You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

No. I have absolutely no idea what theory could be better. But there are a few much worse theories.
Like I said read the book, it covers a lot including the nature of information and the huge/rapid appearance of information during the Cambrian explosion. I honestly can't understand the reticence from evolution devotees to read what skeptics have to say, it seems to me that people claim to be "scientists" yet at the same time do not have open minds, this has always struck me as self-contradictory.

Any person who fears that his beliefs are being challenged should revel in that, not become bitter and dogmatic and intolerant, a closed mind is a mind that's stopped learning.
 
Like I said read the book, it covers a lot including the nature of information and the huge/rapid appearance of information during the Cambrian explosion. I honestly can't understand the reticence from evolution devotees to read what skeptics have to say, it seems to me that people claim to be "scientists" yet at the same time do not have open minds, this has always struck me as self-contradictory.

Any person who fears that his beliefs are being challenged should revel in that, not become bitter and dogmatic and intolerant, a closed mind is a mind that's stopped learning.
Meyer's sequel explains where he was heading.

Expanding on the compelling case he presented in his last book, Signature in the Cell, Meyer argues that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes.

So there you have it. God of the gaps.
 
Meyer's sequel explains where he was heading.

Expanding on the compelling case he presented in his last book, Signature in the Cell, Meyer argues that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes.

So there you have it. God of the gaps.
If you seek reasons to avoid having an open mind then you'll find many, there are many ways out, I used to be an evolution devotee and used to dismantle creationists like Bruce Lee dismantled villains, I know how atheists think, I understand them better than they understand themselves.

I understand how hard it can be, but let it go, stop insisting that reality has to fit your belief system, instead alter the belief system to fit reality, there's a wonderful world out there, don't miss the wood for the trees.
 



 
If you seek reasons to avoid having an open mind then you'll find many, there are many ways out, I used to be an evolution devotee and used to dismantle creationists like Bruce Lee dismantled villains, I know how atheists think, I understand them better than they understand themselves.

I understand how hard it can be, but let it go, stop insisting that reality has to fit your belief system, instead alter the belief system to fit reality, there's a wonderful world out there, don't miss the wood for the trees.
A sermon. Superbly sarcastic.
 
No. I have absolutely no idea what theory could be better. But there are a few much worse theories.
One of the first evolutionary "catastrophes" in the Rene Thom sense) occurred when tRNA acquired hairpins.

1725316408661.png


You see where the codon is, it's the part in red.

This molecule began as a linear sequence, then folded once, then folded multiple times. Each folding event can be traced in single celled genomes. The particular folding we see now, enables the tRNA to interact with ribosomes.

The idea is, reactions occur when they're energetically favorable. "Any" reaction that's energetically favorable will occur eventually. Molecules of this length can be synthesized abiotically, on clay mineral surfaces, manganates and hydroxides. Adsorption on mineral surfaces lowers the activation energy and also serves as a scaffold for folding
 
Here, this pic shows you the bonding more clearly.

1725323657361.webp
 
You'll notice the methylations that allow the linear sequence to fold as needed.
 
To show you you are wrong when you insist that the Cambrian is the result of evolution.
It's hilarious that you think you have come anywhere near this goal by posting someone's opinion..

No, some guy having an opinion doesn't cut it. That's why we invented science.

I already covered this and rendered it useless many times.
 
Here is the data on tRNA evolution


Here is data on the relationship between tRNA and LUCA.


polyglycine was evolution's first version of a cytoskeleton, to stabilize cell structure and shape. These days it's done with microtubules.

The hypothesis is that tRNA evolved to synthesize polyglycine.

Figure 1 in the above link shows the early evolution.

"Mini-helices" are very short strands of RNA, only 3-5 bases long. In this case they would be GCC, UCC, and CCC.

To make polyglicine, we use an aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase enzyme, which is itself s fascinating molecule. The synthetase (also called ligase) attaches the amino acid to the tRNA. Once the tRNA is charged, it can be used to build a protein. The synthetase enzymes use Mg++ as a catalyst. There are two classes of synthetase/ligase with different ATP binding mechanisms, one called "backbone brackets" that uses hydrogen bonds, another called "arginine tweezers" that uses salt bridges.
In some of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, the cavity that holds the amino acid can be mutated and modified to carry unnatural amino acids synthesized in the lab, and to attach them to specific tRNAs. This expands the genetic code, beyond the twenty canonical amino acids found in nature, to include an unnatural amino acid as well. The unnatural amino acid is coded by a nonsense (TAG, TGA, TAA) triplet, a quadruplet codon, or in some cases a redundant rare codon. The organism that expresses the mutant synthetase can then be genetically programmed to incorporate the unnatural amino acid into any desired position in any protein of interest, allowing biochemists or structural biologists to probe or change the protein's function. For instance, one can start with the gene for a protein that binds a certain sequence of DNA, and, by directing an unnatural amino acid with a reactive side-chain into the binding site, create a new protein that cuts the DNA at the target-sequence, rather than binding it.
Then:
the evolution of tRNA is a known and solved problem [4]. Specifically, tRNA evolved from ligation of three 31-nt minihelices followed by 9-nt internal deletion(s). A single internal 9-nt deletion generated a type II tRNA (initially 84-nt) with an expanded variable loop. Two internal 9-nt deletions generated a type I tRNA (initially 75-nt).
Type 1 is the bracket, type 2 is the tweezers.
Finally (my favorite part):
By mutating aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, chemists have expanded the genetic codes of various organisms to include lab-synthesized amino acids with all kinds of useful properties: photoreactive, metal-chelating, xenon-chelating, crosslinking, spin-resonant, fluorescent, biotinylated, and redox-active amino acids. Another use is introducing amino acids bearing reactive functional groups for chemically modifying the target protein

Turns out, the 3 nucleotide code "demands" a 7 nt loop. 6 or 8 will not work, they won't bend into the proper shape. A 4 nucleotide code is possible with engineering but doesn't occur naturally. So if life evolves on another planet, chances are good it will use a 3 nucleotide tRNA.
 
I thought of there being a multitude of universes corresponding to different possible outcomes, over four and decades ago. It does not turn out to be viable. And, are we accountable? How does that work realistically with our choices being any of various possible outcomes?
 
Okay. Thank you for playing.

next
I have to agree with him, the term "universe" literally means "all that exists" and so cannot allow for plurality, it's like saying there are multiple human races, there is only one.

This is the problem with pop science today, it is just fanciful not disciplined, a much better term is "cosmos" and to say that there are "multiple cosmoses" is a better way to express the idea - IMHO.
 
I have to agree with him, the term "universe" literally means "all that exists" and so cannot allow for plurality, it's like saying there are multiple human races, there is only one.

This is the problem with pop science today, it is just fanciful not disciplined, a much better term is "cosmos" and to say that there are "multiple cosmoses" is a better way to express the idea - IMHO.
You stuck on stupid too?

"The universe is all of space, time, and everything that exists in them."

"It's possible that there are multiple universes, a concept known as the multiverse. The multiverse is a collection of universes that may include our own. "
 
You stuck on stupid too?

"The universe is all of space, time, and everything that exists in them."

"It's possible that there are multiple universes, a concept known as the multiverse. The multiverse is a collection of universes that may include our own. "
My dear fellow, go and gloat at your apparent achievement in correcting me. I've been a student of the sciences, theology, philosophy and metaphysics for fifty years but that won't mean anything to you since twitter is your God.

You want to change the definition to suit your purposes, go right ahead, be my guest.
 
My dear fellow, go and gloat at your apparent achievement in correcting me. I've been a student of the sciences, theology, philosophy and metaphysics for fifty years but that won't mean anything to you since twitter is your God.

You want to change the definition to suit your purposes, go right ahead, be my guest.
Stop projecting.

Dante doesn't do "gloat."


We're not stuck in some Junior High School English Class. Well, maybe you are, but...
 
Stop projecting.

Dante doesn't do "gloat."


We're not stuck in some Junior High School English Class. Well, maybe you are, but...
What do you do for a living may I ask?
 
Back
Top Bottom