Prions- Is a particle of protein to be considered life???
  • PzBlitz
    Posts: 277Citizen
    Posted By: mildandhazyAwkward me. I give an answer based on my (albeit limited) biology education and no one even notices.You can't see the forest from the trees, and you can't smell your own shit on your knees.


    Well the answer was pretty consise. Rather hard to refute and brutally analytical. For what it's worth I thought it was rather impressive and well organized.
  • Inferno
    Posts: 6,778Citizen
    Posted By: mildandhazyAwkward me. I give an answer based on my (albeit limited) biology education and no one even notices.You can't see the forest from the trees, and you can't smell your own shit on your knees.


    I didn't reply for two reasons:
    1) You copied it straight from Wikipedia without giving a link and now it's about your "(... limited) biology education." Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is a good place to start, but at least tell us where you got your info. I for one try to always include links to my sources.
    2) You omitted parts, which is arguably worse than the first problem I had.

    WikipediaSince there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:


    Wikipedia then sources these two papers:
    Chris P McKay, What Is Life—and How Do We Search for It in Other Worlds?, PLoS Biol. 2004 September; 2(9): e302.
    and
    Davison PG, 2004. How to Define Life. The University of North Alabama

    Now I agree that by those definitions it's not life, since only 2 or 3 of the requirements are fulfilled. However:

    WikipediaProposed (...definitions of life, addition mine)
    To reflect the minimum phenomena required, some have proposed other biological definitions of life:[18]
    A network of inferior negative feedbacks (regulatory mechanisms) subordinated to a superior positive feedback (potential of expansion, reproduction).[19]
    A systemic definition of life is that living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing). Variations of this definition include Stuart Kauffman's definition as an autonomous agent or a multi-agent system capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle.[20]
    Living beings are thermodynamic systems that have an organized molecular structure.[21]
    Things with the capacity for metabolism and motion.[15]
    Life is a delay of the spontaneous diffusion or dispersion of the internal energy of the biomolecules towards more potential microstates.[21]
    Life is a way to "hydrogenate carbon dioxide," at least at its very beginnings, according to physicist Sean Carroll.[22]
    Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.[23]
    Life is matter that can reproduce itself and evolve as survival dictates.[24][25]
    Life is self-reproduction "with variations."[26][27]
    Life is self-reproduction "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."[27]


    Viruses

    Viruses are most often considered replicators rather than forms of life. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life,"[28] since they possess genes, evolve by natural selection,[29] and replicate by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. However, viruses do not metabolize and require a host cell to make new products. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it may support the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[30][31]


    If we go by those definitions, and we can since the debate is far from settled, prions are life.


    And by the way, I'm not having a go at you if it seems like that. It's just a pet peeve of mine if people don't link to their source.
    image

    Edited minutes after the post, problems with the coding.
  • mildandhazymildandhazy
    Posts: 911Citizen
    Inferno, I didn't link Wiki because it was consistent with what I learned in Biology, so I figured it entered in the realm of basic biological knowledge, and you know me, I do normally link sources. I put in my answer and was expecting someone to reply, so by all means, go ahead. I'm here to learn, too.
    For everyone backed in a corner:
    Evacuations are in order.
    And we're leaving tonight.
  • Inferno
    Posts: 6,778Citizen
    Posted By: mildandhazyI put in my answer and was expecting someone to reply, so by all means, go ahead.


    Well like I said, it all depends on what definition of life we use. If we use that definition then I revise my first statement (like I said, I didn't know about the five other requirements) and agree that it's not life. If we use the other ones, it is. So yeah, which definition do we go by?
  • mildandhazymildandhazy
    Posts: 911Citizen
    I'm working right now, I'll look at what you said and reply better later.
    For everyone backed in a corner:
    Evacuations are in order.
    And we're leaving tonight.
  • breezysprevised
    Posts: 2,407Citizen
    Okay, so up until now I am left hanging. LOL

    I asked this question because I was looking at another thread and someone had said something to the likes of "we can not create life from non-life" and I could have sworn that I had actually seen this very thing happen just recently in a video someone posted on FB and also on a molecular level. Which I could not find that video so started googling what I thought it was about and came across an article which could also be complete BS(my edit: google skills), I failed to bookmark the page as well. Anyway, it comes down to this idea: the "mad cow disease" begins with a prion that ends up infecting an entire system, when they describe it to be something completely out of character(lack of proper wording) for something which they could barely consider an enzyme or not at all? I should have bookmarked it and now am mad at myself.:S I suppose if you end up deciding that the prion is not life, then there would be a following question and that is: id the process of an infection to be considered life at a level. The enzymes that are being infected are life, but the problem is that they are being infected by something dead that is spreading as dead. I am not sure if anyone will get this anymore if I continue rambling. If the first question is answered "no" but the second is answered "yes" than it would be proof that life can come from non-life. However gruesome the example for it may be......


    Edit: Stupid spelling.
  • breezysprevised
    Posts: 2,407Citizen
    And now for all you hi-jackers!!!!:)
  • Inferno
    Posts: 6,778Citizen
    Ah, if that's what you're looking for the the answer is "no, it's not life by any meaningful definition". Until now, we're quibbling over the definition of what constitutes life, but even if we grant that prions are life (and upon my previous revision I agree with mildandhazy that by the seven-point definition it's not) then it's still a whole different level away from anything an ordinary person would call "life". And that's the important part to your question, I believe.

    Now I remember a video that was posted, I believe by Akuta, some time (a year?) ago. If I recall correctly, it talked about synthetic bacteria having been produced in a laboratory somewhere. I seem to recall it being a bacteria that eats oil. They were asked to build it after the Mexican Gulf Oil Spill or something like that.
    I just did a quick search and found this article, my memory's not as bad as I thought. ;) Scientists build first synthetic bacteria (photos)
    The problem here is that it's not really "life from non-life", it's rather taking one aspect of life as we know it and then inserting an artificial aspect. Rather like transferring the mind of a human onto a robot. Possibly an important step, but it's not completely done.

    Does that answer your question?
  • breezysprevised
    Posts: 2,407Citizen
    Posted By: mildandhazyUsing these critera, prions are not life. And viruses are not quite, either.



    By the way, I was really happy for a second to read that until Inferno came in and turned it into a question again. LOL




    Posted By: telsaThis 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.



    What? This was not my question. But to let you know what I think about this you literally lost me when you started using the references to the power. I did not get past 9th grade math and I am left handed.:P I do though understand that it is an amazing thing how the universe is and progresses and that we are very lucky to exist as humans within the environment that we do and I think most people understand how much of a fluke it was for the Earth to develop the way it did. How is CHANCE any less plausible than a GOD in your eyes???????????????????????????????????????????????????????




    Posted By: telsaSo no, life couldn't have arisen on it's own in the primordial soup.



    Because it is wild that it did it can not??? I do not follow....




    Posted By: telsaIT REQUIRED A DESIGNER!



    No, your MIND requires the IDEA of a designer to feel better about itself.




    Posted By: QIt does have a designer - it is called the Electro-Weak force



    I would like to ask a favor. Can you please possibly posts some links describing this, I do not know anything about this but would like to.:)




    Posted By: PzBlitzWhich 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 ?



    Your mind "reveals" beauty to you. Also, you are programmed your entire life to interpret and view the various beautiful and ugly things in a widely accepted way(whatever that means). You are basically implying that having our five(or six) senses should be proof that we and everything are created. I am glad I have my senses and a part of that is that I AM ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO USE THEM which makes life even more beautiful. You are hardly one to speak with any authority on the matters of beauty and pleasure in life, you are not allowed to and are programmed to block out your senses as much as possible in your christian environment. If you deny it then I am going to start asking you direct questions about what it is that is actually required from you as a christian and in your church and will no longer let you sit there and brush on your superficial reel-in tactic weird stuff.

    The beauty is not revealed. It is experienced, silly person.



    Posted By: PzBlitzFirst 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.


    And also this: Animals probably experience that beauty "to the power of" :) 1 zillion times more than us, because they are not programmed to view beauty in one way or the other. I could speculate that they do not even see "ugly people" or "ugly animals" or "ugly buildings" as we do., but this is all speculation same as you are doing. Only difference is that I could spend hours giving valid reasons why animals experience more beauty than we are. As humans we have developed interested that pass far beyond anything having to do with beauty which can be good in many ways, but who are we kidding, us humans are all screwed up when it comes to these issues. People hide in their appartments in the city and spend endless nights in the club. People AVOID nature. We are all screwed up about these things and yes, we still have a great appreciation for beauty(some more than others), but in no way are we anywhere close to animals when it comes to embracing the beauties of nature. We want too much and need too much adrenaline shots to go out and suck nature in. And yet, we do indeed find our ways. That still get poisoned by marketing and societal/communal/religious pressures. This is turning into a rant. Sorry....



    Posted By: venomfangxIf it is on this forum we all have the right to peruse it and answer it. Dont be arrogant here.



    Yeah, dude, exactly.




    Posted By: TheAtheistGodI'll do some research and come up with an answer. This is my subject. =) Thanks for the topic!



    Thank you!!!!!!!!!:)



    Thank you Q for answering these people with such intelligence and rational. Your posts lately are my favorite read because you cut all the crap and basically force people to say what they are actually saying. I learn a lot from that, because I end up being way too nice. And still lack a lot of knowledge that I feed off of from discussions like these.


    TAG I am so happy you are going to be up here on this thread giving your knowledge about it, too.


    Wow, this might be a record for responses on a Breezy thread.LOLOLOLOLOLOL


    Even though half of you jumped straight into the discussion without actually letting me figure out what I was trying to figure out, it's okay. I am just listenign to hiphop anyway, all by my lonesome.:( Ha.:)


    I feed off of my smart friends knowledge. I am like your leech, but I suck information instead of blood. I hope that does not bother anyone.:)


    One more thing for mildandhazy, you need to ask your hubby what that video was about life from non-life, because I could have sworn he had a video about tha, too, and it is eating at me.:) I am so happy you responded here. Thanks!!!


    And MATT, you are never wrong. Seriously, never.
  • telsa
    Posts: 27Serf
    Hey Breezy.

    I know I basically hijacked your thread to make a point, but it's because I felt it's an important and overlooked one.

    What I meant about the powers: when you are calculating odds in math, you multiply the products to get the answer. However, in this scenario, we are increasing the odds by the power of, lets be generous and say 1 in 2. So for every amino acid we line up correctly, the odds of teh next correct amino acid lining up are 1 in 2. To figure out the odds of this happening for the length of a protein molecule, which has over 100 amino acids, we would need to multiply the odds of 1 in 2 over 100 times in a row. To make this simple, we use the powers of 10 scale. In other words, we right it shorthand 2^100, or 2 to the power of 100. This means that the number 2 must be multiplied by itself 100 times (2*2*2*2...all the way to 100) to get the odds of having 100 amino acis in the RIGHT ORDER. And that's my point. The odds of this happening are so little that mathematicians are calling it impossible. And that's where I believe God has inserted His presence into the Creation order to make it known to all who are searching that yes, indeed, complex life such as we see it today could NOT have arisen from basic biogogical randomness, which is what mainstream science would have you believe. To put this into perspective...I just calculated the odds of 2^15 and its greater than 1 in 10,000 against. That's only to the 15th power. NATURE NEEDS TO GO TO THE 100th POWER!!!

    So you see, the odds of complex forms of biology arising from pure randomness are so heavily against that's its safe to say it's impossible. Mathematicians, again, agree that once the odds of something reach a given point, it is declared impossible. So it is here. God has left a footprint after all.
  • ProletariatTreeHuger
    Posts: 5,135Citizen
    Posted By: telsacomplex forms of biology arising from pure randomness

    Can you explain where you got your information that it arises from pure randomness? I want to know who specifically lied to you.
  • telsa
    Posts: 27Serf
    who lied to me? Maybe my 8th grade biology textbook. It's common knowledge that biology asserts that life arose from pure randomness out of the primordial soup. I forget the names of those who did the experiment (shot electricity through a bowl of fluids thought to reflect the conditoins of life on earth, and voila, amino acids formed) but it is pretty well known. Are you arguing that there was actually something behind the processes, at least more than randomness? 'Cause that sounds alot like waht I"M saying!!!
  • ProletariatTreeHuger
    Posts: 5,135Citizen
    Well I know you won't read this, but if you want to actually update your faulty knowledge of evolution, it would behoove you to begin here.

    http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
  • breezysprevised
    Posts: 2,407Citizen
    Posted By: telsaWhat I meant about the powers: when you are calculating odds in math, you multiply the products to get the answer. However, in this scenario, we are increasing the odds by the power of, lets be generous and say 1 in 2. So for every amino acid we line up correctly, the odds of teh next correct amino acid lining up are 1 in 2. To figure out the odds of this happening for the length of a protein molecule, which has over 100 amino acids, we would need to multiply the odds of 1 in 2 over 100 times in a row. To make this simple, we use the powers of 10 scale. In other words, we right it shorthand 2^100, or 2 to the power of 100. This means that the number 2 must be multiplied by itself 100 times (2*2*2*2...all the way to 100) to get the odds of having 100 amino acis in the RIGHT ORDER. And that's my point. The odds of this happening are so little that mathematicians are calling it impossible. And that's where I believe God has inserted His presence into the Creation order to make it known to all who are searching that yes, indeed, complex life such as we see it today could NOT have arisen from basic biogogical randomness, which is what mainstream science would have you believe. To put this into perspective...I just calculated the odds of 2^15 and its greater than 1 in 10,000 against. That's only to the 15th power. NATURE NEEDS TO GO TO THE 100th POWER!!!


    Okay, again,........ MATH AT THIS LEVEL AND BREEZY IS A NO-GO. I would refer you to Inferno, but he might get annoyed, as to how pissed off he got at one point when he was trying to describe a simple sum to me. And he is a teacher, so he is supposed to be more patient than most in these issues. Haahahhaha.:)

    But there is no question it is a huge FLUKE that we have the privilege of existing and that is a really lucky and amazing thing. There is NO DOUBT in my mind about that. Look at it this way. We know a tiny bit about the laws of nature and the universe and we find out what we know within the limitations of our observations and are slowly venturing out further and further into space to discover more things not only relating to our existence but the entire universe. If you use a scale that weighs the flukish existence of the life on Earth and eventually compare it to the endless and extremely varietal fluke spread throughout the universe, our chance existence will become small and unimportant, just part of many amazing and beautiful processes that have taken place over billions of years and are still taking place. We are not the center of the universe. You are the center of your universe and I am the center of my universe, but we are not the center of THE universe. We, as humans need to get off of our high horses and stop thinking we are so damned incredible. We are made from stardust and one day we will probably be finished off by stardust, too. Why can't we just freaking live our lives without worrying about futile things like rule books made for an entirely different culture than the one we live in today? You need to stop, go outside, somewhere where you can see the sky(by the way there is supposed to be an eclipse tonight, so totally the best time for it... Look at that sky and do not think it was made just for you. Look at that sky and enter into it with your mind. You will become small. And you will have a better understanding of how much importance these stupid attempts to conversion really are. You need to worry about preserving the earth and what you are going to do when gas runs out and water runs dry. You need to start worrying about self-sufficiency and your footprint. Not how many souls you save. While you are worrying about soul-saving, millions of people are starving and governments are oppressing people, people are being treated as slaves and second-class citizens and every single dollar you use to pay groceries is forfeit or whitewashed. If you think god is more important than all the shit going on or that he is going to fix it if we just believe or that we should not longer worry since we are saved you are complete full of *insert foul language here*.









    Posted By: telsaSo you see, the odds of complex forms of biology arising from pure randomness are so heavily against that's its safe to say it's impossible.



    Even life from non-life is not pure randomness. But it is obvious it is a big flukish chance, this does not immediately support a god. You lack imagination and I am not even going to have that conversation. Quit repeating yourself!!!



    Posted By: telsaMathematicians, again, agree that once the odds of something reach a given point, it is declared impossible.



    So, are you saying that mathematicians have declared the odds of all your mentioned to the power of's to have reached that point?




    Posted By: telsaGod has left a footprint after all.



    God is your excuse not to think about your own damn footprint.
  • telsa
    Posts: 27Serf
    pth: I'm not knowledgeable enough about biology to comment on that paper - I wasn't joking about the reference to my 9th grade bio textbook - but I do have a disagreement with it.

    The author posits that the issue of abiogenesis isn't related to evolution. Bullcrap. If abiogenesis was found to be impossible, then evolution, as modern science describes it, couldn't happen. Period. There would NEED to be some sort of creator/divine impetus to get over the abiogenesis "hump" and would obviously play into such theoretical questions as the Cambrian explosion.

    He makes a distinction between them, fine, they are two different things, but abiogenesis still has obvious implications for evolution. To deny that is just stupid.

    And Breezy, forget what I said about the math stuff. I just read PTH's paper (a little bit of it) and it seems to recognize that there is at least an effort to bring these issues to the fore by well-meaning Creationists. (yes they are well-meaning. Uninformed perhaps, but well-meaning.) And it seems to answer them. So I have nothing to say.
Add a Comment