Abiogenesis

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Thank you for your warm welcome Luna.

I think some form of energy is the key here. Recently there was an extremely interesting TV program on here in the UK Regarding the findings of a few geneticists. One in particular, a doctor called Marcus Pembrey and a clinical geneticist at the Istitute of Child Health in London noticed that mutation in a particular gene would cause different diseases in different people. Something that confounds genetic theory. Further research revealed that the gene somehow remembers whether it was inherited from the mother or the father and causes a diffrent disease with respect to its source.
Why is this relevant here? Well up until now we have considered DNA to be the definitive blueprint of life. That it's arrangment of genes is the be all and end all of what information is being passed on. But this is clearly not the case. I suspect, an unsubstantiated leap of faith I admit, that it is some form of energy that carries this additional information. And further I suspect that its a case of some kind of quantum entanglement.
If you begin to imagine quantum entanglement not in terms of a single pair of intereacting sub-particals but as a vast sea, a matrix, of countless zillions of communicating points, unconstrained by the limitations of relativity what do you have? You have an all seeing, all knowing omnipresent energy.
However this is not getting down to the nitty gritty of what is provable in terms of abiogenesis. I will be back


Regards

TE

PS. Here is a link for anyone interested in the program mentioned above; http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...ostgenes.shtml

Hello Tao E, I have to admit I did not listen to the program you linked to. I guess I am being lazy. From your description I can't really tell how what you describe confounds genetic theory. In gene expression, like most things, context matters quite a bit. For example, is the trait sex-linked (dependent upon an X or Y chromosome?). Probably not since that should be quite obvious, but anyway, seems a bit premature to start invoking an as-yet undetected new energy, or spirit.

Yes, I am quite a skeptic.

For the record, at my current level of information I see many large and unfilled holes in the abiogenesis model, much more so than for the ToE.

lunamoth

[juantoo3]

Thanks Luna!

I think this interview also highlights another very important point, that a single particular gene is not very likely to be the source of "behavior," that is, and in accord with another interview of Dr. Collins I heard (and even quoted in a medical ethics class paper), it is not very likely that there exists some particular gene for drunkenness, or homosexuality, or thievery, for examples. I really do think there is way too much emphasis put on the genome in an attempt to explain away our ills or rationalize our behaviors. To be sure, there are medical conditions that can be explained by our genome. But not everything is genomic. Some things are just the choices we make.

Another two cents, and I hope not out of line.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Thanks Luna!

I think this interview also highlights another very important point, that a single particular gene is not very likely to be the source of "behavior," that is, and in accord with another interview of Dr. Collins I heard (and even quoted in a medical ethics class paper), it is not very likely that there exists some particular gene for drunkenness, or homosexuality, or thievery, for examples. I really do think there is way too much emphasis put on the genome in an attempt to explain away our ills or rationalize our behaviors. To be sure, there are medical conditions that can be explained by our genome. But not everything is genomic. Some things are just the choices we make.

Another two cents, and I hope not out of line.

Not out of line at all, Juantoo, and I quite agree. I think it would be astounding to find something like a single gene for behaviours as complex as tendency to addiction or homosexuality.

'Course, we are getting quite ahead of ourselves here, since we are talking about how does a replicating molecule find itself in a lipid bilayer bubble with no transport proteins without using up whatever substrates inside it needs for synthesis and then also grow its bubble for splitting off when it gets too big.

I'm kind of free-thinking here, don't take it as science, I'm sure others have done a much better job at it and had their ideas published by now.

But it does bother me how, if that lipid bubble is doing anything useful for the replicating system, that it is also not so complex that it also needs some type of synthesis and regulation, which is starting to get pretty sophisticated metabolically. Seems like a kind of a chicken and egg situation.

Anyone out there following me?

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Actually, another thought about all this, and it is related to the observation that we see so incredibly much junk DNA in the genome, is that DNA is "selfish." In that, the bigger the molecule, the more chances that something in it is going to be useful. Could apply to RNA as well, if we postulate an "RNA World" for abiogenesis.

Another astounding thing to me is the leap from replicating nucleic acids to systems that assemble proteins based upon the RNA pattern. Once we get to that point, it is easier for me to visualize evolution from these little protocells all the way up to plants and animals.

I guess I'd better read some Dawkins, if I can stomache his atheism, to fill in some of these gaps in my understanding. Anyone else have some suggested reading? (Besides Genesis, Bandit )

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Hmmm, maybe it's just the cold medicine I'm on, but it occurs to me that ID proposes not so much a God of the Gaps as is does a God of the Odds.

lunamoth

[juantoo3]

I am following, to a degree. I haven't looked into the subject yet, so I am not sure what the details, let alone "jargon," are. Even in what little has been presented here and on other threads, I am beginning to think the whole thing is a very complex issue, much more so than the laity assumption of primordial soup generation. Yet, I still have this nagging thought about energy and matter.

Now, not being versed, I do have to say I am speaking here more philosophically. E=MC2 implies matter is condensed energy to begin with. The unanswerable "wild card" is spirit. If spirit is a form of energy, it would have a "natural" handle on matter to operate from, and in the case of life as we commonly associate it, spirit would then be capable of animating life. Of course, theologically, this automatically implies all life has spirit. So then we have the quandary of whether or not "all spirit is equal." Or is some spirit more equal than other spirit? (*tongue in cheek smiley*) I do think it a human thing (superiority complex I believe is the term) to insist that humans are "above" animals, yet one could conceivably argue that there is precedent for this: rational thought for starters. Come to think of it, to follow on with the Genesis story, Adam and Eve were not "cursed" for eating, they were cursed for gaining "knowledge of good and evil."

I do think animals are aware of God, if the example of Balaam's ass and the herd of swine at Gadarea are some indication. As Q has pointed out, animals cannot sin, I think because they do not have this knowledge of good and evil. There is something about rational thought. I think it was a "gift" that came with a price. Whether or not this has any bearing on prehistoric religion is still open to question, but I suspect there is a connection.

So perhaps spirit does come in varying types, kinds, qualities, wavelengths or "voltages." Or something. But I can see this, philosophically, as a method of animating matter. Indeed, without spirit, matter cannot "live." When spirit leaves, matter "dies." Seems to make sense.

Of course, I am aware this is speculation. As such, I may be way off base, even if it seems like the bases are pretty well covered.

Point being, with the addition of spirit, the question is no longer whether or not primordial soup can become life, but rather when does matter become life with the addition of spirit? The old saying comes to mind, "with God all things are possible."

So much for my ramble...

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hmmm, maybe it's just the cold medicine I'm on, but it occurs to me that ID proposes not so much a God of the Gaps as is does a God of the Odds.

lunamoth

Touche!

[Tao_Equus]

Ahhhh Tis Good.......So Good.......to be here and know I can count on minds a good deal smarter than mine to drag me back to earth when I go drifiting off on some tangent Thank you Lunamoth and Juantoo

I have been doing a little reading and see that theres no real recent changes in our understanding of how abiogenesis got started. What is clear though is that we continue to find new ways in which it 'could' have started. This in its
self gives weight to my preferred theory of Panspermia, or that life is waiting to happen throughout our universe. Since nowhere on Earth do we find sedimentary formations layed down in the period that life got started even a successful experiment mimicing prebiotic conditions that gave rise to chemical generation of life would, no matter how well it worked, still be speculative. And if we find life on Mars, which would prove at least a localised panspermia, it would only shift the question off Earth, not answer it.
In a number of threads where we have touched on this and related topics we keep getting drawn back to this underlying theory of Spirit. That etherial common denominator that slips through our fingers as we grasp it. As you say Juantoo relativity shows us clearly that matter is condensed energy. I like to think that spirit is the energy within that energy and that it has purpose. On the Gaia thread we explored the notion of layering, that the spherical patterns that extend from from the atom to the visible universe are intimitely related duplications in some sense. These ever increasing/decreasing bubbles each carries its own infinite complexity and the dedicated study of a lifetime will only bring ever more questions and few answers. But what links them most closely together is energy.
I once read an analogy that as far as we are able to discern given all the science we have and applying standard statistical modeling that the likelihood of the universe existing as its observed is tiny. It was described as a sharpened pencil being thrown a mile in the air and falling back to earth to land perfectly balanced on its point. Alter the weight of an electron by a tiny fraction of a percentage point and our universe could not exist. We cant see the first layer nor the last layer, if such exist, but we can see a few layers and they follow a pattern, a life cycle. We find life cycles wherever we care to look. This accretion, genesis,life,death and the dissipation must hold further clues i think, not just stage by stage or level by level but holisticly. So in trying to understand abiogenesis we are trying to understand all creation. I think we will have to wait till we have a grand unified theory, till we can understand the relationship between relativity and quantum theory better before so many questions will be possible to answer. And no doubt even then it will just raise a whole new series of questions.
One thing that has become clear to me on this subject though is just how comprehensively 'creationists' miss the point. Their focus on this area is nothing more than a tactical diversion from having to answer a huge body of evidence that refutes their claims. The fact that they use such overtly political maneuverings is sad. And a huge waste of intellect and time.
Well enough of my rambling.....I'm going to leave it to those obviously smarter than me to the details. (was hoping to see Bob X here by now).

Regards to all

TE

[lunamoth]

I think what is often overlooked is the extraordinary length of time invovled and the likewise extraordinary number of molecules involved. And, it is not a random process. Anything that gives a replicating system an "edge" over competing molecules will quickly over-replicate and more or less replace the less competetive molecules. So there is a strong selective pressure toward the more efficiently replicating system.

lunamoth

[bob x]

My basic viewpoint is that there is no such thing as "dead matter" at all. Matter behaves in intricate and quirky ways which we are only starting to get a grip on. I liked the comment about rocks being "people" who live on a very slow scale: Rock On!

[Tao_Equus]

Agreed on both your points
The timpe lapse photography in David Attenborughs Life of Plants really brought home to me that plants are very similair to animals only fixed in the ground,

[E99]

Hello Bob

I've transferred our debate about abiogenesis from the evolution statistics discussion to this one, as it is more appropriate here. Various points raised contesting random abiogenesis and RNA as the first formation of life is in line with this discussion.

My quote:
It has to be precise, or granted, near precision. (Formations of proteins within a cell)
Your quotes:
Utterly false. Almost every protein in any living thing will come in a wide variety of different versions from one individual to the next.

Utterly false. None of the proteins need to have a precise sequence; all of them come in multiple variants.


Variants, only as variations in some cases of an allowable change in sequence of a large amount of amino acids. Each still requires its own specific correct sequence to attain protein formation to get the correct function. However, we're getting a long way from the prokaryote cells. Off on a tangent...mixing up ideas about cellular constituents of Plants and prokaryotes, (which includes bacteria) with that of cells of animal life.



The probabilities I was talking about involve the formation of these early prokaryote cells and their proteins etc. (And probabilties of the formation of the earliest hypothetical protocells that would be considered as barely functional.)

These prokaryotes are recognised by evolutionists as the earliest and simplest life forms based on the fossil finds. 'Protein varieties' that you mention are not relevant to these 'simple cells' as there would not have been any varieties involving only one existing type of life form. There is no point attaching probabilities for formation of haemoglobin proteins and variations, when its the earliest bacteria and their constituents that we need to make probabilities on, as these are relevant to the case in hand. As a starting point, formation of these cells require a correct combination of the 20 essential L-isomer amino acids. Cell formation.

The RNA first life hypothesis has no credence to its theory (next thread) other than the fact that it has been observed to replicate. However, regarding other cellular life......

A protein consists of a series of amino acids that are linked by peptide bonds into a chain in a specific order, changing can, in the majority of cases disrupt the functioning of the protein. In order for a protein to function, the primary structure i.e. a chain of amino acids is not sufficient. Certain segments of amino acids in the chain group themselves together into subunits known as alpha-helixes, beta sheets, and beta turns. An alpha helix consists of a chain of consecutive amino acids arranged in a twisted structure with well defined angles between neighbouring acids in the chain. They become stable and rigid which can then be fitted into a larger structure. A spiral shape that leads to a specific 3D shape. Once the rigid structure is formed the protein twists and folds itself into a 3D structure with specific bumps and hollows.

Amino acids come in 'left' and 'right' handed forms. Only left handed forms are required in protein formation. This left-handedness gives the chain a spiral twist.

In essence, the specific 3D shape determines the proteins function and the reactions that it can catalyze. Without this rigidity the proteins would be subject to chaotic fluctuations....and they would get nowhere. That is why there is a minimum requirement of amino acids to form life. If there are not enough amino acids to form a stable protein of a rigid 3D structure, it would be highly unstable. Hence a bare minimum number of the essential building blocks of life is a requirement for lifes production to occur.

Overall, precision of amino acids in correct sequences for protein functioning is a requisite for a properly functioning unit such as a blood cell. For each individual function that a protein has, it has to be highly specific. Insulin for example has 51 amino acids, one of the shortest proteins, folds itself to allow groups of six insulin molecules to pack in tightly.

The sequences of amino acids that are precision reliant are called invariant sites, a single alteration can lead to drastic results. (sickle cell) There are many invariant protein sites....Histones have 122 invariant sites and are exceedingly invariable. However, there are some proteins that are variant ( Why I put up near precision) Amino acids in these sites can have variations. On a primary level though, the linear sequence of amino acids in a protein is very important to the operation of the living cell. Which brings us back to the probability required to get a correct functioning 'simple' organism. Probability is a factor to consider. Separate units are involved (amino acids) and the abiogenesis random assembly of these units begs for mathematical probability to analyse how they came together to form proteins and eventually to form a living cell.



Your quote:
My emphasis added. There are many hundreds of hemoglobin variants among humans; the sickle-cell is the only one in common circulation which has such a great alteration of function.



Haemoglobin, is a molecule found in blood. Each red blood cell has about 280 million molecules of hemoglobin. Haemoglobin in humans transports oxygen in red cells in a functionally efficient manner. A gene or ‘sentence’ exists which codes for the production of haemoglobin.

There are many proteins essential to good health that some people cannot produce because of genetic defects. These proteins include various blood-clotting factors causing haemophilia, insulin (resulting in diabetes), growth hormone (resulting in lack of proper growth), and other proteins, which corrects pathological conditions.

Proteins still need specific sequencing, even though there is an allowance for variation, they still have to be fundamentally precise, If not, you will get detrimental effects or non functionalbility, Some sites will allow up to 13 different amino acids and the protein will still function... Some, no variations. Each one of your red blood cells has a complicated formula of 574 amino acids in it, arranged in four sub units.


As mentioned above, the folding of the protein determines its function. The reason why a sickle cell happens is that the changes in the two amino acids out of the 574 amino acids changes the folding dramatically and hence its functioning. Its not that a variant site can exist by a complete change around of its amino acids.
My quote:
This is based on the simplest life form recognised by most scientists. (Minimum 400 )

Your quote:
The simplest now existing. That is not at all the same thing as the simplest that could ever have been, back when none of the forms now existing were around to compete. Nobody, I repeat nobody, is proposing that something like a mycoplasmate would have been the first proto-cell.



With all of the above in mind, Mycoplasmia is an illustration that I used to show that the simplest organism cannot function and self replicate and continue its survival on its own, so simpler forms could not either, especially so against an opposing chemical environment. A whole unit has to work together in order to survive once it has the ability to replicate.....Irreducable complexity. Minimal parts for an organism to work properly. Minimal parts for a machine to function properly. Take away your alternator in your car and it will run, for a while, eventually you won't be able to get your car started again by the way that it was designed to start. Put a spanner in the works and.......The same with the cell. Simpler forms could not function. This is why the probability of the formation of a complete cell has to be considered.

[E99]

More Bob...

My quote:
If cells are to self replicate, survive and progress, they need proteins made up from the 20 sub unit amino acids, and a mass of other functioning biochemicals. There is a bare minimum requirement.


Your quotes:
No they don't. For the membrane to split, no proteins at all are required. For RNA to be copied, zinc ions are required, but no proteins. DNA does need a protein to pry open the two strands, but early life does not need to have used DNA at all. What the proteins do is to increase the efficiency (making sure that the nucleic-acid copying is accurate, and that it is co-ordinated with the cell division): an inefficient life-form could never make it in the present day, when the existing life-forms would quickly eat it; but when there was no competition, the "bare minimum requirement" is much less than you are asserting.



Copying of nucleic acids is an entirely separate matter. That has also been investigated by researchers interested in how many amino acids would be needed for the minimum possible "replicase" enzyme that would induce such copying: for RNA, as I said, the answer turned out to be "zero"; zinc ions will do, even without a replicase to hold the ions in place (but copying in such a solution is slow, with frequent errors); "hydrated lead" Pb(OH)2++ ions will also do, if less well than zinc.



RNA molecules do have self replicating catalyzing properties and was proven by observation. However this does not discount the fact that cells need proteins formed from amino acids, DNA etc. to survive and self replicate. The RNA idea is a separate issue....


But RNA formation could not have happened.


Look at the 'RNA world' theory and then its massive problems.

RNA plays an important role in cellular processes, especially in protein manufacture. Molecules of messenger (mRNA) contain the information needed to specify the proper amino acid sequences of proteins. The mRNA acts as a template for the assembly of protein molecules. Ribosomal-RNA (rRNA) sequences participate in reading the message on the messenger RNA and joining the amino acids together. Transfer-RNA (tRNA) molecules arrange the amino acids. Since RNA can act both as a template and as a catalyst, its said that it may be possible that an RNA molecule could make copies of itself without the need for other kinds of molecules.

But......RNA has to randomly form in the first place. RNA molecules, have up to several hundred subunits arranged in a precise sequence.


The major problem is RNA, peptides or simple organic based molecules,could not have formed by naturalistic means. There are too many chemical problems, especially regarding the primeval soup that it was supposed to form in. Forming monomers (simple organic molecules) into polymers (complex organic molecules) in an aqueous solution is not possible to obtain any appreciable amount. Water (pre-biotic soup) will slow down the reaction. Polymerization could not occur in the pre-biotic soup.

RNA is composed of three kinds of building blocks:

1.) A sugar, (ribose)

2.) A phosphate

3.) An organic base. The base may he either a purine or a pyrimidine.

These three parts combine to form a nucleotide.



RNA: Ribose:

Ribose was said to have been formed by formose reaction....formaldehyde in the pre biotic atmosphere, but there would not have been sufficient quantities to form ribose. Even if it was present it doesn't mean that ribose would form. Ribose is unstable and would disappear in a few hundred years. The carbon dioxide atmosphere would have inhibited the reaction, Nitrogenous substances present also react with formaldehyde, along with many other chemical barriers.



RNA: Phosphate:

Polyphosphates would hydrolyze in water to form insoluble phosphates, which would precipitate to the ocean floor. There seems to be no other possible source of phosphates. A sea with a carbon dioxide atmosphere will be so acidic that phosphate would not be available for chemical reactions.



RNA: Purine / Pyrimidine

Cyanide present in the primitive atmosphere is said to be a precursor in the production of purines, pyrimidines and amino acids. There is no plausible way of forming cyanide in a prebiotic atmosphere. Also the presence of a carbon dioxide atmosphere would inhibit the production of purines from cyanide.



Assembly of the RNA constituents to form nucleotides:

Although the prebiotic production of the building blocks of RNA has great difficulties. If they had produced, one problem is the production of a mixture of sugars with the ribose. Extra sugars would inhibit RNA synthesis.Plus many other problems



Combining nucleotides to form RNA:

Ribonucleotides may bond in different ways, only one of which is appropriate for RNA Ribonucleotides can occur in D- and L- forms. Only the D forms are useful in living systems, but both forms would be present in any prebiotic mixture. The presence of L-ribonucleotides strongly inhibits the addition of D-ribonucleotides. Getting the correct D-form combination only would be highly problematic.



RNA to life:

If it were remotely possible that RNA did form in the pre biotic soup....RNA must be folded to act as a catalyst, and must be unfolded to act as a source of information. RNA is not a good self-replicator, also RNA breaks down rapidly in water.

Every step in the production of RNA under the standard recognised prebiotic conditions is highly restrictive and fraught with extreme complications. Even if RNA were produced, it could not survive nor could it form the basis for a naturalistic origin of life. RNA molecules must be able to replicate themselves with high fidelity, or the sequence specificity which makes self-replication possible at all will be lost. One such self-replicating molecule will not suffice. It must find another copy of itself that it can use as a template. Copying any given RNA leads to an error catastrophe, as the population of RNAs will decay into a collection of random sequences. Same go's for peptides or molecule formations.



A hypothetical RNA organism could not give rise to a modern organism with protein catalysts, coded on the reproducing material, and the means to decode them these molecules would have been rendered ineffective at various stages in their growth by adding incorrect nucleotides, or by reacting with the millions of other substances that would have been present. RNA molecules would have been continuously degraded by destructive processes and cross reactions operating on the primitive Earth.



No primeval soup experiment has ever produced anything resembling RNA and no suprises there.

There are many other setbacks regarding the primeval sea and the fact that it coudn't have formed anyway. There is no geological evidence left in the rocks that a primordial soup ever existed. If there was ever a soup, the earliest Precambrian rocks should contain high levels of non-biological carbon, for biologically produced carbon contains an excess of "isotopically light" carbon. Ancient sedimentary rocks, however, do not reveal this signature.They should have left a significant (1-10 meter thick) layer of tar encircling the earth.

The primeval sea like the other theories are only speculative. Built up out of proportion ideas based on miniscule evidences or none at all.

All in all abiogenesis RNA first, protein first and peptide first theories are a dead end.



My quote:
This concept of the ‘protocell,’ as is a misnomer, because a cell by definition must have extensive metabolic complexity or it will not survive.

Your quote:
Survive what? It will continue to exist, unless there are living things out there to eat it.



What about the environment ? It has to survive by the requirement of needing extensive metabolism to 'evolve' biochemically and survive the outside forces. The entire cell is capable of doing this. A protocell which could not function properly could not survive. It didn't exist. RNA could not have been the precedent to all life, as explained above.


Off subject...However.....

Your Quote:

the ignomony of Piltdown is that such an amateurish, bumbling and obvious fraud, showing filemarks on the teeth, went undetected for over 40 years....
Piltdown was considered dubious from the very beginning: I had (unfortunately no longer have) a book from 20 years before the "exposure" of Piltdown (by Roy Chapman Andrews, famous for finding the first dinosaur eggs) which already pointed out that Piltdown did not fit in with all the other evidence.
What took 40 years was inventing a dating method that would prove the fraud. When the method was invented, the researcher did not say "oh, let's try it out on some bone or another... any bone will do...." No, he zeroed in on Piltdown because Piltdown had always been notoriously dubious.



One or two do not counter the evidence that a large number of qualified scientists, for over 40 years, did not contest the dubiousness, or in reality, the obviousness of The Piltdown fraud......
Piltdown man consisted of a modern humans skull, jawbone and teeth from an orang utang. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated to make them look ancient.

Please, come on....dubious only ! These people that studied it were professional anthropologists and paleontologists. Its similar to giving a chair to antique experts. One made of Ikea wooden chair legs, MFI seat and back, stuck together with loctite and clout nails, then worked upon to make it look old. Finally passed off as a chippendale. If they had been fooled by that, they would have been a laughing stock, and no one would have come back for their advice! As it happens the great holy temple of evolutionary science have the power like that of a medieval church council over the common man. Laugh at and contest their findings, and risk being burned at the stake........ Dating methods doesn't even come into it. And don't forget the Piltdown man graced many an encyclopedia and science book, put across as an established fact.

In conclusion..... they saw by tunnel vision what they so desperately wanted to see.... A link between man and ape.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi E99,

Again you keep asserting the first life must have been a kind of single celled creature. My understanding is that few evolutionary biologists share that view. Even this idea you have of 20 left handed amino acids does not fit in with any of my own research which repeatedly requires only 8.

The facts on what the surface of the earth was like when life first got started here are unknown and will remain unknown as the oldest rocks on earth, off the west coast of Greenland, are up to 0.7 billion years after the fact. So this layer of tar you refer to may have existed but will have long ago been subducted into the mantle. Even if it did not and there was no probiotic soupy sea there are several other areas of research that support the possibility of abiogenesis. For example deep ocean 'hot smokers', volcanic mineral pools, oily bubble theory and microbial 'archaea' that are plentiful up to 5km into the earths crust.

Also you insist on this 'by chance alone' idea where as reductionist models show that 'natural selction' started to appear in the production of monomers and was well advanced by the time the first polymers appeared. (From experiments in reverse engineering prokaryotic cells at The Institute for Genomic research). So this whole way you approach your argument has a fundamental flaw. You throw out the baby of natural selection with the prebiotic bathwater before you start.

I must say that I am impressed with you grasp of the details and the coherant and lucid way in which you present your arguments. I only wish that you were not so detrmined to debunk the undebunkable, (i.e. you cannot rubbish that for which no solid claims have been made), and were instead to use your intellect in seeking answers to the many questions that remain. And your continued focus on Piltdown Man is also rather childish, something akin to a scientist running around guffawing at the idea the churches used to believe the world was flat. Using such 'devices' I think does your arguments no service at all. And as for tunnel vision...well people in glass houses are foolish to throw stones.
Finaly, and I return to the closing sentances of my last post on this thread, your argument for the 'impossibility' of abiogenesis is a diversionary tool. Evolutionary biologists hold their hands up and state, "sorry we dont know how yet". And yet you still attack them !! Well I challenge you to substantiate the ridiculous idea that the world was created 6000 years ago. Lets now hold up the evidence for that to debate. I have opened a new thread for that purpose and look forward to seeing what you have to say.

Respect and regards

TE

[bob x]

E99, I was going to try replying to your points (are you writing your own material, or cribbing from a website? If the latter, you really do need to credit the author), but there is a more fundamental problem. You are not investigating the riddle with any intention of trying to figure out how it works, just to persuade yourself and others that it doesn't solve. There are a lot of conclusory "this can't be" and "that can't work" that do not follow from "we don't know now how it was".

Matter works in intricate and quirky ways: to me, as to Einstein, that intricacy in the natural workings IS God. To you, God has to be something else, and so you denigrate what goes on in nature, saying it cannot accomplish very much, in order to prove to yourself the need for this extra God-factor. This is really denigrating the God who is, in favor of an imaginary God.