jerryR34 Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 Question: What folded the first Proteins without Pre-Existing Chaperonins? Is it like the Space Shuttle giving Birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant? Take your time....I'll be here for a while The RNA world hypothesis proposes that self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules were precursors to current life, which is based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), RNA and proteins.[1][2] RNA stores genetic information like DNA, and catalyzes chemical reactions like an enzyme protein. It may, therefore, have played a major step in the evolution of cellular life.[3] The RNA world would have eventually been replaced by the DNA, RNA and protein world of today, likely through an intermediate stage of ribonucleoprotein enzymes such as the ribosome and ribozymes, since proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities would only have come about after RNA was available to catalyze peptide ligation or amino acid polymerization.[4] DNA is thought to have taken over the role of data storage due to its increased stability, while proteins, through a greater variety of monomers (amino acids), replaced RNA's role in specialized biocatalysis. The RNA world hypothesis is supported by the observation that many of the most critical components of cells (those that evolve the slowest) are composed mostly or entirely of RNA. Also, many critical cofactors (ATP, Acetyl-CoA, NADH, etc.) are either nucleotides or substances clearly related to them. This would mean that the RNA and nucleotide cofactors in modern cells are an evolutionary remnant of an RNA-based enzymatic system that preceded the protein-based one seen in all extant life. ^ Jump up to: a b c Zimmer, Carl (September 12, 2013). "A Far-Flung Possibility for the Origin of Life". New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c Webb, Richard (August 29, 2013). "Primordial broth of life was a dry Martian cup-a-soup". New Scientist. Retrieved September 13, 2013. Jump up ^ This does not necessarily mean that the first life was RNA-based. For example, Thomas Čech proposes that multiple self-replicating molecular systems preceded RNA. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Cech, T.R. (2011). The RNA Worlds in Context. Source: Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0215. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011 Feb 16. pii: cshperspect.a006742v1. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a006742. [Epub ahead of print] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnochBethany Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 649 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 99 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 26, 2014 "How do scientists determine we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps?" I've asked this question several times to YEC proponents and have not gotten the right answer. I believe, if you are going to debate science, you should understand the current consensus even if you do not believe it, otherwise how can you disprove it. Most here do not believe we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, but do not understand what evolution actually states. So, anyone have the answer? Isn't this a lot of monkey business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 26, 2014 "How do scientists determine we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps?" I've asked this question several times to YEC proponents and have not gotten the right answer. I believe, if you are going to debate science, you should understand the current consensus even if you do not believe it, otherwise how can you disprove it. Most here do not believe we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, but do not understand what evolution actually states. So, anyone have the answer? Isn't this a lot of monkey business? Yes it is....clumsily so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Question: What folded the first Proteins without Pre-Existing Chaperonins? Is it like the Space Shuttle giving Birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant? Take your time....I'll be here for a while The RNA world hypothesis proposes that self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules were precursors to current life, which is based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), RNA and proteins.[1][2] RNA stores genetic information like DNA, and catalyzes chemical reactions like an enzyme protein. It may, therefore, have played a major step in the evolution of cellular life.[3] The RNA world would have eventually been replaced by the DNA, RNA and protein world of today, likely through an intermediate stage of ribonucleoprotein enzymes such as the ribosome and ribozymes, since proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities would only have come about after RNA was available to catalyze peptide ligation or amino acid polymerization.[4] DNA is thought to have taken over the role of data storage due to its increased stability, while proteins, through a greater variety of monomers (amino acids), replaced RNA's role in specialized biocatalysis. The RNA world hypothesis is supported by the observation that many of the most critical components of cells (those that evolve the slowest) are composed mostly or entirely of RNA. Also, many critical cofactors (ATP, Acetyl-CoA, NADH, etc.) are either nucleotides or substances clearly related to them. This would mean that the RNA and nucleotide cofactors in modern cells are an evolutionary remnant of an RNA-based enzymatic system that preceded the protein-based one seen in all extant life. ^ Jump up to: a b c Zimmer, Carl (September 12, 2013). "A Far-Flung Possibility for the Origin of Life". New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c Webb, Richard (August 29, 2013). "Primordial broth of life was a dry Martian cup-a-soup". New Scientist. Retrieved September 13, 2013. Jump up ^ This does not necessarily mean that the first life was RNA-based. For example, Thomas Čech proposes that multiple self-replicating molecular systems preceded RNA. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Cech, T.R. (2011). The RNA Worlds in Context. Source: Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0215. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011 Feb 16. pii: cshperspect.a006742v1. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a006742. [Epub ahead of print] LOL. Great Copy and Paste Job!!! This is quite pathetic Jerry. Any thoughts yourself? Did you actually read this? Lets go through it. I'll Highlight Key Phrases: "The RNA world hypothesis proposes." Too funny Jerry. Any other Proposals? It may, therefore, have played". And then again, May Not. LOL likely through an intermediate stage. Well it's "Likely" Great Hypothesis!!! The RNA world would have eventually been replaced. They have an Eye for Attention to Detail !! such as the ribosome. How about "AS" "since proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities" Jerry I didn't say "Proteins" I said "FUNCTIONAL PROTEINS" ....big difference. Please pay attention to detail. would only have come about after RNA was available to catalyze Ahhh, I knew I'd find one LOL......the Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent.... If P then Q. Q. Therefore P. If RNA was available to catalyze we would see Large Proteins with "Useful" activities We see "Useful" Activities. Therefore, RNA was available. :24: DNA is thought to have. LOL. Thought to??? Jerry Jerry....is this your science? Do I need to go on? I can spend all day going through your "1980's Debunked" RNA World Scenario but before I do you need to SHOW: One RNA Polymerize Spontaneously From Nucleotides It's that simple....then we can get into the meat. Also...it appears most of "Your" assertions are from the 80's I've noticed. What's up with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnochBethany Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 649 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 99 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 26, 2014 "How do scientists determine we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps?" I've asked this question several times to YEC proponents and have not gotten the right answer. I believe, if you are going to debate science, you should understand the current consensus even if you do not believe it, otherwise how can you disprove it. Most here do not believe we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, but do not understand what evolution actually states. So, anyone have the answer? Isn't this a lot of monkey business? Yes it is....clumsily so Shall we pause to sing a few verses of "And the money wrapped his tail around the flag pole"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Blessings jerryR34, I don't believe we have met yet so "hi"',I am Kwik & a better late than never"Welcome to Worthy"! I understand that you wish to "gauge" the knowledge of evolution from the folks here.............may I ask ,"why"? For what purpose & intention would this have for you? I realize you said that you often see straw men put up & torn down by those that do not fully grasp this "theory" but still I wonder what difference does it make to you,is it because you wish to debate & defend the theory ? So ,if you don't mind me asking.............what did you hope to achieve,gain,learn or dispute by coming to this Christian Forum? With love-in Christ,Kwik My point? I asked a simple science question. Could have been answered in about 3 words, but since some feel some perceived threat from this science, we get bombastic posts like this: The OP is Non-Sequitur on steroids...but needs to be dealt with along with some other Non-Sequitur posts LOL Well the first "99% Similar" fiasco came about by "reassociation kinetics" and extrapolations thereof. This was the initial technique.... and has many flaws including throwing out data. It was put forward Allen-Wilson and Mary-Claire King in 1975, Right after "Jive Talkin" from the Bee Gee's was released. Cohen, J., Relative differences: the myth of 1%, Science 316:1836, 29 June 2007 The 97% fiasco (Still no 98%) was conjured from DNA Hybridization in the 80's along with "Walk Like an Egyptian" from the Bangles. Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987, J. Molec. Evol. 26:99–121). DNA Hybridization is somewhat arbitrary and clunky. Sarich et al; Cladistics 5:3–32, 1989. Now for the meat...... “For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee." Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molec. Biol. Evol. 24:2266–2276, 2007. Down to 77% right quick!! And, Bear in mind....Even if humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross. And because ALL DNA contains the same 4 DNA bases any 2 Random comparisons of equal length will be pretty close LOL. Comparing and measuring base Pair Alignments in DNA is Tantamount to Measuring Lake Erie with a Straight Edge You miss 99% of the Polyfunctional or 3 Dimensional Interactions of DNA. Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.” (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.) The proven stability of the Y-chromosome compared to the rest of the human genome, combined with the large differences between human and chimp, is an insurmountable enigma for the human–chimp common ancestry paradigm. “ … 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.” Hughes, J.F. et al., Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463: p. 538, 2010. :24: You also need to review "Haldane's Dilemma". For the final nail in this Chimp Fiasco Coffin. We also share 50% of our DNA with Bananas. Tobacco and Humans have 46 Chromosomes....are you saying that your great great great (Ad Infinitum) Grandfather was Hommo-Tobacco?? Just because the Lug Nuts from a Jeep fit on a Chevy doesn't mean they both "evolved" from a Tin Can 3 Billion Years ago Jerry. This is only necessary if science threatens your faith. ================================================================================== Whatever helps you sleep @ night And it's really only necessary when they give you Pathetically Contrived "Half-Baked" Baseless NON-Sequitur Assertions that they've adopted into their World-View that they then attempt to pass off as sound reasoning.... to somehow convince the unsuspecting and/or vulnerable to follow. Then when they get CALLED (MOST ASSUREDLY on these boards ) with their Deuce Seven Off Suit instead of heading to the rail quietly and re-thinking the basis of their position they then have to employ juvenile snipes or other playground tactics to try to save face. Which SPEAKS VOLUMES! That dog is not gonna Hunt Here SIR!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Many people rely on creationist websites and publications to inform them of evolution. It would be really good for folks to take a primer course to better fill out their knowledge.============================================================================================== Many people rely on creationist websites and publications to inform them of evolution.An equivalent statement would be....many people rely on NBC rather than CBS for their daily news. And??.........What's your point? It's also an Ad Hominem (Fallacy) complete with Poisoning The Well (Fallacy). The most disturbing aspect of this is.... I had already, ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, spoke to you about this very issue....but, the paradigm must be upheld I guess. It would be really good for folks to take a primer course to better fill out their knowledge.Take a Primer Course in What?? : ..... 1. How to maintain "a priori" adherence's to fairytales in the face of common sense? 2. How to delete or cover up data that opposes your Pre-Arranged outcomes? 3. How to equivocate "Micro" and "Macro" evolution to to pathetically feign credibility with the former without explaining the latter? 4. How to assimilate AD-HOC Observations into the Paradigm without anyone noticing? Some others? I could go on for days....but there's other low-hanging fruit on the thread that needs to be dealt with.Nobody is poisoning the well. I made no slight against creationism. You need to lighten up. Better to study what the experts have to say about the subject. I don't watch NBC or CBS, but it is revealing that you chose that comparison. I personally choose a more evenhanded, professional presentation of events. The primer I mentioned would be an unemotional study of evolution by someone simply interested in the subject without an agenda. Is that too much to ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Many people rely on creationist websites and publications to inform them of evolution. It would be really good for folks to take a primer course to better fill out their knowledge. ============================================================================================== Many people rely on creationist websites and publications to inform them of evolution. An equivalent statement would be....many people rely on NBC rather than CBS for their daily news. And??.........What's your point? It's also an Ad Hominem (Fallacy) complete with Poisoning The Well (Fallacy). The most disturbing aspect of this is.... I had already, ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, spoke to you about this very issue....but, the paradigm must be upheld I guess. It would be really good for folks to take a primer course to better fill out their knowledge. Take a Primer Course in What?? : ..... 1. How to maintain "a priori" adherence's to fairytales in the face of common sense? 2. How to delete or cover up data that opposes your Pre-Arranged outcomes? 3. How to equivocate "Micro" and "Macro" evolution to to pathetically feign credibility with the former without explaining the latter? 4. How to assimilate AD-HOC Observations into the Paradigm without anyone noticing? Some others? I could go on for days....but there's other low-hanging fruit on the thread that needs to be dealt with. Nobody is poisoning the well. I made no slight against creationism. You need to lighten up. Better to study what the experts have to say about the subject. I don't watch NBC or CBS. I choose a more evenhanded, professional presentation of events. The primer I mentioned would be an unemotional study of evolution by someone simply interested in the subject without an agenda. Is that too much to ask? ================================================================================================ Nobody is poisoning the well. I made no slight against creationism. Not overtly this time but you most certainly implied it. Better to study what the experts have to say about the subject. You just did it again!! EXPERTS?? Are you saying that Creation PhD Chemists/Geneticists/Biologists et al aren't Experts? That we should go to the "REAL" Secular Experts? Another Fallacy......."No True Scotsman." Yea, they're surely not Biased. Let me ask you are these "Creationist" Websites and Publications.... Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molec. Biol. Evol. 24:2266–2276, 2007. Hughes, J.F. et al., Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463: p.538, 2010. Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539. Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253 ??? Just a handful that I've posted The primer I mentioned would be an unemotional study of evolution by someone simply interested in the subject without an agenda. There is no such animal...... ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 You just did it again!! EXPERTS?? Are you saying that Creation PhD Chemists/Geneticists/Biologists et al aren't Experts? Could you give some names so I can read their work? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 26, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 26, 2014 You just did it again!! EXPERTS?? Are you saying that Creation PhD Chemists/Geneticists/Biologists et al aren't Experts? Could you give some names so I can read their work? Thanks Jerry do you have a Computer and Internet Access? GOOGLE the "oft" Ad Hominem'ed sites and look up "Staff" or "About Us". Check their Bio's if needed and off you go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts