Theories - Origin of Life

[JackBean]

1) Viruses are very complicated molecules made up of proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, carbohydrates etc. Yet they are not considered alive because, without cells they are unable to multiply. There are other reasons as well. Now if these very complicated molecules made from basically the same ingredients as cells, do not constitute life, it shows that that life is something more than the bringing together of these very complicated molecules.

Wrong again, viruses are much simplier than the simplest cell. Usually they contain only the nucleic acid, sometime with protein package. However, if they contain lipid membrane, it originates from the host cell, from which the virus takes it during leaving it.

These conclusions are based on science, logc and evidence.

So, now is logic good enough for you?

[scottie]

Jackbean

viruses are much simplier than the simplest cell

That is correct.
Where have I said anything different.
I merely said that they are very complicated molecules, which of course they are.

What on earth are you arguing against.

It would greatly help your obvious frustration if you actually read what I write, before replying with a shot through your own foot.

[JackBean]

maybe if you read more than you cited, you would know, why I have replied to you.

[scottie]

aptitude

Because the ribosome seems to be ubiquitous in almost all organisms, the ribosome must have originated very early in the history of life. Ribosome evolution began with a complex of nucleic acids that probably had another function early on, but acquired the function of protein synthesis. Only later were proteins incorporated into the ribosome.

Your statement above is what you believe.
What evidence can you call upon to substantiate this.
The simple answer is, you are not able to. You can only hypothesise.
Therefore it is only your belief. And if that is what you wish to believe, then believe it.
But don’t parade it as scientific fact.

Look even accomplished biologists like Craig Venter , George Church and others including NASA itself openly acknowledge that there are no plausible pathways to these complex biochemical molecules.
Have you not bothered to read the papers and articles from prominent members of the Evolutionary establishment that I have referred to.

Or are you suggesting you know more than them.
Please, please don’t say Yes.

[scottie]

aptitude

What I am trying to get over is really quite simple, both in terms of logic and biology.

Now please read carefully.

The Ribosome is an essential part of every cell. It is regarded as one of the most complicated molecules in the cell.

1) It is made up of proteins .
2) It also manufactures the proteins in the cell
3) In other words it manufactures the very proteins it is made from.

How can that be?

Well the only way this can come about is for a protein to be designed and manufactured .
The process then repeated some 50 times or so.
A translation system must then be designed and built.

A Ribosome can then be constructed with these molecules.
Then there must be some method of inserting the translation system that can read the coded sequence of amino acids.

The Ribosome can then be placed into the cell so that it can (along with all the other systems in the cell) commence the manufacturing all the proteins the cell makes.

In other words some outside agency must be involved in the process.
No natural laws have the capacity to do this because natural laws do not function in this manner.
This is a process that some biologists are beginning to attempt to do.

Can you understand why I say that there is no natural process that can overcome this conundrum.

It requires an outside agency.

[JackBean]

As I told you already dozen times, the crucial part of the ribosome are the rRNAs, the proteins are just added cosmetics. But you refuses to accept that. You think that if something is nowadays composed from proteins, it had to be composed of proteins billions of years ago.

I'm just curious. This "outside agency" is composed of proteins as well or is it of something else?

[Crucible]

As I told you already dozen times, the crucial part of the ribosome are the rRNAs, the proteins are just added cosmetics. But you refuses to accept that. You think that if something is nowadays composed from proteins, it had to be composed of proteins billions of years ago.

I'm just curious. This "outside agency" is composed of proteins as well or is it of something else?

That's an interesting way of handling the "unnatural" influence question.

[scottie]

Jackbean

As I told you already dozen times, the crucial part of the ribosome are the rRNAs, the proteins are just added cosmetics.

Ribosomes are made from approx 40% proteins and 60% nucleic acids (rRNA )

So, proteins are just added cosmetics.
Is this supposed to be a serious statement?

Let me take you to a basic biology refresher.

The Ribosome is the translation system for the manufacturing of proteins.
This process starts with Transcription.
This is the first step in decoding a cell's genetic information. During transcription, Enzymes called RNA polymerases build RNA molecules that are complementary to a portion of one strand of the DNA double helix.
What is an enzyme?
Guess what? It is a protein.

So our basic refresher tell us that a Protein is required at the start of a process to make (guess what?) a Protein.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... n-14120660

Now let’s look at your rRNA.
How does the rRNA come about.

One of the non ribosomal proteins the nucleolin, is considered to play a key role in the regulation of rRNA transcription, perisomal synthesis, ribosomal assembly and maturation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=P_ajeM ... &q&f=false
page 161.

So which came first Protein or rRNA?

Biology is clearly not a strong point with you.

Has it not dawned on you yet, the point is not whether proteins are the crucial part or not.

The point is that Ribosomes, made from proteins, actually make the proteins.
That’s the conundrum. So how does that work then.?

Got an answer? Of course you haven’t, because there isn’t a scientific explanation based on natural processes.
So how best to cope with that scenario.
Well that’s easy, just pretend it doesn’t exist and ignore it.
This is what is called wilful blindness.

But you refuses to accept that. You think that if something is nowadays composed from proteins, it had to be composed of proteins billions of years ago.

Do you mean that I refuse to accept the so called RNA (world) hypothesis as a fact.
If that is what you mean then you are correct.
I do not accept hypothesises as fact until there is sufficient evidence to confirm them.
The fact that this is still a hypothetical scenario even within the biological community, speaks for itself.

btw cyanobacteria is regarded as the oldest living fossil and is dated to 3.5 billion years ago. And guess what, it contains proteins.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html

[scottie]

The conventional dating which provides the backdrop upon which all evolutionary theory is presented, reveals some interesting information regarding fossils.

The fossils of cyanobacteria are particularly significant.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OKkT ... &q&f=false

Their ability to carry out oxygen producing photosynthesis is a universal characteristic of cyanobacteria that distinguishes it from all other prokaryotes.

These fossils found in Western Australia are dated to at least 3.5 billion years ago.
We don’t know as yet how much earlier they may have existed.
However these prokaryotes are fully functional unicellular life with fully functioning transcription and translating systems manufacturing proteins, and of course they are still around today in huge quantities.

Again according to conventional theory the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
And according to the same US Geological Survey the oldest dated rocks in Western Australia are 3.4- 3.6 billion years.

This places the appearance of cyanobacteria around the same time as the appearance of the first rocks and therefore does not leave much if any time for any evolution to take place, let alone such a complicated life form as cyanobacteria which has the additional system of photosynthesis that other prokaryotes don’t.

There is of course more to this.
In the Jack Hills of Western Australia scientists have uncovered very interesting evidence of the early earth conditions over 4 billion years ago.

Deep in the Australian Outback under the sparse vegetation of the Jack Hills, scientists have uncovered secrets about conditions on the Earth over 4 billion years ago. Crystals within the rocks hint that the surface of the early Earth was cool and wet—not the roiling inferno that some theories and asteroid crater observations suggest
Low and smoothed by erosion, the Jack Hills aren’t too impressive as a mountain range. But mineral crystals have weathered out of the Jack Hills and washed into streams, and these crystals tell a fascinating story about how far back in Earth’s past the oceans might have formed.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Zircon/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... ircon2.php

So the evidence from the US government agencies is painting a picture of an early earth of oceans. A land mass then appearing and the first fully formed complex life appearing in the rocks around the same period.

Where have we read this scenario before?

[JackBean]

scottie, you should join another thread about23008.html I'm sure you will have lots to say in there.

[scottie]

Thanks for the invite, but I think I'll pass on this one.

You may have not noticed this yet, but this thread is entitled "Theories - Origin of Life" not "philosophies of life".
You do seem to display a problem with understanding language, but I am sure you are working on that as I hope you are also on biology!!

I know you would love to get onto the subject of your religion but as I have said before, I don't do religion. Sorry

[JackBean]

Do you realize, that difference 0.1 billion of years is 100 millions of years? That's even longer than the humankind is on Earth. That's not long enough for you?
So, if there is no evolution, the humans are as old as Earth, right?

You still didn't respond to my questions regarding the designer. Is he physical or rather something spiritual?