Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Eddi]

Well but that's not the claim I responded to. So answering with a "others are worse than me" is not a responsible response mate. This is a cop out because a fallacious claim was made and you are responding with a no go.

Cheers. Hope you understand.

OK I was unclear what you were saying

Could you please clearly state it so I can properly respond

 

[firedragon]

OK I was unclear what you were saying

Could you please clearly state it so I can properly respond

Sure. The claim was as I said anyone who had basic education knows how life emerged on earth.

That's a false claim. Your response with a link that speaks about abiogenesis as I already explained is a name and not a scientifically established theory. So the original post I responded to was just an insult. That's all about it. It's empty.

Cheers.

 

[Eddi]

Sure. The claim was as I said anyone who had basic education knows how life emerged on earth.

That's a false claim. Your response with a link that speaks about abiogenesis as I already explained is a name and not a scientifically established theory. So the original post I responded to was just an insult. That's all about it. It's empty.

Cheers.

I meant that people who have a basic education or greater know that science has more valid answers than religion

I think that is reasonable

 

[firedragon]

I meant that people who have a basic education or greater know that science has more valid answers than religion

I think that is reasonable

That's a completely different statement to which I responded to. But thanks for your "clarification".

Cheers.

 

[Eddi]

That's a completely different statement to which I responded to. But thanks for your "clarification".

Cheers.

In post 182 you misrepresented what I think

My answer was addressing that post

 

[firedragon]

In post 182 you misrepresented what I think

My answer was addressing that post

All good. Cheers.

 

[wellwisher]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

To begin to answer that question you need to put the DNA into the proper perspective. The DNA is like the hard drive of the cell. It has all the data. However, it is not CPU or the central processing unit. The DNA needs a processor to make use of that data. During cells cycles the DNA is duplicated and then pack into chromosomes. While the DNA is taken offline, the protein grid is still working. The protein gird of live cells appears to be the processor. You cannot put DNA in water, along with small organic chemicals, and expect to make a cell. It is just the hard drive. When two daughter cells form, each has all the material for another protein gird, allow the duplicated DNA hard drive, to also have a duplicate processor. In multicellular differentiation, all cells have the same DNA, but each has a different protein gird processor derived from parts of the DNA

In an active cell, The DNA hard drive, with the help of the protein grid processor, supplies mRNA, which then become templates for raw protein. In this raw state, the proteins are not bioactive. It is the water that folds and packs the protein into their bioactive shapes. If you were to change the solvent, the raw protein would not fold/pack or be processed by that solvent, the same way and no life or bioactivity would appear. Water at the most base level is the CPU, since it folds, packs and combines all the biomaterials needed for both the hard drive and the processor.

Although not commonly presented in textbooks, DNA has a double helix of water intertwined in the major and minor grooves of the double helix. The base pairs have more hydrogen bonding sites earmarked for water, than for the bases pairs. DNA without that water does not work. It is an extra water processing step the DNA needs.

The living state is all about secondary bonding forces. These are weaker bonds that can break and reform. The primary bonds are stronger and stay steady. While all the activities of life happen at the more pliable secondary bonding level. Water forms hydrogen bonds, with each water molecule able to form up to four hydrogen bonds. This, the small size of water molecules, and their abundance in life, makes water the king of secondary bonds. This is how water can pack and fold protein; water rules the secondary bonding roost.

The fluid water matrix needs to stay optimized to itself, and to do so it will reconfigure the secondary bonding of the protein, so they form a shape more favorable to the water. This optimize shape lowers the protein entropy; less complex, and it becomes bioactive. The entire protein grid is optimized to the water, which makes water the base CPU, which through the muscle of the protein gird middlemen, processes the DNA hard drive.

Water is like a stable bookend, in that water formed from a very energetic reaction between oxygen and hydrogen. Water is stable and has not change from H2O, since ever. The organic material are more opposite in that there is endless variety. The stable bookend of the H2O processor has been around since before life, and through the same hydrogen bonding matrix of old, it still processes new organics the same way. The goal of water is also the goal of evolution. Variety of organics does not matter to water. The king water has spoken.

As life evolves and more and more organic collect the water is being pushed against, which sort of impacts the water matrix. But this never change sits status as the king of secondary bonding. It simply shifts the set point with each step upward.

One of the most critical changes in evolution was ion pumping and exchange. That single chance increased the speed of evolution. The reason is these two main cations, sodium and potassium, each have the opposite impact on the hydrogen bonding matrix of water. Sodium is kosmotropic while potassium is chaotropic. Sodium creates more order in water while potassium creates more disorder in water. Cells tend to accumulate potassium which by increasing the disorder of water, increases the entropy of the aqueous matrix; greater pushes toward more complexity. The sodium on the outside makes that water matrix behave different. It makes more order, which makes it easier to lock and key material to the transport proteins. Water and potassium have a lot to do with new writing to the DNA, via the protein grid.

One last interesting observation is if cell membrane are removed from cells, so there are no ion pumping. potassium ions will still preferentially accumulate inside the naked cell. This tells me, the ion pumping created an equilibrium Water-Potassium-protein balance that reflected the chaotropic nature of potassium in water. The processor evolved all together as a type of compensatory balance.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which, if true, has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Which, I gather, was your the initial reason for referencing those articles.

If people, including some some doctors, don't use what is learned through science, that doesn't indicate a failure of the science. But this information is out there available to medical professionals, patients and the healthy alike. If I were potentially a patient, I would be looking for information like that you found to ask better questions and make my own decisions.

It has to do with what people believe from those who are supposed to know. (with greater education on the subject)

 

[YoursTrue]

Go and ask some scientists

I'm not a scientist.....

And neither are you

A religions Internet forum is not really the place to ask

Yes, it is a place to ask about what you and others might think about yes, the origin of life "scientifically" in relation to what religious ideas may be.

 

[YoursTrue]

To begin to answer that question you need to put the DNA into the proper perspective. The DNA is like the hard drive of the cell. It has all the data. However, it is not CPU or the central processing unit. The DNA needs a processor to make use of that data. During cells cycles the DNA is duplicated and then pack into chromosomes. While the DNA is taken offline, the protein grid is still working. The protein gird of live cells appears to be the processor. You cannot put DNA in water, along with small organic chemicals, and expect to make a cell. It is just the hard drive. When two daughter cells form, each has all the material for another protein gird, allow the duplicated DNA hard drive, to also have a duplicate processor. In multicellular differentiation, all cells have the same DNA, but each has a different protein gird processor derived from parts of the DNA

In an active cell, The DNA hard drive, with the help of the protein grid processor, supplies mRNA, which then become templates for raw protein. In this raw state, the proteins are not bioactive. It is the water that folds and packs the protein into their bioactive shapes. If you were to change the solvent, the raw protein would not fold/pack or be processed by that solvent, the same way and no life or bioactivity would appear. Water at the most base level is the CPU, since it folds, packs and combines all the biomaterials needed for both the hard drive and the processor.

Although not commonly presented in textbooks, DNA has a double helix of water intertwined in the major and minor grooves of the double helix. The base pairs have more hydrogen bonding sites earmarked for water, than for the bases pairs. DNA without that water does not work. It is an extra water processing step the DNA needs.

The living state is all about secondary bonding forces. These are weaker bonds that can break and reform. The primary bonds are stronger and stay steady. While all the activities of life happen at the more pliable secondary bonding level. Water forms hydrogen bonds, with each water molecule able to form up to four hydrogen bonds. This, the small size of water molecules, and their abundance in life, makes water the king of secondary bonds. This is how water can pack and fold protein; water rules the secondary bonding roost.

The fluid water matrix needs to stay optimized to itself, and to do so it will reconfigure the secondary bonding of the protein, so they form a shape more favorable to the water. This optimize shape lowers the protein entropy; less complex, and it becomes bioactive. The entire protein grid is optimized to the water, which makes water the base CPU, which through the muscle of the protein gird middlemen, processes the DNA hard drive.

Water is like a stable bookend, in that water formed from a very energetic reaction between oxygen and hydrogen. Water is stable and has not change from H2O, since ever. The organic material are more opposite in that there is endless variety. The stable bookend of the H2O processor has been around since before life, and through the same hydrogen bonding matrix of old, it still processes new organics the same way. The goal of water is also the goal of evolution. Variety of organics does not matter to water. The king water has spoken.

As life evolves and more and more organic collect the water is being pushed against, which sort of impacts the water matrix. But this never change sits status as the king of secondary bonding. It simply shifts the set point with each step upward.

One of the most critical changes in evolution was ion pumping and exchange. That single chance increased the speed of evolution. The reason is these two main cations, sodium and potassium, each have the opposite impact on the hydrogen bonding matrix of water. Sodium is kosmotropic while potassium is chaotropic. Sodium creates more order in water while potassium creates more disorder in water. Cells tend to accumulate potassium which by increasing the disorder of water, increases the entropy of the aqueous matrix; greater pushes toward more complexity. The sodium on the outside makes that water matrix behave different. It makes more order, which makes it easier to lock and key material to the transport proteins. Water and potassium have a lot to do with new writing to the DNA, via the protein grid.

One last interesting observation is if cell membrane are removed from cells, so there are no ion pumping. potassium ions will still preferentially accumulate inside the naked cell. This tells me, the ion pumping created an equilibrium Water-Potassium-protein balance that reflected the chaotropic nature of potassium in water. The processor evolved all together as a type of compensatory balance.

Thank you for such a complete answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which, if true, has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Which, I gather, was your the initial reason for referencing those articles.

If people, including some some doctors, don't use what is learned through science, that doesn't indicate a failure of the science. But this information is out there available to medical professionals, patients and the healthy alike. If I were potentially a patient, I would be looking for information like that you found to ask better questions and make my own decisions.

I believe it does have to do with the legitimacy of some ideas considered to be based on scientific endeavors and also trust in those promoting those things--drugs, equipment, procedures, and ideas.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists understand how DNA works, but they don’t know exactly how it first came into existence.

I would imagine that is so.

DNA is made of four bases—adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G)—that store genetic information.

I'd certainly have to wonder how they store genetic information. I don't know if the term flabbergasting comes into play here, but it sure sounds astonishing that these tiny particles can store and retain or remember all that.

One idea is that life started with simpler molecules, like RNA, which can store information and help chemical reactions happen. Over time, DNA may have evolved from RNA because it is more stable for long-term information storage. Early Earth likely had environments where the building blocks of life could form naturally, such as deep-sea vents or surfaces of minerals. Although the exact process of how DNA formed is still unclear, scientists continue to study this question using experiments that simulate early Earth conditions.

Not saying it's not true. Offhand I would say it's very hard, near impossible, to simulate early Earth conditions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure. The claim was as I said anyone who had basic education knows how life emerged on earth.

That's a false claim. Your response with a link that speaks about abiogenesis as I already explained is a name and not a scientifically established theory. So the original post I responded to was just an insult. That's all about it. It's empty.

Cheers.

The problem I have with the definition, assuming it's true, is that it is rejected by many as related to what supposed to have happened after the "abiogenesis." As if abiogenesis did not support or start the process of evolution per what scientists think. And back we go to however life on Earth may have started scientifically speaking, of course. Yes, this is related to what or how religious folk may believe. Because something is either said to be true in science and religion about the origin of life or it is not. And, as Pontius Pilate asked, What is truth?

 

[YoursTrue]

Which, if true, has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Which, I gather, was your the initial reason for referencing those articles.

It has to do with what learned professionals will promote.

 

[YoursTrue]

There were, I believe, 6 editions of Darwin's book about evolution. Who here has read any of them in full?

 

[John53]

There were, I believe, 6 editions of Darwin's book about evolution. Who here has read any of them in full?

Me

 

[firedragon]

The problem I have with the definition, assuming it's true, is that it is rejected by many as related to what supposed to have happened after the "abiogenesis." As if abiogenesis did not support or start the process of evolution per what scientists think. And back we go to however life on Earth may have started scientifically speaking, of course. Yes, this is related to what or how religious folk may believe. Because something is either said to be true in science and religion about the origin of life or it is not. And, as Pontius Pilate asked, What is truth?

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that "abiogenesis" actually happened. They are trying to find how it took place because they are naturalists and there has to be an answer. Thus, for this person to claim "unless uneducated" you would know "how" is absolutely false and "uneducated". Nevertheless, I am thinking he was not aware of the actual situation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure. The claim was as I said anyone who had basic education knows how life emerged on earth.

That's a false claim. Your response with a link that speaks about abiogenesis as I already explained is a name and not a scientifically established theory. So the original post I responded to was just an insult. That's all about it. It's empty.

Cheers.

I'm going to let that pass, since it has been said that the miller urey experiment exemplified the validity of abiogenesis. Although, upon further research as to what scientists think, "The realization that abiogenesis—the chemical process by which simplest life emerged from inanimate beginnings—and biological evolution may actually be one single continuous physico-chemical process with an identifiable driving force opens up new avenues towards resolution of the OOL problem [1,7,12,13]." The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know.

 

[YoursTrue]

Me

Oh...very good!! Did you read all six of them?

 

[John53]

Oh...very good!! Did you read all six of them?

No