Now remember, ABO, what you have been told...

1. You have been told what to read and how to read it.

2. You have been told to REPENT of your Vanity and Pride.

3. You have been told not to pick fights.

Are you prepared to Obey?

IOW, you have no answers and you're grasping at any straw to avoid admitting it.

I can take that.

No you can't. If your pal answers my questions, which have mainly been ignored, I will answer yours.

Simple. So cut out the double stadard.

Gary...Right now I have to focus on work that helps pay the bills, but maybe this weekend I’ll have time for something like that. All any need to know is where we're at right now with theory and where to download the computer model that goes with it.

I am sorry if I came across as condescending - I had no idea about your personal situation. I wish you all the best in working it out. As personal feelings often can overshadow the actual discussion on the subject we are having. It appears and I hope you are not taking it to heart, keep it this way.

ABO,

A great paper just out about self organization of organics, and a chance observation by a researcher two years ago -- that inspired the team's research and led to its significant findings. Do you see how one thing leads to the other? Do you see that there is no need for an intelligent designer to "assemble" certain organics as they "self assemble?" Another Lego piece. Another discovery. Let me assure you that invoking Santa Clause as designer for this particular experiment would laugh you out of the lab that may or may not be filled with Christian, Muslim, Jewish and atheist scientists.

(Feb. 29, 2012) Nanofiber Breakthrough Holds Promise for Medicine and Microprocessors http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229105139.htm

During an experiment that involved studying certain cylinder-shaped proteins derived from cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP, found predominantly in human cartilage), Gunasekar noticed that in high concentrations, these alpha helical coiled-coil proteins spontaneously came together and self-assembled into nanofibers. By adding a set of metal-recognizing amino acids to the coiled-coil protein, the NYU-Poly team succeeded, finding that the nanofibers alter their shapes upon addition of metals such as zinc and nickel to the protein. Moreover, the addition of zinc fortified the nanofibers, enabling them to hold more curcumin, while the addition of nickel transformed the fibers into clumped mats, triggering the release of the drug molecule.


Effects of Divalent Metals on Nanoscopic Fiber Formation and Small Molecule Recognition of Helical Proteins

Abstract
Metal dependent protein-based assemblies derived from the cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (C) coiled-coil domain (His6-C) and two variants with mutation at position 40 (His6-T40A) and 44 (His6-L44A) are explored. All proteins have an N-terminal hexahistidine tag (His6) that interacts with divalent metal ions Zn(II) and Ni(II). Binding to Zn(II) confers enhanced helical structure and stability, while Ni(II) promotes aggregation. Surprisingly, His6-L44A undergoes a conformational switch from unstructured to α-helix in the presence of Zn(II). Both His6-C and His6-T40A further assemble into discrete nanofibers that appear to be stabilized by Zn(II) in which the fiber formation is dictated by the α-helical content. Because Ni(II) promotes aggregation, the proteins visibly cluster, forming large fiber mats in the case of His6-C and His6-T40A or aggregated structures as observed for His6-L44A. Due to the unique pentameric assembly of the proteins, recognition of a small molecule within the pore is assessed using curcumin as the guest molecule. In the presence of Zn(II), there is enhanced binding to curcumin, while the addition of Ni(II) causes a loss in binding. It is shown that metal binding serves as a trigger to control the conformation of the proteins, affecting the nanoscopic fibrous assemblies and small molecule recognition abilities.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... aintenance

Your the master here at ignoring and dodging questions. I'm still waiting on a reply to my question from the Bishop Spong thread.

ABO,

Hope this can help you understand the reality of organic chemistry evolution, self assembly and proto cell synthesis.

You may want to take a look at this short video animation of the work. It can also tell you what sceintific theories are designed to do. The first part of the video deals with creationists arguments that have been refuted again and again.

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg


Here is some clips from National Science Foundation press release (see full release at link below)

A New Way to Think About Earth's First Cells
The protocell's fatty acid membrane allows chemical compounds, including the building blocks of DNA, to enter into the cell without the assistance of the protein channels and pumps required by today's highly developed cell membranes. Also unlike modern cells, the protocell does not use enzymes for copying its DNA.

Some scientists have proposed that ancient hydrothermal vents may have been sites where prebiotic molecules--molecules made before the origin of life, such as fatty acids and amino acids--were formed. An animation (accessible at upper right) created by Janet Iwasa of the Szostak Laboratory shows a theoretical scenario in which fatty acids are formed on the surface of minerals deep underground, and then brought to the surface by the eruption of a geyser.

When fatty acids are in an aqueous environment, they spontaneously arrange so that their hydrophilic, or water-loving, "heads" interact with the surrounding water molecules and their hydrophobic, or water-fearing, "tails" are shielded from the water, resulting in the formation of tiny spheres of fatty acids called micelles.

Depending upon chemical concentrations and the pH of their environment, micelles can convert into layered membrane sheets or enclosed vesicles. Researchers commonly use vesicles to model the cellular membranes of protocells. A second animation created by Iwasa (accessible at lower right) shows how vesicles may have been formed.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111652

Darwinian Chemical Systems
www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showA

ABO,

I also recommend you view these two short videos in addition to the one about John Szostak's work. By the way, Szostak was awarded Nobel prize in 2009 for work on telomerase.

These two videos will demonstrate how through blind unintelligent processes genetic information can be created within the framework of chemical laws.

The Origin of the Genetic Code
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_ ... re=channel

The Origin of Genes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLnr_3J1 ... ure=relmfu

The Origin Of Multi-Cellular Life
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVqxyYBuI_U

I have no double-standard, Mike, you do. I answered your questions, you haven't answered mine. Dagny's irrelevant, just a red herring you're waving to excuse your inability to answer.

Do you think you're fooling anyone?

Then you are in the wrong thread.

And why would you think I would think there should not be Christian judges? Are you saying they would not be impartial?

And some atheist would be?

Nope, just asking for equal treatment, since most of my questions are ignored.

But apparently you think you and Dagny are fooling everyone.

You're not for equal treatment, since you haven't answered my questions while I have answered yours.

You'll do anything to duck the issue.

Just another thread where you ignore and dodge questions. So what is the difference?

[/quote]



I never said that at all. I posed a hypothetical question to you to see how you would answer it, that is all. I believe I have already said this, but apparently your not willing to answer the question, so just forget it.

Your proving to me that your not even worth conversing with if all you do is dodge and weave questions. So no worries, I won't be asking you anything else.

ABO,

This maybe an interesting piece from Harvard for you to look at. Enjoy thinking about self assembly, guided assembly and what's possible.

I hope that by now you understand that Lego blocks of life (amino acids, proteins, membranes, etc) can arise through self essembly without a creator. Even if for some reason the creator/designer has created the laws of nature according to which these self assembly processes take place, it can be and has been conclusively demonstrated that he/she/it is not needed in the current framework of abiogenesis on Earth. There have been so many experiments out there that it is virtually a fact, as much as helocentricity and evolution are fact or theory of electromagnetism or germ theory are facts.

So, this at best can leave us without a creator or at worst (depending on who's counting) a deistic creator who has not interfered, or a theistic creator who also have not interfered. Or just the most reasonable way is to leave the speculations about intelligent designer outside the framework as the only way to falsify him/her it is when he shows up. Otherwise, you are left with your imagination and no facts and "gut feeling" is not the best way to base your life and life of others on, unless it's an evolutionary gut feeling.

Taking a stride toward synthetic life

Harvard scientists create cell protein machinery Harvard scientists have cleared a key hurdle in the creation of synthetic life, assembling a cell’s critical protein-making machinery in an advance with both practical, industrial applications and that advances the basic understanding of life’s workings. George Church, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School and member of Harvard’s Origins of Life Initiative, reported the creation of billions of synthetic ribosomes that readily create a long, complex protein called firefly luciferase.

Using the bacteria E. coli, Church and Research Fellow Michael Jewett extracted the bacteria’s natural ribosomes, broke them down into their constituent parts, removed the key ribosomal RNA and then synthesized the ribosomal RNA anew from molecules.

Church and Jewett expected creating the artificial ribosome and getting it to produce proteins would be the toughest steps in making an artificial cell. They were amazed, Church said, when the task was accomplished in just a year.

The ultimate goal is to create an artificial genome of 151 genes that they believe are the minimum to create a functioning, self-replicating cell.

Szostak presented his recent research into the creation and propagation of synthetic cells, showing that membranes form from simple fat molecules spontaneously under certain conditions. In addition to the membranes, he reviewed research into possible ways that basic genetic information may have originally been stored and conveyed in simple RNA-like molecules. His work, he said, is exploring the properties of these RNA-like molecules, seeking variations that make them better early candidates to store and replicate genetic information than either DNA or RNA, which perform those functions in modern cells, but require complex molecular machinery to do so. (I have posted about this today - see above)

In his presentation, Venter described the search for genes around the world, saying that microbes have been found on earth that can withstand radiation levels far beyond that which would be lethal to humans, that can live in corrosive liquids that would eat away a human finger dipped in it, and in a wide array of other environments. The growing library of genes from creatures of all kinds – totaling 50,000 gene families – has created a database from which industry can pick and choose genes for particular applications.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... etic-life/

It has not been conclusively demonstrated that a creator is not needed within the framework of abiogensis on earth. For one thing, to even begin to claim that, you would have to explain abiogenesis. That has not been done.

In fact, although I never thought I would say it, the claims of the second paragraph border on intellectual dishonesty; the so called examples given later in the post gloss over the fact that these actions were carried out by scientists utilizing Intelligence.

And the third paragraph reveals that the agenda here is a religious one, not a scientific one; philosophical speculations the go far beyond the Scientific Method that is claimed to be their inspiration.