Sciencescience

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:08 PM

 

The science question guaranteed to make Lefty loses interest in science:

How did the first cell develop without the DNA to tell it how to form?

Watch. Lefty will respond with everything but science.

29 replies, 883 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply The science question guaranteed to make Lefty loses interest in science: (Original post)
Konservative Mar 2017 OP
JJ667 Mar 2017 #1
Konservative Mar 2017 #3
JJ667 Mar 2017 #6
Konservative Mar 2017 #7
JJ667 Mar 2017 #14
Daves Not Here Man Mar 2017 #16
Konservative Mar 2017 #18
Slayer Mar 2017 #2
Konservative Mar 2017 #4
Slayer Mar 2017 #5
Konservative Mar 2017 #9
Cold Warrior Mar 2017 #11
Konservative Mar 2017 #19
Ravenquills Mar 2017 #26
SlayerNut Mar 2017 #28
quad489 Mar 2017 #8
Konservative Mar 2017 #10
Cold Warrior Mar 2017 #12
Konservative Mar 2017 #17
It Guy Mar 2017 #21
Konservative Mar 2017 #22
It Guy Mar 2017 #23
Konservative Mar 2017 #24
rampartb Mar 2017 #13
Konservative Mar 2017 #20
Daves Not Here Man Mar 2017 #15
Letmypeoplevote Mar 2017 #25
Duke Lacrosse Mar 2017 #27
birthmark59 Mar 2017 #29

Response to Konservative (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:21 PM

1. Most widely accepted theory.

The most widely accepted theory right now is that RNA developed first and DNA evolved later. RNA can form easily into self replicating patterns but such patterns are fragile and DNA serves as a more stable platform for carrying information over generations.

It will probably always be theory because no hard evidence remains. The research does show that it works as an evolutionary pathway but that doesn't prove it's the one used in the history of the earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JJ667 (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:25 PM

3. You've given how it 'could have' happened.

 

With respect, that's very easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:42 PM

6. Science is like that some times

Science is like that some times. In some situations all of the hard evidence of what happened is gone and all that can be done is provide a good theory and evidence/experiments that prove that it could have happened that way.

Every trace of the DNA/RNA and any other protein chains that might have been involved in the development of life are long gone. There is far less chance of any of those surviving then fossils and other evidence used for later periods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JJ667 (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:50 PM

7. Fair enough.

 

Is that theory logical to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 01:12 PM

14. It works so far

Science shows that there are self replicating RNA chains, RNA can build DNA and RNA chains can form naturally. Last I heard nobody has managed get from naturally forming chains to self replicating life that builds DNA but really that isn't expected.

There was probably a long period of increasingly complex RNA based life before DNA came along. The original naturally forming self replicating chains wouldn't have the capacity to form DNA. Worse it's the sort of evolutionary random walk where even if you setup the same starting conditions there is no reason to think it would turn out the same again. It might evolve a hardened form based on different chemicals or could evolve a form of multi-strand replication error checking or something else entirely or nothing at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 01:32 PM

16. God "could have" created us.

You're right, that was easy. Problem solved, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 02:59 PM

18. Sure. That's obvious enough to not even be mentioned.

 

But I predicted it would be....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Slayer (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:32 PM

4. Did you see the word 'theory' in those sources? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:38 PM

5. Damn near everything you take for granted is grounded in theory.

 

Do you have a point to your op then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slayer (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:52 PM

9. No, everything I take for granted it is grounded in settled science.

 

Something that doesn't require 'belief'. Something that IS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 01:06 PM

11. You do know that gravity is a 'theory'

The term 'theory' in science is not the same as 'hypothesis.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 03:06 PM

19. You are correct. But....

 

Does even one person on Earth question that theory? Does one even have to know that theory for it's effects to be known to them?

I imagine many scientists have differing opinions on how a cell could form without DNA. But would any of those scientists deny the existence of gravity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:53 AM

26. Actually that is not true

Electricity works but in actuality we do not know exactly why it works or why it even exists. So if you believe the lights will turn on when you flip the switch then you are doing something that is not grounded in settled science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 14, 2017, 10:04 AM

28. do.you know what

A scientific "theory" means?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:51 PM

8. It just happened, kinda like the "big bang"...one day nothing exploded into everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:57 PM

10. Yup.

 

All the galaxies, their stars, their planets and satellites came from something as small as a pinhead dontchsknow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 01:06 PM

12. How old do you think the earth is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 02:55 PM

17. I have no idea and don't care.

 

Nobody can know for, so debating it is an exercise in futility. Christian 'Young Earth' believers say the Earth is 6,000 years old. One 'Big Bang' believer says Earth is 3 billion years old, another days 4 billion. Who's right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 04:55 PM

21. I read it here that if the gap or space was taken out between protons, neutrons and electrons

that the human body would then fit into a speck of dust and the entire human population would fit into the space of a sugar cube. Which means that we are mostly space and physical matter is mostly comprised of space. This is why radiation of all types can pass through most matter mostly unhindered.

Here, take a look:

http://www.sciencealert.com/99-9999999-of-your-body-is-empty-space


But it might humble you to know that all of those things – your friends, your office, your really big car, you yourself, and even everything in this incredible, vast Universe – are almost entirely, 99.9999999 percent empty space.

Here’s the deal. As I previously wrote in a story for the particle physics publication Symmetry, the size of an atom is governed by the average location of its electrons: how much space there is between the nucleus and the atom’s amorphous outer shell.

Nuclei are around 100,000 times smaller than the atoms they’re housed in.

If the nucleus were the size of a peanut, the atom would be about the size of a baseball stadium. If we lost all the dead space inside our atoms, we would each be able to fit into a particle of dust, and the entire human species would fit into the volume of a sugar cube.

The other thing regarding DNA that is just as important as the way that the DNA molecule is structured with atoms of proper sequence is the precise way in the way it is folded. It turns out that the way a protein is folded has just as much importance as the molecule itself!

The folding determines how the protein with its amino acids conforms to its functions. Geneticists have started a web based program to share computational power of millions of computers to figure out the folding process. They know how to unfold them, but why and how they fold into specific sequence that works is key to understanding how to engineer new ones.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/protein_folding.htm


Protein folding
Protein folding is the process by which a protein structure assumes its functional shape or conformation.

All protein molecules are heterogeneous unbranched chains of amino acids.

By coiling and folding into a specific three-dimensional shape they are able to perform their biological function.



There is even a game called Foldit that allows anyone to contribute to this science endeavor.

http://fold.it/portal/info/science


The Science Behind Foldit

Foldit is a revolutionary crowdsourcing computer game enabling you to contribute to important scientific research. This page describes the science behind Foldit and how your playing can help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Reply #21)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 05:21 PM

22. I've also heard natural laws 'break down' in such an instance.

 

That makes the impossibility of the explanation possible, right?

That's mighty convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 07:50 PM

23. Yeah, natural laws of physics breaks down at the quantum level, hence for use of the LHC.

Quantum physics came about by the double slit experiment and from that came string theory. They had no other way as to explain why one electron would influence another electron or seemingly become the same electron at two different places and this experiment proved that electrons/photons traveled in both a wave and as a particle.

The other extremely mind blowing thing that they realized is that the very act of observation changed the way the electrons behaved. The ramifications of that means that reality becomes subjective by who's looking and when, which then opens up the theory of infinite universes that may in fact be interacting with each other.

They then hypothesized that no amount spacial separation made any difference of time between influence and reaction of its twin which essentially means instantaneous effect faster than the speed of light. This is where Einstein's theory of E=MC^2 falls apart in the relationship of energy to mass because the limiting factor of speed of light does not apply.

Here, check this out. It's on the D Wave Quantum Computer. This will absolutely blow your fucking mind and what this guy is implying is absolutely astounding!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to It Guy (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:57 PM

24. Fascinating, and oddly, a little scary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 01:08 PM

13. a cell is actually a fairly advanced form of life

simple amino acids have been produced in the laboratory, from there to nucleic acid, and the simplest life, is only a matter of a few 100 million years, and has occurred on earth in several differing media including methane and sulphurous volcanic vents in the deep ocean . the wiki article on prokaryotes states succinctly :

There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing an endosymbiotic origin of the nucleus, that eukaryotes arose without endosymbiosis, and that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing a simultaneous endosymbiotic origin of the flagellum and the nucleus, in addition to many other models, which have been reviewed and summarized elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 03:10 PM

20. A cell is a miracle of complex engineering.*

 

I think that kind of makes my point though. How could something so complex know how to become that complex without instructions?

*Let's leave the debate of the origin of that 'engineering' for another debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Original post)


Response to Konservative (Original post)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 01:20 PM

25. Thank you for the laughs

I love your posts in that they are so weak that they are funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:11 PM

27. The arrow of time goes only one direction. Trying to create a reductio ad absurdum by running...

...it backward is illogical and futile.

There is plenty of evidence for DNA arising as a product of RNA replication over a long time span. Evolution cannot be disproved through sophistry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Konservative (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 10:59 PM

29. We don't know precisely

Just like we don't know how the first rain drop formed. Somehow, rain still exists.

There just aren't many DNA fossils, so the level of precision you are asking for is disingenuous and unrealistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience