in the link you never bothered to follow, was
>> >> nothing like that.
>> >
>> >i looked at it, and this is my reply to it.
>> 
>> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it.
>> 
>> They metabolised and reproduced.
>
>
>that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells, 
>does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these 

What "bubbles" were you lying about? And nobody said these protocells
fed on flavins. Initially the nutrients would have been the amino
acids and other simple compounds in the same liquid where they were
formed. 

And don't forget that when the protocells formed, conditions changed
from one large "lab environment" to one per protocell in which the
reactions could be different.

>bubbles are not gleaning energies from surrounding molecules used as foodstuffs.
> atp ==> adp etc, is not energizing the bubbles themselves.

What "bubbles" are you lying about?

They have primitive cell walls, which are semi-permeable membranes
allowing smaller molecules in and out (the nutrients and waste
products), but keeping the larger molecules inside,

The nutrients react with the larger molecules.

>they don't reproduce like a living bacterial culture, 

Nobody ever said they did, imbecile.

I thought you had said you real the presentation.

If you had, it was pretty clear that it showed they reproduced by
budding, the same way yeasts do.

There were even pretty pictures, photos taken through microscopes
showing this.

So I can only conclude that you were lying when you claimed to have
read it.

Or you skimmed through looking for something you could take out of
context to deny the results of the experiments.

Because you're a creationist who wants them not to have done what they
did.
 
>                                                          they bubble out like boiling sugar in candy 

Liar.

>making process, one big blob separates into many little blobs, it is a simple physical process

Liar.

They're driven by the molecules that can't get out through the
membrane walls because they got too large or too many to fit any more.

>like oil bubbles in water, which, like i said, constitutes, at best, an egg shell.

Liar.


>here's a review of a review; 

No, moron, a response by the original researcher to what a reviewer
thought was a problem.

Or didn't you notice that its author was the same person who gave the
original presentation which you didn't bother to read, either?
 
>http://www.jstor.org/stable/2830230?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>
>"Salthe's Review of my book, The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution 
>from the Inside, has raised anew the question of whether life has been 
>synthesized in the lab. Salthe states that the book  "...verges on implying that, 
>without knowing at the time, his group synthesized life in the lab...
>but almost no one would say that, without genes, [microspheres] are alive."

You used the fallacy of argument from authority, with a dishonest,
out-of-context, cherry-picked quote of a quote without explaining
_why_ that was said, as bogus authority.

It went on to give, and which you clearly never bothered to read,
Fox's own answer to that,

Hint: Fox was the original researcher who discovered protocell
formation while working on abiotic protein formation.

It's a common writing style to describe apparent objections and them
to answer them because it establishes the context of the response.

Which Fox was doing,

Even though your dishonestly cherry picked, out-of-context quote made
it look as if Fox agreed with Salthe.

The rest of that paragraph which is copied without permission from the
very page you quote-mined, is Fox's answer to Salthe. Any typos are my
own...

"My acquaintance with many similar comments has prompted the present
analysis of what is obviously a source of perplexity. The perplexity
may exist in large part because of the need for participation in the
specifics of life by RNA, which is seen on close analysis, however, as
requiring a 'simpler' precursor (Waldrop, 1989)".

Did you honestly miss that?

His response went on to say...

"The difficulty appears to derive also from the fact that, on one
hand, a laboratory-assembled organism is being used for specification,
whereas a fully modern organism is used by others as a atandard of
functionality. Most students are necessarily less familiar with the
findings in forward-directed evolutionary experiments (Fox, 1988b)
than with existing organisms. The laboratory organism (protein
microsphere) in question has arisen under presumably primitive
conditions, since the thermal protein from which it is assembled is
made by seemingly crude geological heating of mixtures of amino acids.
Historically, the first finding of self-organisation from such
precursor protein to a cell (Fox et al, 1959) is also a process of 

[me: more than five decades ago, this isn't new]

[me again: of course, if you reject evolution from simpler organisms
into more common lifeforms, you will reject all this - which is why
you are doing anything you can to find fault with the research,
including outright lie, even though it won't un-happen]

maximal simplicity. These are processes disarmingly more direct than
the extremely complex ATP-energized set of reactions required for the
synthesis of modern proteins. On the other hand, the answer strains
conventional thinking because it spans more than three billion years.

"The 'synthesis' of an organism in the lab holds special significance
as an affirmation of cell analyses. This relationship and conceptual
need has been explained by Young (1984). Such verification is an
extension to cellular science from  organic chemistry (Fox, 1975) in
which synthesis of bioorganic compounds is traditional confirmation by
organic chemists of the chemical structure of a natural compound."

In other words, he repeated Salthe's objection before answering it, in
order to give the context of his answer.

It's how you know what he was talking about.

And you ignored his response to that.

He phrased what I have explained in layman's terms, rather more
scientifically and more precisely.

But this is a perfect example why one should understand something well
enough explain it in one's own words.

FWIW, here is what I wrote in response to you, before I followed your
link...

  And DNA wasn't part of the definition of life which, in spite of
  your earlier lies, was independent of the discovery of the
  protocells.
   
[never heard of RNA life, which is considered to be the precursor of
DNA life? which is why it  isn't part  of the definition]

  Do you have a better definition for life, that is accepted by the
  scientific community?

  Nobody is claiming that these are modern life, because nobody
  expects abiogenesis research to produce that.

  But in any case, the descendants of these protocells (they actually
  reproduce, remember?) evolved nucleic acids which the original ones
  didn't have.

[His reference to (Waldrop, 1989)]

  None of this will go away, no matter how many in-denial
  creationists deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent it.

  And don't forget, DNA life was considered to have evolved from
  earlier RNA life.

  Has anybody demonstrated the formation of DNA outside cells, let
  alone protocells? Hint: no.

  However, Fox demonstrated the formation of simpler nucleic acids in
  cells evolving from others that didn't have them at all.

[which would have been precursors of more complex, modern ones]

  Do you reject the idea that life evolved from simpler, earlier life
  forms?
 
[If not, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land and have nothing to say
on the subject]

  Palaeontology showed this decades ago, going back to the earliest
  unicellular micro-fossils.

[his more than three billion years]
 
  Given that the earliest life would have been extremely simple, and
  nothing like the far more complex modern life, why would you expect
  abiogenesis research to come up with anything more complex than the
  very simplest protocells in the transition from non-life to life?

  And why not at least _try_ to come up with honest objections instead
  of making up nonsense including outright falsehoods?

Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.55> - 2016-03-05 20:14 -0500
  Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:18 -0600
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-05 20:36 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:49 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:52 -0700
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.6y> - 2016-03-05 22:48 -0500
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 22:44 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:48 -0500
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 23:38 -0600
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 02:51 -0500
              Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 02:03 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 03:25 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:45 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.54> - 2016-03-06 11:58 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:31 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 21:34 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:14 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 03:13 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 04:35 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:10 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:48 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 07:42 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:41 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:30 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:29 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-09 01:12 +0100
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 19:18 -0600
              Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 18:00 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:44 -0500
  Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <forget@it.nw> - 2016-03-06 12:01 +0100
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 07:29 -0500
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-06 19:20 +0000
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 13:56 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:27 -0600
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:35 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:33 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:47 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-07 20:23 +0000
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 20:53 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:07 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 22:17 -0500
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:20 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:37 -0800
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-08 23:15 +0100
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 16:56 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 17:22 -0800
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:25 -0700
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:07 -0800
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 17:08 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0600
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:50 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 23:01 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-07 18:30 -0500

csiph-web