Cytosine

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by chinglu, Jun 12, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Hey chinglu, do you refute Abiogenesis?
    Do you refute Evolution?
    A simple yes or no will suffice.
    If you answer yes, then please tell me how you think that you, me, all the other forms of life came to be, and came to be alive?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    You already proved it by your absurd and dishonest posts.

    You opened by claiming

    and tried to tell us Shapiro upholds your nonsense, such as by this cite:

    Even recognizing that you may suffer from severe attention deficit disorder, at some point you simply have to come clean and stop lying and misrepresenting what's being posted here and in the literature.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Well, I leave open the possibility that life originated in other places where all could agree Abiogenesis is possible. But, that is not on this earth.

    So, I really do not know what the answer is or I would promote it. I just know the current path fails as proven by Shapiro.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I have answered this several times and here is the latest.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141853-Cytosine&p=3206079&viewfull=1#post3206079
     
  8. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Since you are claiming I am a liar, this is a serious charge.

    Prove your assertion.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    He has proved the assertion, due to the insidious manner you misquote and misinterpret Shapiro.
     
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Posting moronic anti-science nonsense which is self-contradictory is not the same as lying. Lying implies a level of intelligence which you have not demonstrated here. Except of course, that the way you pretend to know chemistry and biology displays a kind of dishonesty which is overtly disingenuous.

    I have proven the assertion several times now -- it's not my assertion, it's yours -- that Shapiro said the pre-RNA world simply did not need cytosine. Now post a retraction to your OP and at least try to make it compatible with what Shapiro actually said. Supposing you are actually outraged by comparing yourself to a liar, and if not, at least motivate yourself by recognizing how moronic it is to keep arguing in favor of a source that contradicts you. Better: just admit that the pre-RNA world simply didn't need cytosine. I mean, you have done that through Shapiro. Now just state it in no uncertain terms, without all the duplicity and false appeals to chemistry and biology, which you apparently left behind with your physics books when you dropped out or flunked out of school. Just tell us Shapiro nixes your OP and that will be the end of your role in this thread, until people interested in actual science drop in to talk about the current state of the RNA world hypothesis. With actual evidence of course, something else which completely eludes you. (That and valid logic.)

    So, in conclusion, we are resolved that (a) the RNA-world hypothesis of the 1960s has been amended by Shapiro to include the possibility of a pre-RNA world and (b) if there was a pre-RNA world, then in all likelihood it did not depend on cytosine.

    That's amending Gilbert per Shapiro. But it's not the last word. I gave you several sources that do not require Shapiro's hypothesis at all.

    At some point we expect you to wake up to the fact that nature doesn't give a damn about your cookie-cutter approach to disparaging science. That's why you never get more than tutorials from science educated folks here. No one is interested in your particular blend of cynical naivete and ironic narcissism. I have yet to see you post one piece of science that adds to the knowledge base here. You seem to exclusively operate in a world of subtraction.
     
  11. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    OK, I have not seen you prove that Shapiro claimed pre-RNA does not need cytosine. First off, Shapiro does not postulate a pre-life entity that is pre-RNA. If you think this is true, quote the part in the article.

    Second, I never posted anything about pre-RNA as you claim. If so, simply post the number where I said that.

    Now, Shapiro concludes RNA is not the correct model for emergent life. That is in the article.

    He never did come up with a model that he thought worked and he is now dead. If you think he supports a particular model of life that emerges from chemicals, post his writings that proves your assertion.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Thanks AId.....
    Nicely put.
     
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    A lot of good it did. chinglu just doesn't know when to throw in the towel.

    You are admitting here that you did not read the article you posted in support of your pseudoscience nonsense.

    You cited Shapiro, who addressed the prebiotic world in his paper. But evidently you never bothered to read it. Either that or you simply can't understand what you read. Evidently you are afflicted by both problems -- failing to research the claims you stole from Creationism, and failing to understand whatever research eventually comes up, such as now is evident in your fumbling of the Shapiro papers.
    That's a perfect example of mangling Shapiro. What you mean to say is Shapiro concludes that that first came a pre-RNA world which did not rely on a primordial soup of all four nucleotides assumed present by Gilbert

    False and mangled. The phrase "come up with a model" is bogus. Shapiro's 1999 paper on prebiotic cytosine is not a report on any modelling he did. It's a survey of numerous studies by others who investigated viable ways to correct Gilbert's ignorance about the unlikelihood that prebiotic cytosine was available at the outset of RNA synthesis.

    I don't have to prove squat. I am not asserting anything here. I am rebutting your nonsense posts. But what an utterly moronic thing to say. You're just dying to tell us life magically appeared out of thin air, aren't you? And this is why you've persisted for so long in attempting to confuse gullible readers about the constancy of the speed of light -- so you can claim that radiometric dating is flawed. What a pile of crap.

    Go read Shapiro yourself, you undercover Creationist.

    :spank:

    from the last paragraph of Shapiro's 1999 paper:

    The first living system used a replicator constructed of more accessible and stable components. A number of possibilities may exist, with the clay system of A.G. Cairns-Smith (74) perhaps the best known. (ii) Life began with cycles of autocatalytic reactions. Storage and transfer of information at the polymer level came later. A number of writers have discussed this possibility, including F. Dyson (75) and S. Kauffman (76). One possible system has been described in detail by G. Wächtershäuser (77).

    As you see nothing is lost from his death concerning the state of the science of abiogenesis since he was only a reviewer, not a proponent, of any original hypothesis.

    All that's left for you now is to go study these works. Gawd forbid you should actually try to learn something rather than renouncing what you haven't ever bothered to study. Of course with that knowledge comes the awful duty to tell the truth back to your hillbilly congregations--that life did actually evolve out of chemical soup after all.

    Now here's a crying towel. :bawl: Just cry me a river. I know how disappointing it can be to discover that you were lied to. Poor little chinglu. No more ice cream castles in the air. No more immortality. Believe me, we feel your pain.
     
  14. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I am perfectly OK with your post. After sorting through the nonsense, here is the part you rely upon.

    Now, a scientist like myself, does not draw conclusions from "may" and "discussed this possibility". We look for proof. So, the OP claims there is no cytosine pathway. That has been established with proof.

    Are you arguing there is a pathway? Prove it. Otherwise, you have no choice but to agree with the OP.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No you are not a scientist. Stop telling lies.
    If you were a scientist, you would be able to recognise the observationally verified time dilation and length contraction...
    If you were a scientist, you would not stupidly claim that clocks do not go slow in any FoR, and are hard wired to the movements of astronomical bodies....
    If you were a scientist, you would not deny Evolution and Abiogenesis...
    If you were a scientist, you would not be so loose when using the literal term proof within the scientific discipline.....
    If you were a scientist you would not stupidly misinterpret, and have the need to lie about what real scientists have said and done.....
    No, you aint a scientist. In fact, myself as a layman would do a far better job then you ever could at any scientific endeavour.
     
  16. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    Here is an interesting link to an article by Stanley Miller regarding the half-lives of the cytosine, etc. and the inference as to the temperature of the Earth at the time of life's initiation. http://www.pnas.org/content/95/14/7933.full

    I still believe that he and others are overlooking one other factor. It is being assumed that the early earth's oceans were slightly acidic due to CO2 dissolving. However, back then, the N2 molecules of our present atmosphere were in the form of 2 NH3 molecules, which also dissolves into water, likely making the oceans slightly basic, and likely extending the half-life of cytosine significantly beyond the 10^5 years of the article, allowing for cytosine at the earliest of stages of life.

    Perhaps our resident chemists or ex-chemists would like to discuss that?
     
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    that was the quote cited by me as evidence that you never bothered to read Shapiro, as proof that you are mangling Shapiro to concoct your nonsensical claims.

    You are a crank, not a scientist. There are no others like you except the idiots posting on the creationist sites.

    More meaningless vaporware. Are you sure you're not wellwisher?

    Pure bullshit. No one has any proof one way or the other. That kind of statement alone says that you never bothered to study science.

    And stop using the word "pathway". It has become useless jargon in this context. Just speak in plain English. And cite your bullshit claims. Otherwise, drop them.

    You're just being a crank. You're insisting that nature has to bend to your insistence that there was no RNA world at all. That's a bald claim. NO ONE KNOWS.

    But read on:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15217990


    I would rather shoot myself than support any of the crap you're peddle anywhere. And no, I've invented no claims here and have nothing to prove. You're the antagonist. The burden of proof is on you. You simply have none, because your claims are trash.

    Just admit you're wrong. Research your own nonsense before posting:

    Last April, Powner, Sutherland, and their colleagues published evidence that a chemoselective acetylation process could support the generation of 17-nucleotide-long RNA molecules with predominantly 3’–5’ linkages under prebiotic conditions.4 In the same issue of Nature Chemistry, Powner and other colleagues also showed that the presence of a mixture of different RNA linkages within a polymer didn’t matter: it did not disrupt the folding of the molecules, nor their catalytic functions.5

    http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39252/title/RNA-World-2-0/

    Here's a pretty good analysis:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944365/
     
  18. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559

    Thanks. However, I'm not convinced. There are many articles showing ammonia in the early atmosphere.

    http://www.universetoday.com/26659/earths-early-atmosphere/
    ammonia in atmosphere

    http://www.universetoday.com/10932/early-atmosphere-looked-very-different-from-today/
    ammonia from chondrites in atmosphere

    http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/atmosphere-composition.html
    ammonia in atmosphere

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v287/n5782/abs/287526a0.html
    ammonia in atmosphere

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
    ammonia in atmosphere

    http://scijinks.jpl.nasa.gov/atmosphere-formation/
    ammonia in atmosphere


    It would appear that this is not well known. The articles suggest that photodecompostion of the NH3 would have yielded N2 before the O2 reactions would have commenced after evolution of blue-green bacteria. But that would have taken hundreds of millions of years, sufficient time to allow for ammonia (actually NH4OH) to dominate a cytosine reaction.

    I'll research this some more as I find the time.
     
  19. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Your article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15217990

    quotes already discredited cytosine production by Shapiro. Further, even though Shapiro's work discredits the crank, the crank does not try to explain why Shapiro was wrong with his stunning analysis.

    In short the crackpot postulates a cytosine pathway already refuted by Shapiro.
     

Share This Page