Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Designer enzymes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
    You said it was a catalyst for replicating RNA - which includes replicating itself. I doubt that's what you meant, since your own specific example didn't include the nucleotide sequence.
    Good point, though then you need two ribozymes, one to do the replication, and one to replicate. And the nucleotide sequence was included in the paper, in figure 1A.

    Muller goes on to give two alternative pathways for generating ribozymes - which your quote-mine omitted.
    But these other two pathways start with a ribozyme to modify, so they would not apply to the generation of the first ribozyme.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      No, but I can allow +/- 10% and still find it improbable.
      Fundamentally flawed estimates of probability cannot be accurate nor even reasonable +/- 10%.

      I believe The Lurch agrees.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post

        No, it's incorrect, I can reasonably speak of the probability of the hand I just drew, and it's not 1.
        (facepalm) Read the words again Dory. Slower this time. Follow with your finger if it helps

        The probability that you could roll snake eyes is 1 both before and after the roll.

        There, I even highlighted the key word for you. Not that you will roll snake eyes, that you could roll snake eyes.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          No, but I can allow +/- 10% and still find it improbable.
          Why not plus or minus 50%? And before you answer, let me note that it's clear that you don't know whether this is reasonable or not.

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Though allowing each nucleotide to vary, and the length as well, would seem to include multiple structures too.
          Nope, because the variation you're allowing is only enough to allow changes that preserve this structure. You're not allowing changes to any nucleotide and extreme variations in length, which may be necessary to enable a different catalytic mechanism.

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          No, it's incorrect, I can reasonably speak of the probability of the hand I just drew, and it's not 1.
          See Beagle just above.

          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          But I'm not sure how weighing up the product has a bearing on the probability of generating it, though.
          Because the chemistry that likely generated the first life was driven by geology, and geological features are not small. Therefore, it's probably safe to assume that if conditions allowed the formation of oligonucleotides on the early earth—and the evidence is now available that they probably did—they were formed in massive quantities.

          To be more specific, two of the proposed locations for the earliest biochemistry are hydrothermal vents and evaporative tidal areas. The earth doesn't just have a few meters of these things - it has thousands of kilometers of them. So, if the conditions there were favorable to the production of oligo-RNA, then we'd be talking at a minimum thousands of kilograms of it, with more accumulating over time. Contrast that with the 1/3 of a gram needed to satisfy the probability of this particular combination arising in a population of random 98-mers.

          That's why weight is relevant.
          Last edited by TheLurch; 07-23-2019, 07:25 PM.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Good point, though then you need two ribozymes, one to do the replication, and one to replicate.
            Or two copies of one ribozyme. Despite your continued claims otherwise, the ribozyme you selected is actually self-replicating. Not that you'll ever admit it.
            And the nucleotide sequence was included in the paper, in figure 1A.
            But you didn't post it here. Since the cited paper also includes details of the nucleotide sequence, your objection is just laziness and hypocrisy on your part.
            Muller goes on to give two alternative pathways for generating ribozymes - which your quote-mine omitted.
            But these other two pathways start with a ribozyme to modify, so they would not apply to the generation of the first ribozyme
            But they do apply to the ribozyme Muller was talking about, which was not claimed to be the first ribozyme, so your omission of them was dishonest.

            I also note that you haven't responded to this:
            And when you haven't done that, you can fail to explain why you calculated the probability of a specific ribozyme sequence and ignored not only the other ribozymes that could do the same job, but also the known sequence variability in that one.
            I did do that, see above in my response to TheLurch.
            You mean the one that not only didn't say anything about alternative ribozymes or sequence variability (only length variability), but was posted after I said you'd ignored them?
            As usual you have nothing to offer but quote-mines, hypocrisy, ignorance, evasion and outright lies.
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              But I'm not sure how weighing up the product has a bearing on the probability of generating it, though.
              As usual, your ignorance is not an argument.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                (facepalm) Read the words again Dory. Slower this time. Follow with your finger if it helps

                The probability that you could roll snake eyes is 1 both before and after the roll.

                There, I even highlighted the key word for you. Not that you will roll snake eyes, that you could roll snake eyes.
                Now we are nitpicking, you know that is not what I meant. But I need TheLurch to post probability calculations with the time frame before the events.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Why not plus or minus 50%? And before you answer, let me note that it's clear that you don't know whether this is reasonable or not.
                  Well, taking 50% off the ribozyme may well disable all functionality.

                  So, if the conditions there were favorable to the production of oligo-RNA, then we'd be talking at a minimum thousands of kilograms of it, with more accumulating over time. Contrast that with the 1/3 of a gram needed to satisfy the probability of this particular combination arising in a population of random 98-mers.
                  Which is why Muller said "Low probabilities like these present a major hurdle for many ribozymes to appear in an RNA world." So in generating 98-mers we can't assume that we need not examine the probability of forming them from nucleotides.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    But they do apply to the ribozyme Muller was talking about, which was not claimed to be the first ribozyme, so your omission of them was dishonest.
                    I believe the ribozyme was part of a system, not a self-replicating standalone replicator.

                    And I did respond to your question in my response to TheLurch here.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Now we are nitpicking, you know that is not what I meant. But I need TheLurch to post probability calculations with the time frame before the events.
                      No nitpicking. You didn't bother to read what was written so made yourself look like a fool. Again.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        As usual, your ignorance is not an argument.
                        Technically speaking it is an argument, just a horribly incompetent and really really bad one. Like all Lee's attempts to twist science to fit his religious views.

                        Comment


                        • It's time for "Bingo with Dory!"

                          I earlier wrote this: As usual you have nothing to offer but quote-mines, hypocrisy, ignorance, evasion and outright lies.

                          Join me as I look at Lee's latest posts:
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Now we are nitpicking, you know that is not what I meant.
                          Evasion: check. Dory is trying to evade taking responsibility for him not knowing what TheLurch meant.
                          But I need TheLurch to post probability calculations with the time frame before the events.
                          Hypocrisy: check. Dory is demanding a level of commitment that he would never provide himself.
                          Why not plus or minus 50%? And before you answer, let me note that it's clear that you don't know whether this is reasonable or not.
                          Well, taking 50% off the ribozyme may well disable all functionality.
                          Ignorance: check. It may. Or it may not. Dory doesn't know, and can't be bothered to check.
                          Which is why Muller said "Low probabilities like these present a major hurdle for many ribozymes to appear in an RNA world."
                          Quote-mining: check.
                          So in generating 98-mers we can't assume that we need not examine the probability of forming them from nucleotides.
                          Straw-man: not only is no-one is assuming that, but Muller explicity examines the probability. Not check, because I forgot to include these, but I'll add them.
                          Muller goes on to give two alternative pathways for generating ribozymes - which your quote-mine omitted.
                          But these other two pathways start with a ribozyme to modify, so they would not apply to the generation of the first ribozyme
                          But they do apply to the ribozyme Muller was talking about, which was not claimed to be the first ribozyme, so your omission of them was dishonest.
                          I believe the ribozyme was part of a system, not a self-replicating standalone replicator.
                          More evasion. Muller still wasn't talking about the first ribozyme. I'm not sure at this point whether Dory even knows which ribozyme he's talking about.
                          And I did respond to your question in my response to TheLurch here.
                          Outright lie: check. That wasn't a response to any question by me, and doesn't address the point I made (that Dory didn't consider alternative ribozymes or known sequence variability).

                          Bingo!

                          And that was all he wrote. Nothing but quote-mines, hypocrisy, ignorance, evasion, strawmen and outright lies.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • ^
                            ^
                            ^

                            That was a really well-written post.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Dory is demanding a level of commitment that he would never provide himself.
                              I did provide calculations of probability.

                              Muller still wasn't talking about the first ribozyme.
                              Yes, he was, since the first scenario did not start with an already-existing ribozyme.

                              And similarly with other points...

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                I did provide calculations of probability.
                                You mean you pulled some numbers straight from your asteroid with zero connection to any physical reality. A typical Dory Merrill "science" post in other words.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X