Abiogenesis - Or Better Living Through Chemistry

":Isen't it kinda like saying that a few cancer cells prove that people use to live 900 years and one lion eating vegetation means that the whole cat kind used to live on this diet?"
--The problem with your analogetic phrase (besides it being greatly inaccuratly examined), is that I have something to work with, a 'single' mutation for that matter, you dont' even have a mutational effect untill you get your series of nucleotide chains to connect, have the ability to replicate and go through a process of transcription and translation. I think that if you would like to deal with a principal of probability, you've trapped yourself in a corner, and I think I know what the probability favors."The formose reaction is an indication of the POSSIBILITY of Abiogenesis...Since when do you have a problem with POSSIBLE theories...or are they only good when they serve YOUR side of the equation?"
--Who ever said it wasn't possible? What you have to do is show it as probable, as I have with my 900 year life-spans, and a great variability in a supposed strict carniverous species. I hope you can grasp those probabilities at least. I would have to calculate the probability of abiogenesis happening to the degree that is needed, ie, replication by transcription, not to mention all the 'cyclic reactions' needed in the life-time to construct a multe-macro-molecule with this ability within a suitable environment. 10^60,000+ is my best estimate, but hey, if you had eternity to work with I might reduce it to 10^90.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
":Isen't it kinda like saying that a few cancer cells prove that people use to live 900 years and one lion eating vegetation means that the whole cat kind used to live on this diet?"
--The problem with your analogetic phrase (besides it being greatly inaccuratly examined), is that I have something to work with, a 'single' mutation for that matter, you dont' even have a mutational effect untill you get your series of nucleotide chains to connect, have the ability to replicate and go through a process of transcription and translation. I think that if you would like to deal with a principal of probability, you've trapped yourself in a corner, and I think I know what the probability favors.

​

"The formose reaction is an indication of the POSSIBILITY of Abiogenesis...Since when do you have a problem with POSSIBLE theories...or are they only good when they serve YOUR side of the equation?"
--Who ever said it wasn't possible? What you have to do is show it as probable, as I have with my 900 year life-spans, and a great variability in a supposed strict carniverous species. I hope you can grasp those probabilities at least. I would have to calculate the probability of abiogenesis happening to the degree that is needed, ie, replication by transcription, not to mention all the 'cyclic reactions' needed in the life-time to construct a multe-macro-molecule with this ability within a suitable environment. 10^60,000+ is my best estimate, but hey, if you had eternity to work with I might reduce it to 10^90.

​

---

LUD:I'm not saying that the formose reaction solves anything here. I was merely pointing out that you seemed to be bothered only by question of probabilities and improbabilities when they are aplied to arguments directed AGAINST YEC. I for one do consider the theory of ID to have some merits,mainly because it does not contradict evolution in any way and does not support YEC nonsense

"LUD:I'm not saying that the formose reaction solves anything here. I was merely pointing out that you seemed to be bothered only by question of probabilities and improbabilities when they are aplied to arguments directed AGAINST YEC. I for one do consider the theory of ID to have some merits,mainly because it does not contradict evolution in any way and does not support YEC nonsense"
--Would you say ID and IC are the same, or in what way do they correlate?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Try this in 1861 Butlerov described the formose reaction in which a solution of sugars and formaldehyde formed more sugars...."
formaldehyde is the most primative aldehyde, also, I think that it takes a bit more than sugars to get life started off, you must end up with enough cyclic reations to take place in an alotted time before your moledules tend to dissipate. You must have a phase in which there is replication, thus an evolutionary process.

---

DNA, RNA are Deoxyribonucleic acids and ribonucleuic acids, ribose is a sugar used in the formation of DNA and RNA, a logical consequence of this is that without a sufficient abundance of ribose DNA/RNA can`t be produced....This means that by generating more ribose this autocatalytic cycle prepares the systen for abiogenesis....The formaldehyde and the sugar form an auto catalytic cycle which produces more sugar (guess whats being replicated). I`m not saying that this AC cycle is the earliest form of life I`m saying that its the first replication needed to get to a state where abiogenesis could occur....JPs question was what was the first replicator not the first biological replicator.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I would have to calculate the probability of abiogenesis happening to the degree that is needed, ie, replication by transcription, not to mention all the 'cyclic reactions' needed in the life-time to construct a multe-macro-molecule with this ability within a suitable environment. 10^60,000+ is my best estimate, but hey, if you had eternity to work with I might reduce it to 10^90.

---

Interesting would you mind posting the mathematics behind your assertion of these probabilities? Or did you just assign them without doing the math?Also you should note that probabilities take numerical values between 1 (100% occurence) and 0 (0% occurence) I think you may have meant 1 over the numbers you assigned (which were interestingly large by the way).....

A little article here about calculating the probability of abiogenesis...... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html#LinksIt discusses various problems with the "The probability of abiogenesis is X (where X is vanishingly small)" argument such as:

quote:

---

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

​

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

​

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

​

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

​

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

​

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

​

I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

---

Cool - I look forward to that. Will you be covering the impossibility of calculating the probability of a singular event after the fact?
So often this bit is missed out - actually criticizing the details of their calculations can tend to give credence to the idea that a calculation of some kind could be tenable, when in fact no calcualtion of any kind can be meaningful.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-28-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

---

​

Cool - I look forward to that. Will you be covering the impossibility of calculating the probability of a singular event after the fact?

---

Sorry to disapoint you Mr P but the quote above is from the link I posted not me the rest of the article goes through the problems point by point.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
If the earth ever was a liquid molten mass, gasses would easilly escape out of the earth, viscosity being of a much higher magnitude. Anyways, this is just a thought.

---

I hate to mention this TC but apart from a small percentage of its volume the Earth still is a liquid molten mass.....We still have an atmosphere...Just a thought....

Additionly, the retention of an atomosphere depends on the gravity field of the planet. Part of the problem with mars is that it is a smaller planet and produces a weaker gravity field. There is an atomsphere on mars, but it is alot less dense than earth's.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Great post Quetzal, thanx.....

​

Q)I was under the impression that one of the problems with The Biotic Soup Hypothesis of abogenesis was the low abundance of sugars produced and the lack of long chain fatty acids (in the Urey/Miller experiments). Has anything new cropped up that makes this less of a problem?

---

Wow, try and get some work done for one day, and look what happens! I'll try and answer everyone's posts (or quibbles) as I get the opportunity.Anyway, joz, you're absolutely correct. One of the crucial problems with the experiments was their apparent inability to synthesize complex sugars, specifically ribose. Ribosomal RNA, of course, was the autocatalytic self-replicator that Cech discovered. It wasn't so much that they didn't get sugars or that the chemistry wasn't correct (after all, you get HCHO forming photochemically in the atmosphere today, then by Formose reaction you get isomers like formaldehyde (CH2O)6 [detectable in modern rainwater]. It's a fairly simple step to re-arrange things into C6H12O6). Getting from there to ribose is mostly a question of concentration and energy with the right catalyst.Miller's biggest problem was (and remains) trying to get rRNA to form spontaneously. That and the fact that RNA couldn't be the first replicator simply because it is really unstable and formed in very tiny quantities. It wasn't until only a couple of years ago that it was found peptides (which are REALLY easy) were able to bond to the 5' site on the nucleic acid forming a stable hybrid polymer: pRNA.You still have major problems with concentration and getting the nucleic acids to line up properly - something that hypothesis 2 and both 3's accomplish by using inorganic templates. Fe4S4][SFeS]2), which is structurally identical to the active center of ferredoxin (the Fe4S4).

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
The only reason people cling to the reducing atmosphere hypothesis is because it offers the best hope. The rocks don't substantiate that claim though.

---

Not entirely accurate. Agreed, Miller's first atmosphere (about 20% hydrogen) is probably waaay off. Current estimates are between .1 - 1%. The quibble, of course, only argues about free H2, not more stable compounds like HCN, HCHO, etc. It also neglects to consider the dissociation of H2O by UV light (and even beta radiation), which would be a continuous source of hydrogen. There ARE problems with Miller's atmosphere - this just isn't one of them.

quote:

---

We also have no evidence that DNA can form anywhere outside of a living cell, and the cell itself represents IC (irreducible complexity):

​

It looks like only life can beget life.

---

Strawman argument. You should reread the post - it doesn't even discuss DNA, let alone the first cell. Our genetic storage equipment is a much later evolutionary development.

quote:

---

The thing is, these days we can take and mix amino acids at will and in differing environments. Guess what? Nothing resembling the start of life, just a bunch of stirred up amino acids in a flask.

---

A misleading statement. Just about every possible precursor HAS been formed in the lab. We've got chemical catalysts, we've got spontaneously occuring amino acids, we've got spontaneously occuring peptides and nucleic acids. We've got lots of evolutionary change observed in RNA, for instance, once we do get the replicator going. Given a little more time, scientists will undoubtedly get the final, tiny step completed.

quote:

---

Life isn't just about chemical reactions. How long is it going to take before you realize that?

---

It most assuredly IS about chemical reactions. When will YOU realize that?

quote:

---

I do find this all interesting and I hope the research continues, privately funded of course. Proving all these purely natural scenarios (for the origins of life) may be the only way to get people focused on how we really got here.

---

I agree. Pretty soon the creationists will all be out of work.

quote:

---

Originally quoted by John Paul from Jonathan Wells "Icons of Evolution":
It was concluded in the 1960s that the earth's primitive atmosphere was derived from volcanic outgassing, and consisted of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and trace amounts of hydrogen. With most of the hydrogen being lost to space, there would be nothing to reduce the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, so methane and ammonia could not have been major constituents of the early atmosphere.

---

I missed this bit. One of the problems with Wells's argument I've already addressed - his statement is misleading as he implies there is NO H2. Submarine vents (which he fails to mention at all), photochemical dissociation of water, and lightning all produce free hydrogen. What's more, volcanic outgassing also produces already stable compounds such as H2S, methane, etc. Wells also neglects to mention the possible extraterrestrial origin of a lot of the organic compounds. You must have missed that part of my post.

TC: You're questioning whether I actually wrote this? Are you accusing me of "cutting and pasting" without attribution? Better guess again, junior. The information is derived from numerous sources - my post is a synopsis of current research, and is part of a substantially longer essay I've been working on. If you want to do some of your own homework, you could start with:1. Biotic soup: Start with Nasa's astrochemistry links, then go to PubMed and perform a search for Miller, Origin of Life, abiogenesis, etc. Eventually you'll be able to gather all of the same information. You might also try Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". Finally, pick up any random bio textbook (I recommend Campbell's "Biology").2. Cairns-Smith: You'll have to buy his book, "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life". Then buy and read Dawkins's "Blind Watchmaker", which has a chapter devoted to the idea.3.a. Electrochemical Battery: This is primarily a short synopsis of Russell and Hall's massive "Geochemical Origins of Life". Feel free to wade through it if you can follow the chemistry.3.b. Submarine Flow Reactor: Again, a very short synopsis of John Corliss's "The Dynamics of Life". Feel free to look it up, although I think Corliss is now working at the University of Budapest.Before you accuse or imply someone failed to attribute properly, you bloody well better have some evidence to back it up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
You still have major problems with concentration and getting the nucleic acids to line up properly[/b][/QUOTE]Q/Doesn`t repeated drying and dillution (as would be experienced on a shoreline) of the biotic soup produce peptide bonded chains that exhibit limited self replication?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-01-2002]