Evil Brain:

I'll give you $1billion if you can find a post in this thread in which I name dropped. You're the one who's using your unproven status as a big man immunobiologist to try and disparage decades worth of biological research.

And I'm surprised you know about VDJ recombination. You've been reading your 2 Janeways abi? Very impressive for someone of your reasoning ability. But no, that's not what I meant. Nice try though, kudos.

And keep reading, with just a little more humility you could go far in this science business. I won't write you off yet. Being religious doesn't mean you have to be a mörön, you know.

^{What process do u want me to answer now? common man , u better be straight i don't get your pint anyway i have always explain what u asked me}

sexkillz:

^^^@Ogaga YOU still haven't answered WHERE THE WHOLE PROCESS STARTED FROM!

Evil Brain:

@davidylan

Name Dropping (The Urban Dictionary)
I'm just sayin'.

Evil Brain:

I'll give you $1billion if you can find a post in this thread in which I name dropped.

Evil Brain:

You're the one who's using your unproven status as a big man immunobiologist to try and disparage decades worth of biological research.

Evil Brain:

And I'm surprised you know about VDJ recombination. You've been reading your 2 Janeways abi? Very impressive for someone of your reasoning ability. But no, that's not what I meant. Nice try though, kudos.

Evil Brain:

And keep reading, with just a little more humility you could go far in this science business. I won't write you off yet. Being religious doesn't mean you have to be a mörön, you know.

An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just dont talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their perogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Mostly teen angst if you ask me,

A term often used by frustrated theists as a slur against atheists. The term is a contradiction since atheism is not a belief system or a cause, nor does it have any dogmas or requirements. An atheist doesn't convert people.

"That guy thinks I'm an evangelical atheist because he can't defeat my arguments rationally"

Same link: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evangelical%20atheist

An Evangelical Atheist is a person that is an atheist and tries to spread atheism amongst theists. It is derived from Evangelism, meaning "Spreading Good News" as practised by Christianity. Due to the rise of the Conservative Christain movement in the United States of America and the increase of humanistic thought, along with the increased blending other many different religions, Atheism has become more and more popular. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists, often by engagaing in debate with fundamentalists.

davidylan:

Lets not go too far dude, i know you copied this off some other website. First of all the corresponding author on this paper is none other than - Ernesto Di Mauro, Ph.D who publishes in the journal of cosmology!     A online-only journal with a well-known negative reputation that exists solely to push a pro-evolution agenda. yeah right.    We certainly should take that charlatan seriously.

davidylan:

For a paper that propounds a theory that should have revolutionized medicine as we know it (the ability to generate RNA spontaneously), that JBC paper happens to have been cited THREE (3) times in the 2 yrs its been published! Even i have garnered 12 citations in that time frame and i havent propounded any earth shaking theory just yet.

davidylan:

Abeg be serious!    First it was the "long peptide chains in water" theory until the Miller-Urey experiment collapsed and the fact that protein by itself cannot self-replicate . . . now we have backtracked to pre-RNA?   

davidylan:

you could have easily downloaded a pdf copy and posted it here. Its clear you have not read this paper yourself. Juyst copy-pasting from other websites. Such a shame.

davidylan:

The RNA theory is itself invalid . . . cytosine has never and cannot be synthesized.

davidylan:

The ribose sugar backbone for RNA is very unstable and has a short half life (about 70 minutes), how then did it exist in a stable form in water? How did the early life forms enrich one particular isomer of ribose considering both ribose isomers interfere with self-replication?
Since ribose is a reducing sugar, it cannot co-exist with amino acids in primordial soup (amino acids react very quickly with sugars) . . . for ribose to exist long enough to self replicate as part of RNA, it must mean amino acids NEVER existed in primordial soup at any time. Which is it dudes? I blame right whingers.   

davidylan:
first of all read up on "investigator interference" . . . it is a valid tool employed by desperate pro-evolutionists like those in your videos ostensibly to hoodwink the gullible like you who think because they reference papers they have never read . . . they are thus smart and "unignorant" (pun intended).

davidylan:

Your "explanation" fails to explain the cambrian explosion dude. Evolution indeed takes place over successive generations but there are fossil records in cambrian rocks that are billions of years old. For example, it doesnt look like trilobites changed much since the cambrian fossils? why?

Sorry for the "ignorant"questions oh though fountain of knowledge.

davidylan:
odd. The human fossil record is miraculously"full" and yet that for organisms more populous than ours is not? In geological time, man's period on earth is far more inconsequential than other organisms. How come we have no complete fossil records for much more established organisms?

davidylan:
That's quite daft. First of all ask yourself why the "rate" suddenly accelerated in one period then completely slows down after. It doesnt seem you have an analytical mind at all, you seem to have your mind made up for you by dunces on youtube.

davidylan:
For billions of years pre-cambrian period, evolution occured at an extremely slow rate . . . all of a sudden it revs up just long enough to fossilize complex multi-cellular organisms then slows down almost to a halt after? What happened?

davidylan:
Do you understand at all the difference between unicellular organisms like bacteria and a simple multicellular organism like a trilobite or dinosaurs? So it took billions of years for unicellular organisms to "evolve" from a primordial soup but just 80 m years to jump from amoeba to a cow?   

Man mi pls use your brain.

davidylan:
please dont confuse micro evolution with macro evolution. There is no debate about mutation. We are not completely nuts. the main source of opposition to evolution doesnt come primarily from "religionists . . . it
actually spans a large number of non-religious scientists.
There are even atheists here who dont believe evolution and some have posted on this thread. Please spare us the daft conjectures.

Idehn:

I finally got some time off but seems the thread has moved a lot. I will address the comments directed towards myself. Hopefully davidlyan is still around to respond.
I would hope you realize the Journal of Biological Chemistry is not the Journal of Cosmology. JBC has a good reputation in the field of biochemistry and they saw fit to publish his work.  You will forgive me if I take their word over yours on the quality of the submission.

Idehn:

If you judge the validity/merit of scientific literature purely on the number of citations and not the content then so be it. LOL the second half. I guess I will just have to take your word for it.

Idehn:

That is science for you. If you run into a dead end you go back to the beginning. Furthermore, the problem with the Miller-Urey experiment was his underlying assumptions about the primordial Earths environment. If you were actually doing research yourself you would have easily seen this new development.
http://astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov/analytical/PDF/Johnsonetal2008.pdf
Brada(Millers student) achieved even better results when he incorporated primordial earth conditions. Moreover, I believe I read somewhere that scientist have discovered a type of RNA that can create peptide bonds between amino acids so that obstacle to protein synthesis may not be such a big deal.

Idehn:

Whatever you say chief. But all YOU had to do was do a google search and you would obtained the paper yourself. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Szostak_2009_Nature.pdf
But of coarse you cannot be bothered to do actual research on your own can you. You just sit around being an internet contrarian. It is clear you have never made any attempt to look at current research or speak with the actual experts/researchers on the subjects you are criticizing.

Idehn:

Regardless, the article is more or less primer on the state/direction of research(at the time) and an interesting read.

Idehn:

That sounds more like your opinion couched in ignorance. The RNA World Hypothesis would not be invalidated simply because no one had successfully synthesized cytosine. Especially when people have already started producing ribonucleotides as the nature article pointed out.
But, no do not worry yourself actually looking at the research that is going on. Just sit back and relax on nairaland content being just another internet contrarian.

davidylan:

I'm sorry dude, but number of citations is a very key indication of the reach and importance of your work. I was invited to write a review for AJRCMB (American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology - impact factor 10.191) solely on the basis of the number of citations and reach of my first paper.

The paper you posted is a paper that purports to describe a NOVEL approach (i.e. generation of long chain RNA). It has been cited only 3 times and in obscure reviews (i.e. no one else has replicated or observed the same phenomenon). By contrast, the paper that merely describes a method to extract RNA has been cited over 100 times!

If you've ever had the chance to read resume's of researchers, number of citations is ALWAYS prominently included!

davidylan:

not proof of evidence of the RNA theory of primordial earth . . . key difference. you cant just propound a theory and expect us to buy it hook line and sinker without empirical proof. Miller's experiments is proof positive . . . it completely destroyed the initial amino acid theory. Besides note Brada himself shoots Miller's experiment down by acknowledging geoscientists do not believe the primordial earth itself was as reducing as Miller earlier assumed.

Besides why does Powner add phosphate LAST? Does he suggest at some point phosphate didnt exist? Or is it because when he adds phosphate in the begining then his experiment totally collapses? What does Powner do about elemental oxygen (it would have oxidised his samples and destroyed any RNA intermediate formed)? But can he just discount elemental oxygen as not existing considering his own starting materials contained oxygen molecules?
Lastly what does Powner have to say about how primordial earth was able to actively isolate stereo-isomers of his compds like he did?

davidylan:

2.  With regard to the highlights in blue . . . its clear you did not read the Brada paper AT ALL and this was enough to completely turn me off responding to your claim at this point. I intensely dislike having to respond to ignorant, condescending fools who have no clue what exactly it is they are posting.
Now you said that "Brada achieved even better results when he incorporated primordial earth conditions" . . . well Brada did no such thing, what he did was re-analyze the dried and stored contents of Miller's original experiment . . . please see paragraphs 2 - 4 . . .

Although amino acids and a wide array of other biochemical monomers are readily produced from reduced
gas mixtures, the geochemical relevance of these model atmospheres has been questioned
(Holland 1962; Abelson 1966). As a result, some researchers now either consider the
atmospheric composition used in the Miller–Urey experiment implausible, or suggest that
reducing conditions only existed in localized regions such as volcanoes or hydrothermal
vents.

Previous reports on the yields of amino acids in electric discharge experiments with N2 +
CO2 were low but not zero (Schlesinger and Miller (1983). The small amount of amino
acids formed under neutral conditions prompted our reinvestigation of these results in order
to better constrain the amounts and types of amino acids that could be produced. The data
presented here suggest that the low yields of amino acids reported previously were the
outcome of both the experimental conditions and the analytical procedures used. The low
yields of amino acids previously reported were likely the result of oxidation of the
organic compounds produced during hydrolytic workup by nitrite and nitrate produced by
the electric discharge. We also found that the addition of oxidation inhibitors prior to
hydrolysis resulted in the recovery of several hundred times more amino acids than reported
previously, suggesting that primitive ocean chemistry may also have been an extremely
significant aspect of endogenous organic synthesis.

The Powner (Sutherland was senior author) paper was posted here by Mantraa and its been taken apart already. You cant be using carefully controlled UV radiation to zap out your impurities, purifying every step of your reaction or using only one stereo-isomer of your starting molecules while controlling pH and temperature . . . THEN claiming that as a possible route for the creation of RNA in primordial soup.

Why is Powner only able to synthesize pyrimidines and not purines? Is he going to publish another paper on that soon?

I already read both papers dear Idehn and it was discussed here on this thread with Mantraa and Mazaje . . . perhaps idiots like you who are too quick to shoot their mouths should pay attention. Did you even read your own paper? I guess not.

At this point, looking at the rest of your half-baked nonsense is an exercise in futility.

Idehn:

I do not expect you to accept it wholesale. However, your criticism so far are contrarian in nature. As in nature it will take a specific sequence of chemical reactions/energy inputs to produce self replicating RNA.  Yet your primary criticism are geared solely towards calling these steps "unrealistic" or bringing up a process that could potentially disrupts RNA formation(the ribose/amino acid issue). I do not consider most of these strong criticism at all.  Another example

Idehn:

Powner would not be unreasonable in assuming the presence of phosphate changes from being initially low and then increasing. On a geologically active planet, it is not hard to imagine how phosphorus could have suddenly/periodically been injected into a system with lower concentrations.  Volcanic eruptions, geothermal/hydrothermal vents, geysers, earthquakes and even tides are all potential/reasonable mechanism. You are making it sound like magic pixie dust when it is just Earth science.

The presences of free oxygen in primordial earth was fairly low(primary force behind oxidation). Of those that existed, I assume he could if he wanted take a similar route that Brada did in his new experiment. Namely that the by increasing the presence of iron or similar reducing compounds the effects oxidation would be ameliorated. Again, on a geologically active planet it would be unreasonable to assume the content of iron was atleast comparable to oxygen. Also Brada suggest that the presence of iron together with nitrite could produce suitible amounts of ammonia, which Miller incorrectly assumed would be naturally present.

Idehn:

To your last point Powner has not addressed the issue of how to isolate the stereo-isomers specific to all organic life. That problem still needs to be solved.

Idehn:

Your criticism about the use of Ultraviolet light is not strong either. It does not seem from the paper that he just zapped it ultraviolet light. The sun produces plenty of UV radiation and the day cycle would are guaranteed periods of alternating UV intensity. Or it may be that volcanic eruptions temporarily reduced penetration of UV rays.

Idehn:

Hold on a moment. Unfortunately, in my haste I linked to the wrong article. The correct article "A reassessment of prebiotic organic synthesis in neutral planetary atmospheres". I decided not to post the article here, but if you want a copy I can upload it to some website and give you a link. But here is a cut from the document.

Idehn:

It is more important to first identify a process that can definitely produce self replicating RNA. It is unreasonable to expect scientist to try to produce such an effect under random conditions. It is a process that would have needed a multitude of attempts possibly a billion years to mature. You are being a contrarian about for its own sake. Yeah stereo-isomers are still an issue, but is still in the the air. Their is no physical law that says natural processes cannot select for certain molecular configurations. It may even be that certain configurations will work better. No one knows yet.

Idehn:

Again you should go ask Powner as he is the expert. He probably has some ideas/explanations rolling around in his head. He may have already even published more work already.

Idehn:

You really latched on to my mistake. Unfortunately, for you I am correct about Boda repeating the Miller experiment and I clearly read the Nature article so give this not reading things a rest already. You are just stroking your ego.

Idehn:

Your points beyond RNA synthesis are significantly more pathetic. Furthermore, I am getting sick of the trading insults business we have degenerated into. Let us just get it all out of the way and start having a civil conversation like two adults. Otherwise we should just agree to disagree. Now if you excuse me I am going to bed.

unphilaz:

thanks sexkill 4 such a topic and your refusal to digress it has helped me see that apart from lookin at holes in other peoples argument, they really have no stand. wat a long thread really appreciate all that contributed

toba:

Is this the end of atheism on nairaland? Sexkillz and davidyland

Enigma:

^^^ Once somebody who knows his/her stuff stands up to them, they are soon exposed for what they truly are. Look at Dawkins and co running away all over the place from debating Craig --- much to the dismay of many of Dawkins' own supporters.

mazaje:

Are you kidding me? If davidylan TRULY knows his stuff about all what he is saying i.e evolution is false then he will win a Nobel peace price. . .Evolution is a theory that has NOT been falsified according to scientist. I want him to put his money where is mouth is, take up the challenge and write a publication on any scientific journal discrediting evolution with all the point he claims he has and lets see how it will go. . .If he TRULY knows his onions he will be able to do this, no?. . .

And with all your rantings about religion, HOW MANY ACCOLADES have you won? Why dont you take your OWN ADVICE and write a publication discrediting religion, with all the points you claim you have and let's see how it will go. . . If YOU TRULY know your ONIONS, you'll be able to do that, NO?. . . . . PATHETIC!

OLAADEGBU:

Yes.  And kudos to davdylan for exposing those pseudo-scientists.  

sexkillz:

And with all your rantings about religion, HOW MANY ACCOLADES have you won? Why dont you take your OWN ADVICE and write a publication discrediting religion, with all the points you claim you have and let's see how it will go. . . If YOU TRULY know your ONIONS, you'll be able to do that, NO?. . . . . PATHETIC!

mazaje:

[size=15pt]Religion and science work differently[/size]. . .If an establish theory is false or falsifiable, all you need to do as a scientist  is point it out to others. That is how science works. . .It's laws and theories are universally accepted and can be challenged or falsified openly. That is not true for religion because even members of the same religion disagree vehemently on the basic nature of their God and what scripture says. what is there to falsify when everything abut religion is based on faith?. . . According to Ron Ashley science adjust it's views based on what is observed while faith is the denial of observation, so that beliefs can be preserved. . . .Religion does NOT tolerate opposing views. We are only able to post here freely because the owner of nairaland is an atheist. . .If he were a christian or muslim most of us would have been banned. . .

wordtalk:

Not likely. Worldviews are not often settled on arguments.

sexkillz:

And with all your rantings about religion, HOW MANY ACCOLADES have you won? Why dont you take your OWN ADVICE and write a publication discrediting religion, with all the points you claim you have and let's see how it will go. . . If YOU TRULY know your ONIONS, you'll be able to do that, NO?. . . . . PATHETIC!

mazaje:

Are you kidding me? If davidylan TRULY knows his stuff about all what he is saying i.e evolution is false then he will win a Nobel peace price. . .Evolution is a theory that has NOT been falsified according to scientist. I want him to put his money where is mouth is, take up the challenge and write a publication on any scientific journal discrediting evolution with all the point he claims he has and lets see how it will go. . .If he TRULY knows his onions he will be able to do this, no?. . .As for debating Craig, you are quick to parrot William Craig but I bet you won't tell people that William Craig has openly stated that he does NOT believe in the creation accounts in genesis he believes it to be an allegory and non factual. . .He believes that the big b[i]a[/i]ng is true but according to him God created the big b[i]a[/i]ng. . . .He is wise enough to discard the myth written in the bible which scientific observation has shown to be FALSE. . .How can you debate someone that doesn't agree on what his holy book says?. . .What then is the basis for the debate?

sexkillz:

So why tha HELL do ATHEISTS INSIST on Bringing in POINTS from SCIENCE whenever they are trying, to REFUTE RELIGION? Cant you guys use your own ARGUMENTS for ONCE? NO?

davidylan:

dont mind the fellow. Millions of scientists disagree with evolution as well and very few care enough to go writing in nature to debunk evolutionary claims. So because i dont agree that the sky is blue on a public forum i should go write a paper in science journal? Like sexkillz said, has he taken his own advice? Of course not.

How obtuse.

mazaje:

Because science has disproved many Gods and religious assertions and it will continue to do so. . .Humans have always invented Gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand.  But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virgins to please some imaginary fertility Gods, science has shown people that there are no weather Gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops instead of wasting time sacrificing animals to please the weather Gods. . .When sick science has provided us with drugs to cure and help us out instead of praying to some Gods for healing or sprinkling the bloods of some animals on sick people to heal them. . . Science has provided the best explanations for most things. . .The rainbow use to be explained as a necklace of some Goddess or a covenant between some Jewish tribal God and  his chosen people, but science came along and showed that its simply a fraction of light waves in the earth's atmosphere. . .Where are the Gods of thunder and lighting? Once the scientific explanation was provided for these two phenomenon the Gods of thunder and lighting all died natural deaths , no?. . . .Our ignorance is God, what we know is science. . . .

Purist:

To buttress your point, here's something I just copied off some page on Facebook:

Reason always wins when logic and evidence are revered standards. Science has answered so many questions that religion used to try and explain (earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, volcanoes, the tides, planets, stars, birth, death, disease, seasons, etc.) yet people still fill in the blanks science hasn't gotten to yet with "god". Why? What's one thing that we used to answer with science that religion now gives the best explanation for?

mazaje:

Not true, evolution is main stream science. . .Its one thing to disagree and another thing entirely to show that something is false. . .The fact that they disagree with the theory does not mean its false. . .Any scientist that disagrees with the theory and knows how to falsify it will very quickly do so because he/she knows that he stands to gain a lot. . .He will will a Nobel peace price among many other things. . .Science has a way that it works, if you claim to be a scientist and you TRULY know that a theory or hypothesis is false, then you are supposed to go ahead and show that its false. . .That is how science works. . .