Prions- Is a particle of protein to be considered life???
  • breezysprevised
    Posts: 2,407Citizen
    That's my question. My googling skills suck.:)
  • Inferno
    Posts: 6,778Citizen
    I have no idea, but from what I can gather it does fulfil the requirements for the current definition. They replicate and they (seem to) metabolize (something), though I'm not sure about any of the other five criteria. IMO yes, it is "alive".
  • telsa
    Posts: 27Serf
    This is crucial in defeating the naturalistic, evolutionist thinking. First, it takes a string of amino acids to make one protein molecule. But theres no natural affinity between amino acids. And they can only be held together by a different submolecular structure (I forgot what its called). So here are the odds. You have twenty something amino acids. You need them to line up in the right order to make on protein molecule. The problem is, the odds of them lining up in the right order in the right amount of times (over 100 amino acids, IN THE RIGHT ORDER, is required to make one protein molecule. The problem is, there are 20 amino acids, each one with the same probabilty of being the next amino acid in line, where only one of the twenty is needed for the protein. And in math, the ascension of numerals up the powers of 10 means multiplying the products. In other words, the equation looks like this: 1/20 times 1/20 times 1/10 times 1/20 ... over 100 times!!! This is staggeringly impossible. The odds are greater than 10 to the power of 80, against. To give some context, there are only 10 to the power of 80 known number of ATOMS in the known UNIVERSE. So no, life couldn't have arisen on it's own in the primordial soup. IT REQUIRED A DESIGNER!
  • mildandhazymildandhazy
    Posts: 911Citizen
    Biologists use these commonalities to define what is life and what isn't (What do prions do/ don't do?):

    • Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

    • Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life (No, they are not even composed on one cell).

    • Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. (No, they do not have their own metabolism).

    • Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.(No, they do not grow according to this definition).

    • Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.(Yes, they do evolve).

    • Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.(It seems they do).

    • Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. (No, they cannot reproduce in this sense, and they don't have DNA/RNA, but they do have means to replicate.)


    Using these critera, prions are not life. And viruses are not quite, either.

    Edited for grammar as always.
    For everyone backed in a corner:
    Evacuations are in order.
    And we're leaving tonight.
  • Q
    Posts: 134Citizen
    Posted By: telsaSo no, life couldn't have arisen on it's own in the primordial soup. IT REQUIRED A DESIGNER!
    It does have a designer - it is called the Electro-Weak force, and it governs the extremely reliable rules of Chemistry. I suspect this is not what you mean though. In order for your claim to be more than just a baseless assertion you need to demonstrate the designer designing and building its design. Ah, but you are using the complexity of the design as the demonstration... and onto the Carousel of Circular Reasoning you jump, yelling "Affirming the Consequent!" as you go.
  • venomfangxvenomfangx
    Posts: 6,701Archduke
    Posted By: QIt does have a designer

    Nope the laws of nature are what they are and come together just as they do without any designer spiritual or physical. Without our sentience the same process would go on just as it does now but with no one to admire its beauty. We are lucky to see the Cosmos in its awesomeness.
    There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters, who never did, and who always will.
  • PzBlitz
    Posts: 277Citizen
    Posted By: venomfangx
    Posted By: QIt does have a designer

    Nope the laws of nature are what they are and come together just as they do without any designer spiritual or physical. Without our sentience the same process would go on just as it does now but with no one to admire its beauty. We are lucky to see the Cosmos in its awesomeness.Some people feel like they don't deserve love. They walk away quietly into empty spaces, trying to close the gaps of the past.


    Which brings a question of "How can you admire beauty without a creator to reveal beauty to you?" You mention being lucky. Akin to gratitude. From where would this come ?
  • Q
    Posts: 134Citizen
    Posted By: venomfangx
    Posted By: QIt does have a designer

    Nope the laws of nature are what they are and come together just as they do without any designer spiritual or physical. Without our sentience the same process would go on just as it does now but with no one to admire its beauty. We are lucky to see the Cosmos in its awesomeness.
    Just to be clear I agree with you and I only used the word "designer" for pedagogical purposes.
  • Q
    Posts: 134Citizen
    Posted By: PzBlitz
    Posted By: venomfangx
    Nope the laws of nature are what they are and come together just as they do without any designer spiritual or physical. Without our sentience the same process would go on just as it does now but with no one to admire its beauty. We are lucky to see the Cosmos in its awesomeness.Some people feel like they don't deserve love. They walk away quietly into empty spaces, trying to close the gaps of the past.


    Which brings a question of "How can you admire beauty without a creator to reveal beauty to you?" You mention being lucky. Akin to gratitude. From where would this come ?
    This "question" is actually a Plurium Interrogationum, which means it contains a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition. It is really is a petty trick to try to get us to agree with the assertion you have built into the question in order to answer it. In your case, we know very well you are presupposing the god of abraham as the creator and you have yet to demonstrate this is indeed the case. Therefore, the appropriate response to this question is "Since it does not make sense as stated, I cannot answer that question", possibly with a shrug and some eye-rolling for emphasis.

    Posted By: PzBlitzYou mention being lucky. Akin to gratitude. From where would this come ?
    Since this question derives from the previous nonsense question it does not warrant an answer.
  • telsa
    Posts: 27Serf
    The electro-weak force is NOT responsible for the assemblage of amino acids into the correct order to make a protein. There IS NOT SUCH FORCE, because nothing governs randomness - at least in your worldview. Amino acids and phosphates? can join together, but you have yet to repond to the crisis in your thinking: what is responsible for the VASTLY IMPROBABLE outcome of all the amino acids in the RIGHT SEQUENCE? Again, nothing in your worldview contains that, and thus there is a gaping hole. BTW, mathematicians, when they get into really, REALLY large numbers, consider it a certainty. In other words, after a given amount of improbability it is logically sound to conclude that it is impossible, i.e. nothing could have made the amino acids assemble into the correct sequence to form a protein, because the odds of it happening are too miniscule. There actually is REQUIRED TO BE a Designer and Creator!

    And speaking of Creation ex nihilo, physicists admit that even the quantum flucutations that can cause the existence of virtual particles is still not technically nothing. Nothing cannot arise from nothing, and since our reality had a beginning, it needs a cause. Enter YHWH!
  • MATTMATT
    Posts: 8,033Citizen
    Posted By: telsaSo here are the odds.
    That's where you fucked up. Nobody ever said that amino acids all just happened to line up in exactly that way by chance. Creationists are always talking as if people who accept the theory of evolution think the first life was a fuly formed cell. That's stupid. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, and nobody except creationists committing the strawman fallacy say that the first life was a fully formed cell, or something anything like the complex life we see today.

    Posted By: PzBlitz
    Posted By: venomfangx
    Posted By: QIt does have a designer

    Nope the laws of nature are what they are and come together just as they do without any designer spiritual or physical. Without our sentience the same process would go on just as it does now but with no one to admire its beauty. We are lucky to see the Cosmos in its awesomeness.Some people feel like they don't deserve love. They walk away quietly into empty spaces, trying to close the gaps of the past.


    Which brings a question of "How can you admire beauty without a creator to reveal beauty to you?" You mention being lucky. Akin to gratitude. From where would this come ?
    Just because you're happy seomthing is, doesn't mean your secretly believe that there's a designer behind it and that your grateful to them.

    You're still doing this "you secretly agree with me" shit. Fucking stop it. It's retarded.

    Posted By: telsaThe electro-weak force is NOT responsible for the assemblage of amino acids into the correct order to make a protein.
    Proof?
    There IS NOT SUCH FORCE, because nothing governs randomness - at least in your worldview.
    Stupid.
    Amino acids and phosphates? can join together, but you have yet to repond to the crisis in your thinking: what is responsible for the VASTLY IMPROBABLE outcome of all the amino acids in the RIGHT SEQUENCE?
    Improbability =/= impossibility .'. There is no need for an entity above the laws of nature to intervene. (Even if your argument wasn't coming from a place of complete ignorance to the actual assertions being made)
    Again, nothing in your worldview contains that, and thus there is a gaping hole. BTW, mathematicians, when they get into really, REALLY large numbers, consider it a certainty. In other words, after a given amount of improbability it is logically sound to conclude that it is impossible, i.e. nothing could have made the amino acids assemble into the correct sequence to form a protein, because the odds of it happening are too miniscule. There actually is REQUIRED TO BE a Designer and Creator!
    Not logically sound, pragmatically sound. Deriving a conclusion that does not follow from the results is not logical, but can save time. It's like doing a rough estimate instead of the actual work.
  • telsa
    Posts: 27Serf
    The electro weak force doesn't imply ORDER, only AFFINITY. That's proof right there.


    And improbability, on a grand enough scale, IS impossibility. That's what mathematicians contend, anyway. Are you arguing with them or me?
  • PzBlitz
    Posts: 277Citizen
    Posted by Matt:
    Just because you're happy seomthing is, doesn't mean your secretly believe that there's a designer behind it and that your grateful to them.

    You're still doing this "you secretly agree with me" shit. Fucking stop it. It's retarded.


    First of all, I'm asking a question. Second, the quote was not "happy something is" but specific words included lucky, beauty, admire, awesomeness. Thought processes that simply do not exist in other animals including primates.

    He made it clear in that post he did not believe it was by a creator. Hence the question. If you have a problem with the question then don't answer it. It wasn't directed at you.
  • venomfangxvenomfangx
    Posts: 6,701Archduke
    Posted By: PzBlitzIf you have a problem with the question then don't answer it. It wasn't directed at you.

    If it is on this forum we all have the right to peruse it and answer it. Dont be arrogant here.
    yours
    VenomFang><</font>
    img src="http://www.venomfangx.net/vfxcute.jpg">
    There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters, who never did, and who always will.
  • TheAtheistGod
    Posts: 1,892Citizen
    I'll do some research and come up with an answer. This is my subject. =) Thanks for the topic!
  • mildandhazymildandhazy
    Posts: 911Citizen
    Awkward me. I give an answer based on my (albeit limited) biology education and no one even notices.
    For everyone backed in a corner:
    Evacuations are in order.
    And we're leaving tonight.
Add a Comment