19 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJuan Orowin, in 1961, took some of the materials that were produced in the Miller experiments and he took hydrogen cyanide, one of these compounds produced, along with ammonia and left out the aldehyde. So he kind of organized the experiment in a certain way. He produced some amino acids but he also got some adenine, one of the nitrogen containing bases. Later experiments by him and others were actually able to produce the other nucleic acid bases. So now we see there's another area of chemical evolution experiments going on to get at replication. Also, it was found that sugars could be produced. Formaldehyde is one of these monomers produced in the Miller experiments and other experiments. The formaldehyde could polymerize to form a ribose. And indeed, in various kinds of experiments, ribonucleotides are more readily synthesized than the dioxyribonucleotides. Therefore, it started to appear that maybe, if that's the case, the ribonucleotides, that RNA may have appeared early, that the early world was an RNA world.
As far as I am aware, sure, I agree.
In 1986 Tom Scheck discovered something called a riboenzyme, basically, enzymes made of RNA. They could do little more than cut and join preexisting RNA, but until then proteins were thought to carry out all the catalytic activities in an organism.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/bioforum/bf02/awramik/bf02a2.html
19 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt's a long article and I won't take the time to do an original analysis of a linked article. I appreciate your politeness and lack of deception in presenting it however.
Fine. I would recomend that you read this article, written by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
I would appreciate it if you could give me your thoughts on it.
19 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompThanks for that info. I hadn't heard of Orowin or Scheck before this, though I was aware of the existence of ribozymes.
Juan Orowin, in 1961, took some of the materials that were produced in the Miller experiments and he took hydrogen cyanide, one of these compounds produced, along with ammonia and left out the aldehyde. So he kind of organized the experiment in a certain way. He produced some amino acids but he also got some adenine, one of the nitrogen containing bases. L ...[text shortened]... ivities in an organism.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/bioforum/bf02/awramik/bf02a2.html
20 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwhat I found interesting is since it shows beneficial mutations to a new environment AND how removing that environment causes distress on the mutants.. how that set of factors "disproves" evolution. That one paper is enough for me to draw my negative conclusion which is: Just another Sophist for God!
Heh.
[b]Macroevolution requires information-building that adds new information to the genome and we do not see that here.
How did they measure information again?[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompWhat do you regard as the simplest form of life?
Juan Orowin, in 1961, took some of the materials that were produced in the Miller experiments and he took hydrogen cyanide, one of these compounds produced, along with ammonia and left out the aldehyde. So he kind of organized the experiment in a certain way. He produced some amino acids but he also got some adenine, one of the nitrogen containing bases. L ...[text shortened]... ivities in an organism.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/bioforum/bf02/awramik/bf02a2.html
20 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo, what exactly, is the point of linking this article? Does it somehow demonstrate that your faith in "christianity" is grounded in reality?
Fine. I would recomend that you read this article, written by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
I would appreciate it if you could give me your thoughts on it.
20 Jun 05
Originally posted by David CI've stopped responding to articles. First, dj2 has no clue what the article really says or how it applies. His only hope is that you will not be able to respond and thus he'll somehow appear to have come out ahead. If you do respond to the article, with good science or not (as he cannot tell the difference), then he will have some glib one-line retort and another article for you to criticize.
So, what exactly, is the point of linking this article? Does it somehow demonstrate that your faith in "christianity" is grounded in reality?
Like his hero, Kent Hovind, he's just playing a rhetorical game. His parents committed a crime against his brain.