Re: 1st D.N.A Replication


spintronic wrote:
John Drayton wrote:
spintronic wrote:

Im not a creationist.

Hmm. Possible.

How about this then:

"I am a IDist who thinks that asking about the origins
of DNA replication will illustrate that knowledge of the very
early origins of life is sketchy and speculative. I'm hoping
to squeeze my God-of-the-gaps in there somewhere. I
challenge you to definitively show the origins of DNA
replication."

and the questions are specific and still
unanswered.

You've been disingenuous.

You're original request was:
"Could some clever person please go through the process
with me of how the first dna molecule replicated itself.
Cheers!"
Asked as if you had no idea, and was wanting to find out.

Later on, you ask:
"...since these complicated proteins are in fact fabricated
by the dna splitting process how can you split the first dna
strand to make the first protein?"
and
"There are infact just as many problems (if not more) in
shifting the role of "the spark" of life from DNA to RNA"

Clearly, you had already done some research, and thought
you could demonstrate that proposed mechanisms were
unlikely or impossible.

In short, you hid you original agenda. Why not just be open
right from the start?

--
John Drayton

O.K heres why! I beleive "my" agenda is completely unrelated to the
answering of this question. As there is only one "correct" answer, what
i think is irrelivent. Just the same as the "earth" doesnt care "who"
thinks its flat or round.

If im a creationist; you reply; "Uneducated, doesnt know what hes
talking about"!

If im an Evolutionist; you reply; "Doesnt matter; how it happened; 'we
know it did'".!

If im an educated openminded person who wants answers that arent
statistical impossibilities; you reply; "hes a creationist, with a
hidden agenda"

So ill leave my agenda unstated, as it really "doesnt matter" because
it wont affect the outcome to the ansewer of these questions!

David Jenson; You call me rude and then start insulting me, that doesnt
make sense to me.
John Harshman;
As per above.
John Drayton;
As per above
Richard smoll;
As per above
Ye old one and elmer;
I dont normally quote who i respond to because as you can see its very
confusing, so i just read all the posts and try to respond as best as i
can.

So were down to RNA in ice, any further ideas??


You are a very smug, often rude and catty person who
would rather play games than learn. Your rudeness is also
evident in the lack of care in showing quotes, which is how
it is done in this group - this is important since the group
is often very busy and not everybody can go read every post
in each thread to see where the points are coming from. It
is up to *you*, the poster making a post, to stick to protocol.

Have you looked at the FAQs? I would guess not - that's OK
because I haven't looked at them much either. But they are
there are your initial post was designed to get under people's
skin and to tease, as a number of your follow-ups are, so don't
play the high-and-mighty with us. (You have already qualified
for the loon squad, you know.) At a guess, I would say that
you have been here before - otherwise named - and your effort
in trolling through this group at this point is calculated. But,
I could be wrong. And it doesn't really matter in the end, but
don't expect me to share my fries with you if sometime you
decide to join in a howler fest. Speaking for John as well, you
are not likely to be welcome joining in a shout with us.


Now, you have asked your question again and again and
I have brought some studies about RNA and ice to your
attention that you seem to acknowledge here, but then you
come up with comments in reply to my post that are stupid
such as breaking up your computer and all. Were you in
effect saying that the individual RNA bases have to be in fact
de novo - not ever a part of a polymer - to in fact be able to
build "the first" chain, and so because the RNA in this study
was not "de novo" RNA but was in fact RNA from degraded
natural polymers it somehow voids the experiment? What
will be you next obstruction, that an experiment *must* be
done mid-week as Mondays and Fridays are the days where
peole are distracted and so the experiments then would not
be as valid? How do *you* know there were destructive factors
in the primordial environment? Were *you* there? There may
well have been factors in the soup that were protective, but
since you only give weight to arguments that suit your goals
you would not allow for that possibility. With the scale of the
molecular world to consider along with the duration of time in
the evolution of early life, how can you be so sure that these
would not allow conditions for development of the very first
element of genetics (be it DNA, RNA or some other form of
chemistry we are yet to propose)?

Now we know you haven't considered the FAQs as a resource
for educating yourself, because reading them and asking a
few direct, open questions just isn't your style. If you do try
to tell me there wasn't time for chemistry to lead to life in
and of itself, please read my post from the January vote for
PoTM on big numbers and deep time. Tell me, if you can,
how many molecules it would take to build the first living
arganism that science suggests may have begun life here
on earth. We'll accept an estimate with a variance of a couple
of orders of magnitude and I'll admit to you that I don't have
a correct answer in mind so you can probably get away
with any of a number of answers that in fact cover several
orders of magnitude.

In some of the posts I've made on other threads, such as in
debate with Gerard (your new teammate), I've suggested that
the first form of life was in fact either the entire ocean or an
entire lagoon or possible an entire tidal zone puddle, since it
would make some sense for some chemical pathways to be
established ahead of membrane involvement to package any
such biochemistry-pathways into particular form (which to a
large degree might not have been replication-orientated).

But before we discuss these ideas, and before I go look at
the literature with a focus on these issues, you must make
it very clear if you feel the first nucleic acid template being
able to copy itself (DNA, RNA or whatever) is a question of
evolution or a question of abiogenesis. Which is it and why?

(signed) marc

Oh... somebody please make a shorter link here for another
post of mine - back in December as a reply to Gordon Hill's
thread "What is Biological Life" - which you will find if you
search this group for "domino marc", where I had a thought
for Gordon on the flow of bond energy in understanding life.

I'd like "spintronic" to read that post (just change the typo
of "catalvst" to catalyst in the first passage as you read it
please... it was one of those typos you spot as the enter
button was depressed!) I'd like "spintronic" to consider
the focus of his loaded question from another aspect and
this post may serve to lead to that level of discussion.

...

So, there you are, spinster... is your thread here about
abiogenesis or evolution and where do *you* draw the line?

..

.

Loading