Creationist child abusers close doors

For Fun.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130913185848.htm

But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That's a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth's age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today.

"The RNA world hypothesis is extremely unlikely," said Carter. "It would take forever."
Click to expand...
 
Dionaea said:
For Fun.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130913185848.htm
Click to expand...

Why did you quote just that part?

Moreover, there's no proof that such ribozymes even existed billions of years ago. To buttress the RNA World hypothesis, scientists use 21st century technology to create ribozymes that serve as catalysts. "But most of those synthetic ribozymes," Carter said, "bear little resemblance to anything anyone has ever isolated from a living system."
Carter, who has been an expert in ancient biochemistry for four decades, took a different approach. His experiments are deeply embedded in consensus biology.


Our genetic code is translated by two super-families of modern-day enzymes. Carter's research team created and superimposed digital three-dimensional versions of the two super-families to see how their structures aligned. Carter found that all the enzymes have virtually identical cores that can be extracted to produce "molecular fossils" he calls Urzymes -- Ur meaning earliest or original. The other parts, he said, are variations that were introduced later, as evolution unfolded.


These two Urzymes are as close as scientists have gotten to the actual ancient enzymes that would have populated Earth billions of years ago.


"Once we identified the core part of the enzyme, we cloned it and expressed it," Carter said. "Then we wanted to see if we could stabilize it and determine if it had any biochemical activity." They could and it did.


Both Urzymes are very good at accelerating the two reactions necessary to translate the genetic code.


"Our results suggest that there were very active protein enzymes very early in the generation of life, before there were organisms," Carter said. "And those enzymes were very much like the Urzymes we've made."


The finding also suggests that Urzymes evolved from even simpler ancestors -- tiny proteins called peptides. And over time those peptides co-evolved with RNA to give rise to more complex life forms.


In this "Peptide-RNA World" scenario, RNA would have contained the instructions for life while peptides would have accelerated key chemical reactions to carry out those instructions.


"To think that these two Urzymes might have launched protein synthesis before there was life on Earth is totally electrifying," Carter said. "I can't imagine a much more exciting result to be working on, if one is interested in the origin of life."

This hypothesis seems to answer a problem that was raised in another study posted concerning the idea that life must be older than the earth and panspermia. But I am sure the creationist will mine it for what they find useful in their war on science and ignore the rest.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
its hardly a problem for me that the process of evolution from the inception of life to the present day is scientifically impossible.....
Click to expand...

You are a complete moron that has not even mastered identifying what the theory of evolution is and is not.

Further, you failed to soak up what you have read here and in the other thread which you are using to make this claim. It's not scientifically impossible and nothing has established that it is.

Your reading comprehension, math and science skills indicate that you should have never advanced past the third grade.
 
The same one that devoted literally 5 minutes to creationism, including the disclaimer of 'we don't judge'. Surely you learned different theories of evolution? Is it a rapid process occurring over a few generations or is it gradual change?

If, since evolution has been claimed to have slowed down, evidenced by the lack of new phyla, does that mean diversity is at an end?

Its been awhile myself, but I'm positive you aren't as aware as you'd like to be think you are on this subject.
 
Dionaea said:
The same one that devoted literally 5 minutes to creationism, including the disclaimer of 'we don't judge'. Surely you learned different theories of evolution? Is it a rapid process occurring over a few generations or is it gradual change?

If, since evolution has been claimed to have slowed down, evidenced by the lack of new phyla, does that mean diversity is at an end?

Its been awhile myself, but I'm positive you aren't as aware as you'd like to be think you are on this subject.
Click to expand...

It is sometimes rapid but usually gradual.

What is your source for this claim that evolution has slowed?

Phyla is just an arbitrary abstraction that we have used to categorize life. It's no more meaningful than base 10.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Phyla is just an arbitrary abstraction that we have used to categorize life. It's no more meaningful than base 10.
Click to expand...

1. Its based on science and represents its organization.

2. Its not being expanded because no creatures, even the new ones we find daily, meet the requirements to. Look at Pluto. We re-classed it.
 
Dionaea said:
1. Its based on science and represents its organization.

2. Its not being expanded because no creatures, even the new ones we find daily, meet the requirements to. Look at Pluto. We re-classed it.
Click to expand...

Did Pluto become something different?

It's an arbitrary system of classification. Your argument is based on Platonic nonsense. The lack of new phyla does not prove that evolution has slowed, but possibly the expansion of our arbitrary classification system has. Since the rise of this taxonomic system, how many new phyla would be expected to have appeared (i.e., came into being due to change in a life form and not just due to recategorization)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top