I don't think we disagree at all, actually. The problem from the perspective of those opposed to ES research is:
1) Embryos are considered a separate human life, deserving of legal protection (I disagree with this, but that's the view ES research opponents take)
2) In order to get ES cells, an embryo must be destroyed
3) Therefore, current methods of ES research are immoral
The great-grandparent post came close stating (or maybe he was stating, I'm not sure) that any research on human cells was playing god and therefore immoral. He was saying that even this new method of stem cell derivation would be opposed by those who oppose ES research for that reason. I disagreed - it's the embryo destruction that's the problem, not the idea of stem cells itself. Embryos can become an individual human, amniotic stem cells are (right now) unable to.
Part of the problem might be that I study this sort of thing, so it's tough for me to tell how much is too dumbed-down and how much is insufficiently dumbed-down. The inner cell mass of a mammalian embryo, which is the part the ES cells are derived from, is the part that becomes the new individual. However, saying that ES cells can become a new individual was likely poor and unclear wording on my part.
Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid?
Absolutely, if she wants to (because she's the person who should be doing the deciding, anyway). Amniocentecis is a routine procedure, a friend of mine had one done just the other week. The OB/GYN department likely performs several every day. Besides, it's unlikely that it'll do her any good after she gives birth anyway, it'll probably just be soaked up and tossed in the medical waste bin.
I'm sorry, but the idea that embryonic stem cells could have become a baby is precisely the objection that most of the people who object to ESC research have. That someone figured out that embryos aren't humans on a Slashdot discussion is of no concern to faith-based folks like George W. Amniotic stem cells can't become a baby, so no one cares. Amniocentecis isn't quite as easy as scraping a cheek, but it's probably as close as we're likely to get with stem cells.
"Clearly human" cells die every single day, from skin cells that die to become the epidermis to brain cells killed by collegiate drunks. Experimenting on human cells is objectionable to nearly no one, at least not enough people to make a difference.
The biggest problem with this would be that the procedure would, barring some rapid advances in our knowledge of brain development, have to be performed on a very young child. Adult brains are not well-equipped to deal with the addition of a new stimulus such as new visible wavelengths. Of course, the parents could theoretically consent to such a procedure, but it'd be a pretty shady operation, especially in the early stages of the research.
While herbicide resistant genes do provide an advantage where that herbicide is used, many genes insterted into transgenic organisms are a disadvantage, particularly those that increase yields. Even herbicide resistance genes can provide a selective disadvantage when the herbicide is absent. This is easiest to see in bacteria - obviously antiobiotic resistance is an advantage when an antibiotic is present, but it frequently slows down reproduction, causing selective disadvantages compared to the non-transgenic versions when the antibiotic is absent. It's difficult to say if plants are the same, given that most commercially availible GM plants are sterile and that few tests for selection in the wild have been run on transgenic plants.
You'd never be brought to court for illegally possessing music, you'd be brought to court for illegally distributing music. And it's quite easy for them to show that you don't have a copyright, as typically only a limited number of these exist for any given song.
When jackbooted thugs start yanking the iPods of folks walking down the street and demanding to know where the listener obtained the song, then we'll have this problem. Until then, you're only sued for unlawful distribution.
I live in the area that the mumps outbreak is affecting, and some friends of friends have contracted it. It's mostly affecting college students in and around the University of Iowa. Because the UI is a state school and because the people affected are all roughly the same age, I'd say that a bad batch would be a good possibility. It's also possible that it's just a different strain that has the wrong antigens for the vaccine.
I always thought that CDs were digital. Now I hear that digital music only accounts for six percent of music sales? I knew LPs were making a bit of a comeback, but I didn't know it was that big. Everyone must be really enjoying that "warmer" sound.
Re:Stuff I didn't get from TA
on
DNA Origami
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I was unclear. You need enzymes, primers, etc in order to have the DNA DUPLICATE, not in order for these structures to form.
Re:Stuff I didn't get from TA
on
DNA Origami
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Not a biochemist, but a biology student. Hopefully my answers can help....
1. How does the template interact with the DNA to cause self-assembly in the desired pattern?
The thing to understand is that the template is the DNA. DNA binds to other DNA rather specifically, with the A's binding to the T's and the C's binding to the G's. Normally, there's two strands, with one strand containing the binding partners of the other strand. However, in this case, there'll be only one long strand and a bunch of other "staples". The long strand will bind to itself and also the "staples" to form this structure. The self-assembly is induced because it's energetically favorable - the A's "want" to pair with T's, etc. When DNA is heated to around the boiling point of water, however, all of these hydrogen bonds between strands are broken (but, importantly, the strands themselves remain intact). So now a bunch of single-stranded DNA is floating around, but when it's cooled, it assembles into structures. Normally, two DNA strands that are complemenatry would anneal, but in this case, the scientist designs the strand to bind to itself instead. Because it binds to itself in specific places, it forms a predictable structure. In this case, the scientist also used little bits of additional DNA to hold the structure together.
RNA often forms itself into this sort of secondary structure in nature, but that's typically boring stem-loop structures. In this case, the scientist takes our existing knowledge of nucleotide secondary structure and tried to make his own more interesting secondary structure, to great success.
2. If I throw RNA in with the object, can the structure reproduce?
Sadly, it's not as simple as "throwing RNA in there", there needs to be certain enzymes and also the complementary strands of all the DNA in order to work properly. However, it is likely that with the correct mix of enzymes, DNA primers, etc that these things could reproduce themselves, although they'd have to be reassmbled afterwards. I don't think they can replicate themselves in their assembled form.
3. Since these are all based on a single gene, they all code for the same protein, right?
I must've missed the part about these coding for genes at all. DNA doesn't have to code for any genes, it can be just DNA that sits around and assembles itself into structures, which I think is what this is.
4. How could these structures be used for molecular computing?
Unfortunately, I don't know much about molecular computing, but DNA is a small, predictable, availible substance that we are rapdily getting better at manipulating. Because of this, it's probably the best bet for near-future nanotech, possibly including molecular computing.
If you are on a university or library connection, you can probably check out the main scientific article here, which has lots of cool figures and is probably a lot more informative than what I've said. If you're not at a place that can access it, you can find the publication itself anywhere that gets Nature (probably your public library and almost certainly your nearby university). It'd be in the 16 March 2006 issue.
My father actually works for a division of HP that makes cell phone software. According to him, they're one of a very small number (that is, one to three) of groups in the western hemisphere that do that sort of thing. So yes, HP makes phone software.
Why all of the end-to-end encryption? Is having people record TV shows to their computer, and even sharing them with the world, really that bad? I mean, I get cable even though I could realistically download all of the shows I want to watch from P2P networks and I suspect that the vast majority of TV-watchers do likewise. Why cause so many problems for your customers and raise prices so much for a something that really isn't a threat to marketshare?
That's the thing... They're not shocked that some people are committing abuses. They planned for it, they're watching out for it, they know what sort of behaviour to watch for and if a company does it they will de-list them. That's planning for it. They're using humans as a sort of fail-safe in case they encounter abuse.
Any sort of search engine should start out good, but as it becomes more popular people will try to game the system. Eventually the search engine will have to run as fast as it can just to stay where it is. This sort of human intervention can help them get ahead a little bit and prevent people from so obviously gaming their system. Furthermore, the fact that they take the time to publicly rebuke a fairly large and powerful company over the abuse will hopefully scare off other companies afraid of de-listing.
What's better for companies with websites - being the fourth or fifth entry without the spam, or spamming and getting the top spot for a bit before getting de-listed? It was a cost-benefit analysis to start with and Google's hoping to push the cost up so high that it isn't worth the benefit.
Perhaps it's just me, but I find that lossy compression is much easier to detect in video than in audio. While I can tell what's lossy and what isn't in audio, I have to listen to the lossless format several times before catching the nuances. Meanwhile, I can see pixellations, etc in downloaded TV shows rather easily.
Plus, your idea to have consumers download 1080p files means that they'll be downloading basically lossless HD programming anyway. 1080p resolution video files are huge. It would take monstrous server power to host such things, and if I'm paying for something like this, I don't want to be waiting to bittorrent it.
Elk hunting dogs specifically are trained to bark at the elk to make it stand still and look at the dog to distract it from noticing the hunter. After a while, the hunter learns to recognize the type of bark, if the dog has found an elk or is in distress, for example.
I did not know that about elk hunting. Learn something new every day, I guess.
"Bear hunters" seems like too limited a market for something like this. According to the article, this is something meant primarily for pet owners worried that their dogs might run away or those who want to talk to their pets while at work or on a trip. The article even mentions that the inventor got the idea when his colleague called home and asked his wife if he could speak with his dogs while on a business trip.
However, I can certainly see how it would be useful to hunters, particularly as it has a camera on it as well (unmentioned in summary, but present in article). The voice thing is really what seems to me to be a gimmick - talking to your dog could wind up too loud for hunting, and a barking dog could likewise scare away the quarry. It just seems to me that it would be still nearly as useful and somewhat less expensive if they left the "phone" part out.
The GPS and GeoFence features sound like they'd be much more useful to the pet owner than the cell phone capabilities. What, exactly, are pet owners going do tell their dog over the phone? "Sit?" "Stay?" And how will the dog respond to a disembodied voice that seems to be coming from behind its head?
That's why this seems like a giant gimmick to me. If it weren't a gimmick, and were actually useful, the designers would have ditched the cell phone capability as a very expensive add on and just marketed it based on the dog-tracking capabilities. This will probably be bought by those pathetic dog owners who make ridiculous outfits for their pets to wear and visit pet psychologists when Fido barks twice more this week than he did last week.
It's not contentious in that "Everyone thinks it's impossible to be correct", it's contentious in the sense of "There's not been much evidence (until now, if that study proves accurate) of it in the past, and foolish people tend to use information like this in exactly the wrong ways." Frankly, the idea that intelligence is genetic is evident if you believe that we are smarter than chimps and know anything about evolution. If genes that make (almost) all humans smarter than chimps exist, why couldn't there be genes that make some humans smarter than others?
This is a perfect example of selection (or in this case, lack of selection) at work. In this case, there really doesn't appear to be much selection (in America, at least) against low IQs. People with lower IQs are still able to survive, hold a job, find a mate and (most importantly) reproduce. Without doing or seeing any studies, it seems quite obvious that IQ scores aren't the most important trait in determining survival and reproduction.
The gene perpetuates because the people that it exists in perpetuate. Maybe it perpetuates because it gives an unknown selective advantage, but more likely, it perpetuates because it's not a significant enough detriment to cause selection to act against it. Other genes in the organism can make up for a fitness deficiency in one gene.
IGF2R is active from very early in development. While the slower-development hypothesis is possible, it's far from the simplest explanation. However, tests should be done (if they're not already planned) incorporating older subjects.
I agree on the p value comment, though. I'd really prefer to see a larger sample size (perhaps restricted to only males, this time). Samples from across various cities would be useful, as well.
The basic point is that you're arguing against a position that no biologist holds. No biologist thinks that a modern E. coli appeared one day out of a mix of chemicals. What you're arguing is that simple chemicals gave rise directly to a complex bacterium. From talkorigins.org (referenced earlier in another reply), simple chemicals would lead to polymers, polymers would eventually give rise to replicating polymers, replicating polymers give rise to a hypercyle, which gives rise to a protobiont, etc. Such a protobiont would require polymers only 30-40 monomers in length! Furthermore, the RNA world hypothesis (which is also referenced in the TO article linked) hypothesizes that the self-replicating RNA was surrounded in a lipid layer, protecting it from harmful oxidation.
In a more general sense, this speaks to a problem widespread in ID, namely, if you're trying to disprove something, and you disprove the wrong thing, you haven't disproven anything. ID is a belief system based entirely on tearing down evolutionary theory, with no real positive evidence of a designer whatsoever. Every ID explanation ever proffered begins and ends with the assertion that evolutionary theory is insufficient to explain observations. In order to show that evolutionary theory is insufficient, they often resort to an oversimplified and usually wrong version of evolutionary theory. Disproving this strawman often provokes agreements from the crowds less educated on evolution, but provokes well-deserved scorn and ridicule from those who actually know what they're talking about.
"A degree," huh? That's one helluva convincing argument. Why, I think my science teacher has a degree, too. In fact, all of my science teachers had degrees. And they taught things a lot more specialized than "science," things like "Fundamental Genetics," "Molecular Genetics," "Evolution," "Developmental Biology," "Bioinformatics" and "Biochemistry." And guess what, all of them taught evolutionary theory. In fact, if you collect all of the Ph.D's who believe in ID and all of the Ph.D's named "Steve" who agree that evolution is well-supported and the best explainer and predictor of our observations, the Ph.D's named "Steve" will outnumber the Ph.D's who believe in ID.
Anytime someone refers to amino acids in an origin-of-life debate, that's a red flag for "Person doesn't know what he/she's talking about". Here's a hint: Take a biochemistry class. Learn about RNA world hypothesis.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think we disagree at all, actually. The problem from the perspective of those opposed to ES research is:
1) Embryos are considered a separate human life, deserving of legal protection (I disagree with this, but that's the view ES research opponents take)
2) In order to get ES cells, an embryo must be destroyed
3) Therefore, current methods of ES research are immoral
The great-grandparent post came close stating (or maybe he was stating, I'm not sure) that any research on human cells was playing god and therefore immoral. He was saying that even this new method of stem cell derivation would be opposed by those who oppose ES research for that reason. I disagreed - it's the embryo destruction that's the problem, not the idea of stem cells itself. Embryos can become an individual human, amniotic stem cells are (right now) unable to.
Part of the problem might be that I study this sort of thing, so it's tough for me to tell how much is too dumbed-down and how much is insufficiently dumbed-down. The inner cell mass of a mammalian embryo, which is the part the ES cells are derived from, is the part that becomes the new individual. However, saying that ES cells can become a new individual was likely poor and unclear wording on my part.
Would you allow your pregnant daughter to go through this procedure of donating amniotic fluid? Absolutely, if she wants to (because she's the person who should be doing the deciding, anyway). Amniocentecis is a routine procedure, a friend of mine had one done just the other week. The OB/GYN department likely performs several every day. Besides, it's unlikely that it'll do her any good after she gives birth anyway, it'll probably just be soaked up and tossed in the medical waste bin.
I'm sorry, but the idea that embryonic stem cells could have become a baby is precisely the objection that most of the people who object to ESC research have. That someone figured out that embryos aren't humans on a Slashdot discussion is of no concern to faith-based folks like George W. Amniotic stem cells can't become a baby, so no one cares. Amniocentecis isn't quite as easy as scraping a cheek, but it's probably as close as we're likely to get with stem cells.
"Clearly human" cells die every single day, from skin cells that die to become the epidermis to brain cells killed by collegiate drunks. Experimenting on human cells is objectionable to nearly no one, at least not enough people to make a difference.
The biggest problem with this would be that the procedure would, barring some rapid advances in our knowledge of brain development, have to be performed on a very young child. Adult brains are not well-equipped to deal with the addition of a new stimulus such as new visible wavelengths. Of course, the parents could theoretically consent to such a procedure, but it'd be a pretty shady operation, especially in the early stages of the research.
While herbicide resistant genes do provide an advantage where that herbicide is used, many genes insterted into transgenic organisms are a disadvantage, particularly those that increase yields. Even herbicide resistance genes can provide a selective disadvantage when the herbicide is absent. This is easiest to see in bacteria - obviously antiobiotic resistance is an advantage when an antibiotic is present, but it frequently slows down reproduction, causing selective disadvantages compared to the non-transgenic versions when the antibiotic is absent. It's difficult to say if plants are the same, given that most commercially availible GM plants are sterile and that few tests for selection in the wild have been run on transgenic plants.
You'd never be brought to court for illegally possessing music, you'd be brought to court for illegally distributing music. And it's quite easy for them to show that you don't have a copyright, as typically only a limited number of these exist for any given song.
When jackbooted thugs start yanking the iPods of folks walking down the street and demanding to know where the listener obtained the song, then we'll have this problem. Until then, you're only sued for unlawful distribution.
I live in the area that the mumps outbreak is affecting, and some friends of friends have contracted it. It's mostly affecting college students in and around the University of Iowa. Because the UI is a state school and because the people affected are all roughly the same age, I'd say that a bad batch would be a good possibility. It's also possible that it's just a different strain that has the wrong antigens for the vaccine.
I always thought that CDs were digital. Now I hear that digital music only accounts for six percent of music sales? I knew LPs were making a bit of a comeback, but I didn't know it was that big. Everyone must be really enjoying that "warmer" sound.
"Next week, New Found Glory guest stars on a very special Star Wars...."
Sorry, I was unclear. You need enzymes, primers, etc in order to have the DNA DUPLICATE, not in order for these structures to form.
Not a biochemist, but a biology student. Hopefully my answers can help....
1. How does the template interact with the DNA to cause self-assembly in the desired pattern?
The thing to understand is that the template is the DNA. DNA binds to other DNA rather specifically, with the A's binding to the T's and the C's binding to the G's. Normally, there's two strands, with one strand containing the binding partners of the other strand. However, in this case, there'll be only one long strand and a bunch of other "staples". The long strand will bind to itself and also the "staples" to form this structure. The self-assembly is induced because it's energetically favorable - the A's "want" to pair with T's, etc. When DNA is heated to around the boiling point of water, however, all of these hydrogen bonds between strands are broken (but, importantly, the strands themselves remain intact). So now a bunch of single-stranded DNA is floating around, but when it's cooled, it assembles into structures. Normally, two DNA strands that are complemenatry would anneal, but in this case, the scientist designs the strand to bind to itself instead. Because it binds to itself in specific places, it forms a predictable structure. In this case, the scientist also used little bits of additional DNA to hold the structure together.
RNA often forms itself into this sort of secondary structure in nature, but that's typically boring stem-loop structures. In this case, the scientist takes our existing knowledge of nucleotide secondary structure and tried to make his own more interesting secondary structure, to great success.
2. If I throw RNA in with the object, can the structure reproduce?
Sadly, it's not as simple as "throwing RNA in there", there needs to be certain enzymes and also the complementary strands of all the DNA in order to work properly. However, it is likely that with the correct mix of enzymes, DNA primers, etc that these things could reproduce themselves, although they'd have to be reassmbled afterwards. I don't think they can replicate themselves in their assembled form.
3. Since these are all based on a single gene, they all code for the same protein, right?
I must've missed the part about these coding for genes at all. DNA doesn't have to code for any genes, it can be just DNA that sits around and assembles itself into structures, which I think is what this is.
4. How could these structures be used for molecular computing?
Unfortunately, I don't know much about molecular computing, but DNA is a small, predictable, availible substance that we are rapdily getting better at manipulating. Because of this, it's probably the best bet for near-future nanotech, possibly including molecular computing.
If you are on a university or library connection, you can probably check out the main scientific article here, which has lots of cool figures and is probably a lot more informative than what I've said. If you're not at a place that can access it, you can find the publication itself anywhere that gets Nature (probably your public library and almost certainly your nearby university). It'd be in the 16 March 2006 issue.
My father actually works for a division of HP that makes cell phone software. According to him, they're one of a very small number (that is, one to three) of groups in the western hemisphere that do that sort of thing. So yes, HP makes phone software.
Why all of the end-to-end encryption? Is having people record TV shows to their computer, and even sharing them with the world, really that bad? I mean, I get cable even though I could realistically download all of the shows I want to watch from P2P networks and I suspect that the vast majority of TV-watchers do likewise. Why cause so many problems for your customers and raise prices so much for a something that really isn't a threat to marketshare?
That's the thing... They're not shocked that some people are committing abuses. They planned for it, they're watching out for it, they know what sort of behaviour to watch for and if a company does it they will de-list them. That's planning for it. They're using humans as a sort of fail-safe in case they encounter abuse.
Any sort of search engine should start out good, but as it becomes more popular people will try to game the system. Eventually the search engine will have to run as fast as it can just to stay where it is. This sort of human intervention can help them get ahead a little bit and prevent people from so obviously gaming their system. Furthermore, the fact that they take the time to publicly rebuke a fairly large and powerful company over the abuse will hopefully scare off other companies afraid of de-listing.
What's better for companies with websites - being the fourth or fifth entry without the spam, or spamming and getting the top spot for a bit before getting de-listed? It was a cost-benefit analysis to start with and Google's hoping to push the cost up so high that it isn't worth the benefit.
Perhaps it's just me, but I find that lossy compression is much easier to detect in video than in audio. While I can tell what's lossy and what isn't in audio, I have to listen to the lossless format several times before catching the nuances. Meanwhile, I can see pixellations, etc in downloaded TV shows rather easily. Plus, your idea to have consumers download 1080p files means that they'll be downloading basically lossless HD programming anyway. 1080p resolution video files are huge. It would take monstrous server power to host such things, and if I'm paying for something like this, I don't want to be waiting to bittorrent it.
it's getting to a point where people just aren't smart enough to take care of themselves.
I like to call these people "Management Majors" and sometimes "Humanities students".
Elk hunting dogs specifically are trained to bark at the elk to make it stand still and look at the dog to distract it from noticing the hunter. After a while, the hunter learns to recognize the type of bark, if the dog has found an elk or is in distress, for example.
I did not know that about elk hunting. Learn something new every day, I guess.
"Bear hunters" seems like too limited a market for something like this. According to the article, this is something meant primarily for pet owners worried that their dogs might run away or those who want to talk to their pets while at work or on a trip. The article even mentions that the inventor got the idea when his colleague called home and asked his wife if he could speak with his dogs while on a business trip.
However, I can certainly see how it would be useful to hunters, particularly as it has a camera on it as well (unmentioned in summary, but present in article). The voice thing is really what seems to me to be a gimmick - talking to your dog could wind up too loud for hunting, and a barking dog could likewise scare away the quarry. It just seems to me that it would be still nearly as useful and somewhat less expensive if they left the "phone" part out.
The GPS and GeoFence features sound like they'd be much more useful to the pet owner than the cell phone capabilities. What, exactly, are pet owners going do tell their dog over the phone? "Sit?" "Stay?" And how will the dog respond to a disembodied voice that seems to be coming from behind its head?
That's why this seems like a giant gimmick to me. If it weren't a gimmick, and were actually useful, the designers would have ditched the cell phone capability as a very expensive add on and just marketed it based on the dog-tracking capabilities. This will probably be bought by those pathetic dog owners who make ridiculous outfits for their pets to wear and visit pet psychologists when Fido barks twice more this week than he did last week.
It's not contentious in that "Everyone thinks it's impossible to be correct", it's contentious in the sense of "There's not been much evidence (until now, if that study proves accurate) of it in the past, and foolish people tend to use information like this in exactly the wrong ways." Frankly, the idea that intelligence is genetic is evident if you believe that we are smarter than chimps and know anything about evolution. If genes that make (almost) all humans smarter than chimps exist, why couldn't there be genes that make some humans smarter than others?
This is a perfect example of selection (or in this case, lack of selection) at work. In this case, there really doesn't appear to be much selection (in America, at least) against low IQs. People with lower IQs are still able to survive, hold a job, find a mate and (most importantly) reproduce. Without doing or seeing any studies, it seems quite obvious that IQ scores aren't the most important trait in determining survival and reproduction. The gene perpetuates because the people that it exists in perpetuate. Maybe it perpetuates because it gives an unknown selective advantage, but more likely, it perpetuates because it's not a significant enough detriment to cause selection to act against it. Other genes in the organism can make up for a fitness deficiency in one gene.
IGF2R is active from very early in development. While the slower-development hypothesis is possible, it's far from the simplest explanation. However, tests should be done (if they're not already planned) incorporating older subjects. I agree on the p value comment, though. I'd really prefer to see a larger sample size (perhaps restricted to only males, this time). Samples from across various cities would be useful, as well.
The basic point is that you're arguing against a position that no biologist holds. No biologist thinks that a modern E. coli appeared one day out of a mix of chemicals. What you're arguing is that simple chemicals gave rise directly to a complex bacterium. From talkorigins.org (referenced earlier in another reply), simple chemicals would lead to polymers, polymers would eventually give rise to replicating polymers, replicating polymers give rise to a hypercyle, which gives rise to a protobiont, etc. Such a protobiont would require polymers only 30-40 monomers in length! Furthermore, the RNA world hypothesis (which is also referenced in the TO article linked) hypothesizes that the self-replicating RNA was surrounded in a lipid layer, protecting it from harmful oxidation.
In a more general sense, this speaks to a problem widespread in ID, namely, if you're trying to disprove something, and you disprove the wrong thing, you haven't disproven anything. ID is a belief system based entirely on tearing down evolutionary theory, with no real positive evidence of a designer whatsoever. Every ID explanation ever proffered begins and ends with the assertion that evolutionary theory is insufficient to explain observations. In order to show that evolutionary theory is insufficient, they often resort to an oversimplified and usually wrong version of evolutionary theory. Disproving this strawman often provokes agreements from the crowds less educated on evolution, but provokes well-deserved scorn and ridicule from those who actually know what they're talking about.
"A degree," huh? That's one helluva convincing argument. Why, I think my science teacher has a degree, too. In fact, all of my science teachers had degrees. And they taught things a lot more specialized than "science," things like "Fundamental Genetics," "Molecular Genetics," "Evolution," "Developmental Biology," "Bioinformatics" and "Biochemistry." And guess what, all of them taught evolutionary theory. In fact, if you collect all of the Ph.D's who believe in ID and all of the Ph.D's named "Steve" who agree that evolution is well-supported and the best explainer and predictor of our observations, the Ph.D's named "Steve" will outnumber the Ph.D's who believe in ID.
Anytime someone refers to amino acids in an origin-of-life debate, that's a red flag for "Person doesn't know what he/she's talking about". Here's a hint: Take a biochemistry class. Learn about RNA world hypothesis.