|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
LFH,
None of your posts in this thread have addressed the topic. Even the originator has asked you to stay on topic. So far you have only managed to drag the thread off topic. If you wish to continue in this thread or any thread, you need to abide by the guidelines and keep your posts on topic. If you continue posting off topic, you will be suspended for 24 hours. Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread. Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout. Thank you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lovefaithhope Junior Member (Idle past 6249 days) Posts: 12 From: richmond, bc, canada Joined: |
take care I have learned a lot
with love Richard
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. Take comments to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nathan Junior Member (Idle past 6230 days) Posts: 3 From: puget sound region Joined: |
what is with the micro and macro,in other words is it because there are no transitionals, and they have to explain them away?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
welcome ot EvC. this is a fun place to be, especially if you stick to the topic. The topic of this thread is the evidences for abiogenesis, not evolution. your question about macro and micro (I'm assuming you mean macroevolution and microevolution) does not belong in this thread. Check out the Biological Evolution forum to find threads on that question, or start your own thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
oh, and enjoy you're stay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nathan Junior Member (Idle past 6230 days) Posts: 3 From: puget sound region Joined: |
i am new to this one, and i guess i got the wrong one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
not a problem. we all have learning curves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jjsemsch Member (Idle past 5776 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
As best as I understand it the current model for abiogenesis happened in a primordial soup. Randomly atoms formed amino acids which randomly formed protein strands, which then randomly formed DNA strands.
The first problem with this model is when amino acids are randomly formed there are left and right handed amino acids. In other words there are mirror image amino acids. Due to the laws of chance there would be nearly equal parts left and right handed amino acids in this primordial soup. In living organisms, however nearly all amino acids are left handed. In fact right handed amino acids are not only useless but can be toxic (even lethal) to life. (1) (2) The next problem is forming proteins from these amino acids. Supposedly this took place in water. As amino acids form a peptide bond to form a protein they give off a water molecule. The longer the protein strand the more water, unfortunately water tends to reverse the chemical process of amino acids bonding. (3) At equilibrium it is statistically impossible for this chemical process to reach the average protein composition of around 400 amino acids. And the final problem is protein strands randomly forming DNA strands. Even if the first two huge hurdles could be cleared and even if proteins randomly bonded to produce DNA, this DNA code would be useless without the mechanism to interpret it. For example if you randomly threw magnetic alphabet letters on your refrigerator and came up with the phrase: THE DOG SAT This would be useless unless you spoke English. This phrase is meaningless in Chinese or French. Also if this phrase were to come in to existence before the English language, it would also be useless. So in response to MattP even if you can create DNA or RNA strands without the mechanics of a cell it is completely useless, unless the cell is already in existence to interpret that information. But for a cell to spontaneously come into existence the blueprint (DNA) has to be around first. It’s the same as the chicken and egg problem. Eventually you just say God created the chicken on day 5 along with all of the other birds. If you want the true beginning of living things you have to look no further than the 11th verse of Genesis 1: Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. And in response to LFH, I think you had the right idea, but were unable to articulate it to be relevant to this thread. Good luck in the future. Reference:(1)Jamali, F., Lovlin, R., Corrigan, B.W., Davies, N.M. and Aberg, G., Stereospecific pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics of ketorolac after oral administration of the racemate and optically pure enantiomers to the rat, Chirality 11(3):201-205, 1999. (2)Coppedge, J.F., Probability of left-handed molecules, CRSQ 8:163-174, 1971 (3)Sarfati, J., Origin of life: the polymerization problem, TJ 12(3):281-284, 1998 Edited by jjsemsch, : Added References
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Welcome to EvC jjsemsch.
Your post is clearly laid out an everyone appreciates that. However, I'd like to suggest that when you lift ideas from some source that you credit the source you lifted them from. I'd also suggest that you then do a bit of searching around on the web to see if those have been discussed somewhere else and perhaps that there is additional information on the topic. You're going to find that your picture of abiogenisis is a bit out of date. You will find that this is a good place to learn though. Some individuals here actually have some expertise in many of the things discussed (though I'm pretty sure we have no one doing research into the orgins of life). Enjoy your visits. Thanks for dropping in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I want to say that MattP has a hand in some origins research, could be mistaken though
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, jj. Welcome to EvC.
quote: Is it? I couldn't find a can of Cambell's Primordial Soup at the supermarket, so I couldn't check the ingredients. -
quote: Not necessarily. Cech won the Nobel Prize in chemistry by demonstrating that RNA molecules can be self-catalyzing. This makes the RNA World hypothesis a contendor for a theory of the origin of life. Of course, it's also possible that the first proto-living replicating chemical systems may not have used DNA or RNA. They may have began to make use of the available amino acids to begin the construction of DNA or RNA molecules to assist in their proto-metabolic processes, and eventually these molecules began to be used as the means of storing hereditary information. All in all, not a lot of definitive information is known about the origins of life. A lot of pathways are still possible, there are key steps that are still not understood. A lot of good research is still to be done for the next several generations of biochemists at least. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The first problem with this model is when amino acids are randomly formed there are left and right handed amino acids. So? When you flip a coin there are heads and there are tails. Curiously this does not prevent strings of just heads or just tails from happening. If all you need are two left-handed (or two right-handed) amino acids to be next to each other to combine, this is insufficient reason to say that it never happens. Additionally there are several conditions that select for left-handed or right-handed amino acids: clay surfaces, crystals, meteors, etc. Thus these can serve as concentration camps for amino acids where combination into bigger molecules would naturally be from one or the other handed versions. The fact is that we don't know enough about the "primodial soup" environment and chemistry to say whether this is a problem or not. Assuming it is a problem, especially when there are known mechanisms that alleviate it, is just as illogical (if not more so) as assuming it is not a problem: the logical answer is "we don't know" ...
The next problem is forming proteins from these amino acids. Not really. All you need to do is form combinations of amino acids that can then form combinations of combinations ... and you can even have them divide and reform and still generate additional building blocks for more diverse combinations.
Supposedly this took place in water. Or not. And if it didn't then this "problem" is non-existent eh? See comments above regarding clay, crystals and meteors. The fact is that we don't know enough about the "primodial soup" environment and chemistry to say whether they formed in water or not.
The longer the protein strand the more water, unfortunately water tends to reverse the chemical process of amino acids bonding. So all you need is a system that removes water during the process to alleviate this problem: evaporation is one, and it is a common phenomenon, especially along shores of seas and lakes and oceans. Assuming this is a problem, especially when there is a well known mechanism to alleviate it, is just as illogical (if not more so) as assuming it is not a problem: the logical answer is "we don't know" ...
At equilibrium it is statistically impossible ... It is absolutely impossible for statistics to prevent something from happening. There is no such thing as "statistically impossible" except for those who misuse or misunderstand statistics.
And the final problem is protein strands randomly forming DNA strands. Even if the first two huge hurdles could be cleared and even if proteins randomly bonded to produce DNA, this DNA code would be useless without the mechanism to interpret it. This shows a misunderstanding of the way DNA works. All DNA needs is itself and a supply of amino acids. This concept of "interpretation" is a straw man. This is NOT a problem. There is also a lot of evidence that DNA was not the first replication system. It is possible that RNA was the first (or at least preceded DNA). There are also some peptides that can replicate. Once you have a replicating system, especially one prone to making errors in replication, you have a system where selection can operate. Not one of your "problems" is insurmountable, or even much of a logical challenge, especially with new knowledge gained by studying the science of abiogenesis and molecule replication systems.
Good luck in the future. Enjoy. Reference:(1) RAZD - Building Blocks of Life RAZD - Building Blocks of Life. Note this is over a year out of date, and yet it is much more up-to-date than your references ... compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I couldn't find a can of Cambell's Primordial Soup at the supermarket ... It tastes just like chicken ... Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
jjsemsch writes: The first problem with this model is when amino acids are randomly formed there are left and right handed amino acids. In other words there are mirror image amino acids. Due to the laws of chance there would be nearly equal parts left and right handed amino acids in this primordial soup. In living organisms, however nearly all amino acids are left handed. In fact right handed amino acids are not only useless but can be toxic (even lethal) to life. (1) (2) Welcome jj. The phony issue of Chirality comes up pretty regularly because innocent folk such as yourself read about it on one of the Biblical Creationist sites like whichever one you copied your message from. Unfortunately, Biblical Creationists that produce such sites, simply lie. There is just no other way to put it. They lie to you, and to tens of thousands of other innocent folk just like yourself. Chirality is not a problem. I repeat, Chirality is not a problem. One of the last times this old Point Refuted a Thousand Times (commonly referred to as PRATTs) came up was in the thread Message 1. In Message 5 of that thread I posted links to not one, not two, not three, not four, not five but six different studies on ways that Chirality might have been selected for. The point is, when the issue is examined it appears that there are a whole host of different models that explain what is seen in real life. The folk that originally posted the material you copied (the actual site you copied it from may well have simply copied it from Yet Another Biblical Creationist Site (commonly referred to as YABCS) because Biblical Creationist Sites are well known for never checking the truth or accuracy of what they post), knew full well that Chirality is simply not a big issue. But they also knew that Biblical Creationists are gullible and will believe most anything told them by their authority, so they went ahead and tossed it in front of the Biblical Creationists knowing they would buy it no matter how false it was. AbE: Please go on to read the whole thread I linked to above, because the other members here went on to provide links to a whole bunch of additional studies beyond the six I provided. The evidence is in and it is overwhelming. Whoever told you Chirality was an issue simply lied. Edited by jar, : add more Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Kuresu:
What I'd like to see, I guess, is a compilation of current abiogenesis information--what we do know about DNA replication and creation. My apologies Kuresus for the cynicism dripping from the words of my post you have so brought to this table. I will endeavor to discuss the matter without prejudice. I would like to defer to a man who worked in the field of abiogenesis for many years before that 'term' was coined . He spent time at NASA Ames Research Center (among many other labs) in search of the evidence for his and his co-author's own textbook on the subject. I understand what he is saying; part of which, is a refutation of the often promoted idea, that 'abiogenesis' is not the same thing as evolution, or more specifically, 'natural selection'. It is all based upon cause and effect within the natural laws. It is ultimately the very same thing, only on another level (or dimension) of scale. He makes it clear, that 'abiogenesis' is equal to 'biochemical predestination' (or chemical evolution). And he explains very openly why he ultimately rejected the idea. At another point in the same source he says, "It just reached the intellectual breaking point sometime durring the end of the decade of the seventies". Dean Kenyon - coauthor of textbook on theory of biochemical evolution, ”Biochemical Predestination’ 1969 / professor of biology (emeritus) San Fransisco State University Kenyon on ”describing the complexity of a living cell’ [and the problems assopciated with the concept of abiogenesis].
“Back in the days of Charles Darwin, relatively little was known about the complexity (the enormous complexity) of the microscopic world -the microscopic aspects of living organisms. There was a view in the latter part of the nineteenth century that a living cell was essentially a featureless bag of enzymes; all, kind of in a true solution. Not much in the way of detailed three dimensional complexity. But of course in the twentieth century, we’ve made enormous strides in understanding that that’s not the case at all. There is a very great degree of intricacy of architecture down in the cell units. So today, everybody understands about bits and bites, and so perhaps a useful illustration of the complexity of, say the DNA molecule, might be helpful. You can calculate the number of bits contained in tightly packed DNA material that would fill one cubic millimeter of space as equaling 1.9 times 10 to the 18th power, bits ( or, 1,900,000,000,000,000,000). Now that number, is by many orders of magnitude, vastly greater than the storage capacity of the best supercomputing machines. Their storage capacity is far less, than the storage capacity in the DNA Molecule. Now moreover, the DNA itself as it functions in a living cell has about one hundred different proteins involved with just its own functioning. And then you have these tens of thousands of other proteins in the living cell also involved. So we have now a picture of immense sub-microscopic complexity. And so no longer is it a reasonable proposition to think that simple chemical events could have any chance at all, to generate the kind of complexity we see in the very simplest living organisms. So, we have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells, with the new knowledge that’s accumulated in this century.” (Source: Q&A Section of the DVD Documentary / 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' [emphasis added])
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
hey rob. glad to see you joined this thread (i think).
tell me, is your only defense a nearly forty year old book that naturally ignores all modern research on the topic of abiogenesis? The argument is based off of data we had 40 years ago. Do you not think that new research has happened since then? Have you read this whole thread? When you have, come back, and hopefully come back with something more up-to-date than dean kenyon's book.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024