Thursday, April 20, 2017

Bill Martin is coming to town!!!

Contact me by email if you'd like to meet him on Sunday, April 30th.




65 comments :

  1. Replies
    1. No. I'm against recording departmental seminars.

      Delete
  2. I would love to ask Professor Martin a few questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm envisioning a "Big Daddy?" moment, in which txpiper stumps the stupid liberal atheist professor to the cheers of the audience.

      Delete
    2. And he storms out of the room, all red in the face and sweating, and on the way home reevaluates his life until he eventually throws himself on his knees and gives himself to Jesus. The End.

      Delete
    3. I like this story more(but can't take credit for it):

      A liberal muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist

      ”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!”

      At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.

      ”How old is this rock, pinhead?”

      The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian”

      ”Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal now”

      The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned wealth from the deserving job creators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, DeShawn Washington, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against them!

      The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.

      The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.

      Semper Fi.
      p.s. close the borders

      Delete
    4. Nah, nothing particularly dramatic. But since Martin was on the team that determined that the LUCA probably had 355 genes, I'd be interested in hearing about how those genes 'arose'.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/07/25/was-this-ancient-organism-the-first-life-on-earth-or-just-the-luckiest/

      Delete
    5. "A liberal muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist..."

      That's pretty funny, Mikkel. When they were looking for a black handicapped lesbian muslim with a Spanish surname to chair the DNC, this person would have definitely been given serious consideration.

      Delete
    6. Somehow I suspect that a person who confuses the LUCA with the earliest life probably won't be asking the best of all stumpers.

      Delete
    7. If txpiper knew Bill Martin he would be very afraid to challenge him. Even I am intimated by his intellect, size, and personality and I don't scare easily.

      Delete
    8. "a person who confuses the LUCA with the earliest life"

      Oh, you must not have read the article I linked to which mentioned that.

      "Although LUCA was our oldest ancestor and certainly a very early life form, it was not necessarily the first living thing."

      ===

      Larry,

      "If txpiper knew Bill Martin he would be very afraid to challenge him."

      I wouldn't be challenging him about what he knows. But as I've mentioned many times, there appears to be a minimum number of genes necessary for an organism to live and replicate. His team concluded that the LUCA had around 355. I'd just ask Bill about where they came from. Maybe you can ask him about it when you see him.

      Delete
    9. So your confusion is over the distinction between the number of genes possessed by the LUCA, and the minimum number of genes required for a genome to survive and reproduce. Thanks for clarifying the precise nature of your confusion, txpiper. It can be hard to keep track of exactly what is confusing you at any given moment.

      Delete
    10. "I wouldn't be challenging him about what he knows."

      Yeah, that would mean you're willing to risk learning something, and a staunch creationist can never stoop to learning anything.

      Delete
    11. "So your confusion is over the distinction between the number of genes possessed by the LUCA, and the minimum number of genes required for a genome to survive and reproduce."

      Well, the minimal genome, regardless of the source or the organism, seems to be a range of roughly 250-350 genes. Once upon a time, there were no genes at all. So if you can bridge the gap between none and the minimum, then you're definitely less confused (probably just less curious) than I am.

      ===

      "a staunch creationist can never stoop to learning anything"

      Oh, I'm more than happy to learn things. So, if you're enlightened about the origin of genes, I'm happy to listen.

      Delete
    12. So life could only have started with a fully formed organism of 250-350 genes? When are you publishing the groundbreaking evidence for this claim, tx?

      Delete
    13. "So life could only have started with a fully formed organism of 250-350 genes?"

      That is what the evidence says. You might believe otherwise, but it is just a belief on your part.
      -
      "When are you publishing the groundbreaking evidence for this claim, tx?"

      Right after you publish your experimental work that demonstrates prototypical functional genes.

      Delete
    14. txpiper,
      The evidence says that an apparent minimal gene set of a LUCA might have had such number, not that the number of genes were necessary for first life forms. You said that you didn't mistake LUCA for first life forms, but then you go on and confuse them.

      Delete
    15. "That is what the evidence says. You might believe otherwise, but it is just a belief on your part."

      What evidence? You are the only one saying so. I am not going on belief, but rather what we know, based on the evidence. Explain the basis of your claims.

      "Right after you publish your experimental work that demonstrates prototypical functional genes."

      I have made no such claims, so why would I do that?

      You aren't very good at this logic stuff, are you, tx?

      Delete
    16. "What evidence? You are the only one saying so. I am not going on belief, but rather what we know, based on the evidence. Explain the basis of your claims."

      What is known is that cells are the basic unit of life, and cells require a certain number of genes in order to live and replicate. Any ideas about life evolving up to this minimum threshold is just fanciful speculation.

      Delete
    17. "Any ideas about life evolving up to this minimum threshold is just fanciful speculation."

      At least science has some data to support its claims about the evolution of life. You should stop projecting, for you are the one engaging in fanciful speculation.

      You haven't a shred of evidence that life could only have arisen via a cell with modern physiology and replication mechanisms, requiring 250-300 genes. Absent that, you have only fanciful speculation.

      Delete
    18. "At least science has some data to support its claims about the evolution of life."

      No, science does not have data to support such claims. It is just a narrative that is no more respectable than pumpkins turning into carriages. You believe it, not because it is believable, but because you like the story.

      Delete
    19. What is known is that cells are the basic unit of life, and cells require a certain number of genes in order to live and replicate.

      A common creationist misconception. Everyone else here knows why you are wrong, and explaining won't help you to understand. So I'll just point at you and laugh.

      Delete
    20. "No, science does not have data to support such claims."

      Your ignorance of the evidence is not an exclude, tx. I don't believe science has figured out how life evolved. I don't like any of the "stories" because at present we can only conclude "we don't know" for the origins of life. I would rather we knew. But at least science has provided some empirical evidence. Creationism has no evidence whatsoever to support it, even when it bothers to make some coherent claims. Creationists spend the vast majority of their time, as you have, knocking down a straw man version of what science has to say on the subject.

      The best you can say is that science hasn't figured it all out yet. Creationism adds nothing of substance to the issue at all. You beleive in creationism because you like that story and need it believe in your god. Don't project your logical shortcomings on science.

      Delete
    21. No, science does not have data to support such claims. It is just a narrative that is no more respectable than pumpkins turning into carriages.

      So remind me, again, how creationists claim life came about. And then explain why it is any more deserving of serious consideration than a story about pumpkins turning into carriages.

      Delete
    22. What is known is that cells are the basic unit of life, and cells require a certain number of genes in order to live and replicate

      That's one possibility. Another is that the first life was viruses. It's an interesting and exciting topic with a lot of research going on, which, sadly for you, you seem actively engaged in trying to misunderstand.

      Delete
    23. "I don't like any of the "stories" because at present we can only conclude "we don't know" for the origins of life."

      I can't blame you for not liking those. The problems with any or all of them are arguably worse than those the alchemists encountered when they were trying to turn base metals into gold. A lot of misplaced faith and wasted effort went into discovering that some things are just not possible.

      ===

      "That's one possibility.”

      No, that isn’t a possibility. That is a fact.
      -
      ”Another is that the first life was viruses."

      Except for the fact that “all viruses utilize normal cellular ribosomes, tRNAs, and translation factors for synthesis of their proteins”*, so viruses couldn't be the chicken or the egg.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21523/

      Delete
    24. "I can't blame you for not liking those. The problems with any or all of them are arguably worse than those the alchemists encountered when they were trying to turn base metals into gold."

      Wrong again, tx. Alchemy, like creationism, was based on a fanciful idea that had no basis in fact. Scientific hypotheses about the origins of life, however speculative, have at least some underlying basis in empirical facts.

      Name one ID/creationist hypothesis about the origin of life that any empirical evidence to support it. Just one.

      I predict you will avoid this request to instead reply with another trolling, intellectually dishonest post. Let's see what happens.

      Delete
    25. “Alchemy, like creationism, was based on a fanciful idea that had no basis in fact. Scientific hypotheses about the origins of life, however speculative, have at least some underlying basis in empirical facts.”

      No, I’m sorry, but there is no evidence that an organism can live and replicate without a minimum number of genes, and functional, hyper-complex molecular machines. Those are the empirical facts. There is also not a hint of data that even suggests that genes or anything like ribosome could form accidentally. The nonsense you believe makes alchemy look like sophisticated research. You’ve moved from being deceived, to willful, deliberate self-deceit. You left science behind when you started only believing things that you like.
      -
      “Name one ID/creationist hypothesis about the origin of life that any empirical evidence to support it. Just one.”

      That’s easy. Profuse empirical evidence shows bewildering complexity in the simplest living things that could not possibly be the result of time and accidents. It is that simple.

      There are plenty of ways to illustrate the depravity involved in losing the ability to distinquish between possible and impossible, and in your case, normal and abnormal. This is a good one:

      ”two elements that allow the precursors of life to form were almost certainly unavailable on early Earth but were likely present on early Mars.....So the question arises: Did RNA on Mars lead to actual DNA-based life? And did those lifeforms then travel to Earth on rocks kicked up when a meteorite struck Mars?”

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130905-mars-origin-of-life-earth-panspermia-astrobiology/

      Delete
    26. Hey Tx, the question was:
      "Name one ID/creationist hypothesis about the origin of life that any empirical evidence to support it. Just one."

      and you responded with:
      "That’s easy. Profuse empirical evidence"

      Ok, where is this evidence? Links to papers, please?

      "shows bewildering complexity"

      So this is the ID/creationist hypothesis about the origin of life? Bewildering complexity?

      LOL! And you wonder why people don't take you serious? In my job I'd get fired if I came up with this kind of lame ass 'hypothesis' like yours.

      You continue with the standard 'evolution can't do this, thus goddidit' story. Which, let me remind you this has been mentioned to you many times over, isn't evidence in favor of your 'hypothesis'.


      Anyway, you haven't answered Chris's question, because the question was:
      Name one ID/creationist hypothesis about the origin of life that any empirical evidence to support it. Just one.

      Delete
    27. No, I’m sorry, but there is no evidence that an organism can live and replicate without a minimum number of genes, and functional, hyper-complex molecular machines.

      Hey, that's great, txpiper. You're almost starting to do something that vaguely resembles thinking.

      Now, for your next act: Please summarize all the evidence that exists of immaterial spooks that can think without a body, and which issue commands to stone virgins to death.

      Delete
    28. so viruses couldn't be the chicken or the egg

      That's true of viruses today, yes. Do you know for a fact that they never did otherwise, i.e., that they never utilized "free" chemicals and only later evolved to drop that mode when the biochemical bonanza of cellular life became widely available? I will note a viral origin is not the leading hypothesis, but some non-crackpot scientists are thinking quite seriously about it.

      Sorry if the actual research and process of science is less black and white than your world view permits.

      Delete
    29. Profuse empirical evidence shows bewildering complexity in the simplest living things that could not possibly be the result of time and accidents.

      Thus we know an entity more bewilderingly complex, sophisticated, intelligent, and powerful than any we can conceive must have existed. IOW, amoebas are impossible, but deities are more than possible, they're (or it's) a certainty. Because...? (Just waiting for your stream of irrefutable empirical proof and logic here that totally contradicts everything you've just said about the impossibility of complex entities forming or existing.)

      Delete
    30. So this is the ID/creationist hypothesis about the origin of life? Bewildering complexity?

      Still, at least give txpiper credit for honesty and admitting that the complexity of biology leaves him bewildered. That puts him one up on, say, Michael Behe, who tries to gussy up his bewilderment by instead calling it "irreducible complexity."

      Delete
    31. tx,

      "No, I’m sorry, but there is no evidence that an organism can live and replicate without a minimum number of genes, and functional, hyper-complex molecular machines. Those are the empirical facts."

      No, those aren't empirical facts. They are your assertions. I don't have to disprove every silly assertion you and other ID-creationists dream up. It is you who have to prove your case.

      "There is also not a hint of data that even suggests that genes or anything like ribosome could form accidentally."

      Evolution makes no such claim. That is a straw man argument.

      "The nonsense you believe makes alchemy look like sophisticated research. You’ve moved from being deceived, to willful, deliberate self-deceit. You left science behind when you started only believing things that you like."

      Now you are just projecting again. I'm sorry your religious superstitions have left you with no proof for what you believe, but kindly stop trying to foist your intellectual failings on science.

      "Profuse empirical evidence shows bewildering complexity in the simplest living things that could not possibly be the result of time and accidents. It is that simple."

      Because you think life is too complex to have evolved you want to claim your god did it. That is an argument from personal incredulity and a false dichotomy (why is it that ID-creationists aren't satisfied with making one huge logical fallacy when they make an 'argument'; they have to work in at least two). If I were to defend evolution by saying I have thought about it and came to the conclusion that it looks evolved to me so that has to be what happened, you would never accept such an argument (and rightly so). Your armchair musings do not constitute evidence.

      We have been over this ground together before, tx. Unless you have something new to add, I'm done wasting my time.

      Delete
    32. “Do you know for a fact that they never did otherwise, i.e., that they never utilized "free" chemicals and only later evolved to drop that mode when the biochemical bonanza of cellular life became widely available?”

      Well, I guess I don’t know that for a fact. And perhaps pumpkins really can turn into carriages, and Elvis is doing two shows every night on Saturn. But from what I can glean from everything I’ve read, free chemicals are no substitute for replication enzymes or ribosome.

      ===

      “No, those aren't empirical facts. They are your assertions. I don't have to disprove every silly assertion you and other ID-creationists dream up.”

      No, you don’t. You can excuse yourself.
      -
      There is also not a hint of data that even suggests that genes or anything like ribosome could form accidentally.

      Evolution makes no such claim. That is a straw man argument.”

      Oh. Well then, according to the theory, how did those things originate?

      Delete
    33. I love it when people who believe in the fantastic fable that complex objects can be wished into existence with magical spells and thoughts, complain about gaps in scientific knowledge.

      There is no demonstration in all of history, that anything can be wished into existence. Yet txpiper aka, the hypocrite, believes in this concept with the staunch conviction of a complete sycophant.

      "Oh. Well then, according to the theory, how did those things originate?"

      We don't know. But you're the one who believes they were literally wished into existence with a magical spell.

      You know that classic creationist argument that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Well creationism violates ALL the laws of physics. Literally. The conservation of mass, momentum, charge, all the laws about the transfer and dispersal of heat, energy and so on, the behaviors of particles in gases, solids and fluids. Creationism posits that none of these laws are really true and that exceptions to them have taken place in actual history. On what "observational" evidence? None whatsoever. They believe it because they were told as childre, and thinking about it in church or when they read bible verses "feels good".

      LOL

      Delete
    34. Oh. Well then, according to the theory, how did those things originate?

      Not confirmed yet and may never be, so not a theory. There are a number of hypotheses that have been put out for peer review (i.e., for other scientists to argue with and try to tear down, which they have, heartily - this is part of the interest and fun of science). But of course all these hypotheses are based on the laws of chemistry. We know chemistry can create amino acids in the harsh conditions of space, so amino acid chains being formed into proteins and other chemical reactions taking place in the considerably more active environment of the Earth of 3.7-3.5 billion years ago isn't even surprising, let alone miraculous.

      Delete
    35. “I love it when people who believe in the fantastic fable that complex objects can be wished into existence with magical spells and thoughts, complain about gaps in scientific knowledge.”

      I just recognize, from an ID (which I have little use for) standpoint, that some things are not possible. Life is not about amino acids. It is about proteins, and proteins are not just ‘free’ chemicals. They are synthesized, functioning structures. You can’t overstate that reality. The accidents you are appealing to are countless, ridiculous, top-shelf miracles. This is not about little gaps.

      Lots of people conceivably brighter than you, and none of them Bible thumpers, have recognized the grotesqeness of the obstacles. Perhaps you’ve heard of Antony Flew. He had sense enough to comprehend, after many years, the grotesqueness of the problems that your pissy attitude lets you walk right by:

      “In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.” ”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

      Some of your big dogs were forced to look elsewhere for answers:

      “Francis Crick (who co-discovered the structure of DNA with James Watson) and Leslie Orgel once proposed that life on Earth was the result of a deliberate infection, designed by aliens who had purposely fled mother nature’s seed to a new home in the sun. Crick repeatedly addressed the question of the origin of life between 1971 and 1988…”
      https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-origins-of-directed-panspermia/

      And then there are the Christian creationists, the people who founded most of the disciplines, who would quickly dismiss your pompous conclusions. You may be smart Mikkel, but you're not that smart.

      Delete
    36. Life is not about amino acids. It is about proteins

      And of course amino acids linking together to form proteins is impossible because - uhh, because why, exactly?

      Delete
    37. "And of course amino acids linking together to form proteins is impossible because - uhh, because why, exactly?"

      There are lots several people here who can explain why that doesn't happen.

      Delete
    38. https://www.facebook.com/therealskepticus/videos/618920038310589/

      Delete
    39. "I just recognize, from an ID (which I have little use for) standpoint, that some things are not possible."

      And universes, entire universes, full of galaxies, stars, planets and with life on them, can be wished into existence with magical incantations. You believe that's possible.

      LOL

      Delete
    40. There are lots several people here who can explain why that doesn't happen.

      Because we all know that biochemistry operates on *completely different* rules than regular chemistry, right? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wöhler_synthesis)

      Delete
    41. Txpiper: "There are lots several people here who can explain why that [amino acids linking together] doesn't happen."

      Actually, in some circumstances amino acids can join together without any organism involved. In fact the early experiments on how organic chemicals can form produced not only amino acids but also polypeptides (short amino acid chains; very short proteins). So this is an argument you shouldn't make.

      Delete
    42. bwilson295,

      "So this is an argument you shouldn't make."

      In regards to functional protein synthesis in living things, I would definitely use it, because what I think you're talking about didn't just happen. Miller was the organism involved as he was the one who decided to add cyanamide to his experiment. That's hardly an approximation of either the process or the results of proteins being synthesized.

      Delete
    43. In regards to functional protein synthesis in living things, I would definitely use it

      Does the fact that reactions take place in living things that aren't ordinary in inorganic chemistry surprise you? A billion years or more to evolve the reactions you see in even the most primitive cellular organisms does have some significance. Of course if you remain studiously ignorant of the fact of a 4.5 billion year old Earth, I can see where you would have trouble with that.

      Delete
    44. " Miller was the organism involved as he was the one who decided to add cyanamide to his experiment. That's hardly an approximation of either the process or the results of proteins being synthesized."

      It's definitely not an approximation of how the process of protein biosynthesis takes place in cells, but that would be pretty obvious if we're talking about the very origin of life, rather than life as we know it. And I'm not saying this to advocate for Miller's primordial soup scenario, merely to point out your reasoning is laughably flawed.

      The fact that protein biosynthesis in cells happens due to process X, doesn't mean the very first proteins couldn't have been synthesized by process Y at life's origin.

      In fact, that's what you believe. That first life came to exist by an entirely different process than how living organism now copy themselves. You don't believe the first proteins were biosynthesized by the ribosome, you believe they were wished into existence with literal magic. Which is not at all how the ribosome makes proteins. So once again, the principle you cling to in your rejection of abiogenesis, bites your own creationism in the butt.

      Will you ever acquire the ability to reason, and will you for once use it before you post?

      Delete
    45. Will you ever acquire the ability to reason

      My assumption from Tx's posts is that he was not a young Earth creationist always, but came to that set of beliefs through a conversion process that he feels made him a better person. And in fact he would prefer that we also become better people in a similar way, rather than this "reason" you speak of.

      IOW, the answer to your question, Mikkel, is "not any time soon, if ever." I would assume (Tx will correct me if I am wrong) that he believes his life-after-death depends on it.

      Delete
    46. "Will you ever acquire the ability to reason, and will you for once use it before you post?"

      Since you're dealing with a guy who calls scientific proposals and endeavours "pumpkins turning into carriages," while actually believing that the whole of reality was produced by the incantations of a magical being, I doubt that acquiring the ability to reason, or using it before posting, is among his priorities or desires.

      Delete
    47. "A billion years or more to evolve the reactions…”

      Well first, dead reactions don’t evolve, so throwing time at an impossibility doesn’t help. By your metric, alchemists could still be on the right track.

      But to summarize, cyanamide was delivered to the earth from deep space by meteorites, and wound up in the proximity of racemic amino acids, and they were struck by lightning and formed dipeptides, and these precursors evolved into homochiral, task-specific, synthesized proteins. And logical, neutral, objective science recognizes that things like this happen all the time, so there is no God.

      ===

      “wished into existence with literal magic”

      No, spoken into existence by the same literal Authority that is configuring the alliance between Russia, Iran and several other players in preparation for an invasion of Israel that was described and recorded about 2600 years ago. It’s the kind of information you don’t want to ignore if you’re into facts.

      Delete
    48. “My assumption from Tx's posts is that he was not a young Earth creationist always, but came to that set of beliefs through a conversion process that he feels made him a better person.”

      No, I used to be an old Earth creationist, and just changed my views on account of, among other things, data that was not available until after the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption, and what happened after the 1983 floods that occurred in the Colorado river basin. And, speaking of floods, the ongoing discoveries of bio-material that is supposed to be tens, if not hundreds of millions of years old has reinforced my position.

      As for making me a better person, I think not. I’m just more informed, and more of a dispensational Biblical literalist.

      Delete
    49. "...dispensational Biblical literalist."

      It's remarkable the fancy sounding terms some people devise to describe uninformed imbeciles.

      Delete
    50. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

      Delete
    51. Well first, dead reactions don’t evolve

      See, this is the "Groundhog Day" stuff I dislike when dealing with creationists. You act like you never read the Nick Lane stuff, when you've already commented on it here. If you have specific problems with any of the chemistry, let us know. Vague vitalist generalities like "dead reactions don't evolve" don't cut it two centuries after the Wohler synthesis.

      Delete
    52. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

      Like I said....

      Delete
    53. “It's remarkable the fancy sounding terms…”

      Dispensationalism is not particularly fancy. It just acknowledges previously announced historical trends and milestones. The Wikipedia article should have mentioned Clarence Larkin.

      ===

      “You act like you never read the Nick Lane stuff, when you've already commented on it here.”

      Yeah, I enjoyed perusing some of the things he’s written. My favorite is about death being a premier evolutionary accomplishment. But, unlike you, I don’t accept what people might write as proven science. There should be ten piles of data gleaned from repeatable experiments accompanying Lane and Michael Le Page’s condensed story about how life evolved, in ten steps:

      https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells/

      I particularly like step #6, the only one that mentions self-replication, since that would be critically necessary to the ‘evolution’ to occur.

      ”Fatty molecules coated the iron-sulphur froth and spontaneously formed cell-like bubbles. Some of these bubbles would have enclosed self-replicating sets of molecules – the first organic cells. The earliest protocells may have been elusive entities, though, often dissolving and reforming as they circulated within the vents.”

      And the crowd went crazy. See how easy that is? All it takes is a little imagination.
      -
      “If you have specific problems with any of the chemistry, let us know.”

      Well, since you ask, Lane and Le Page say that:

      ”electrochemical gradient between the alkaline vent fluid and the acidic seawater leads to the spontaneous formation of acetyl phosphate and pyrophospate, which act just like adenosine triphosphate or ATP, the chemical that powers living cells.

      These molecules drove the formation of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins – and nucleotides, the building blocks for RNA and DNA.”


      So, one question is, has anyone actually produced any or all of the homochiral amino acids using acetyl phosphate and pyrophospate as substitutes for ATP?

      Also, nucleotides “are composed of three subunit molecules: a nitrogenous base, a five-carbon sugar (ribose or deoxyribose), and at least one phosphate group"*, and “In biology, D-ribose must be phosphorylated by the cell before it can be used.”**

      So, is phosphorylated D-ribose found at alkaline vent fluid/acidic seawater gradients at deep-sea vents? Would you suppose they meant nucleobases? In your opinion, does the deep-sea vent stuff compete well with the Miller-Urey’s p-traps and electrical stimulation? Which do you think is more deserving of the “process not well-understood” trophy?

      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide
      ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribose

      Delete
    54. ... aand we're straight back to the argument from ignorance. It's not yet been demonstrated, so we don't know, therefore verbal incantations by an incorporeal and mouthless space-Gandalf made it all appear out of literally nothing. Never mind that that's also never been observed, txpiper will believe it with absolute conviction.

      So he's both reasoning fallaciously (we don't know, so it must be magic), and he's doing it on a double-standard (believes on zero empirical evidence, yet scold us for not being able to demonstrate how life evolved with evidence).

      Delete
    55. “…aand we're straight back to the argument from ignorance. It's not yet been demonstrated, so we don't know….on a double-standard”

      No Mikkel, you’ve come to premature conclusions while your’re still immersed in ignorance. If it hasn’t been demonstrated, then you don’t know, and you have no business drawing any conclusions.

      There is a double standard. Science isn’t supposed to be involved in faith enterprises, so scientists should be furiously washing out things like Lane’s ten point fairy tale as fast as they are published. But you don’t. You just excuse yourself, and believe things that you like.

      Delete
    56. Tell me what I believe, I'm curious. What do you think I believe?

      Delete
  3. Larry, what are your thoughts on recent back-and-forth between Lynch & Marinov and Lane & Martin regarding the role of mitochondria in the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity? If I understood correctly, Lynch and Marinov claimed in their paper on the bioenergetic costs of a new gene that mitochondria is not essential for increase in genome complexity seen in eukaryotes, whereas Lane and Martin disagreed with this conclusion.

    Do you plan to maybe cover this in future? Also, other readers are free to chime in.

    By the way, big fan of Sandwalk! Great site!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds like an interesting discussion. Georgi Marinov comments here from time to time, so it's possible he would weigh in as well.

      Delete
  4. Having sat on the Council of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution with Bill, I can say that he is one of the last people in the world who would be intimidated by a questioner (particularly one who mistakenly thinks that the LUCA is the first form of life). Timid, he is definitely not.

    ReplyDelete