Abiogenesis

[E99]

Hello Tao Equus:

Thankyou for your reply.


Your quote:
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.



The current evidential first life organism is a single cell bacteria, based on the fossil record. Have you found something else of an earlier origin ? The other pre-cursor forms are not real, but assumed by evolutionists. Made up... They are assumed to have occured so that they fit 'a-priori' into a theory called abiogensis evolution. The theory comes first, the rest is made to fit, hammered in, because there is no evidence of those life forms, and then the theory is pushed so hard upon us that we begin to think that it is fact.



Creationists are often 'attacked' by atheists for having a belief in something that is supposed to have no evidence of its existance, God.....said to be in the mind only. There is more evidence of a creator, by the existance of myriads of specific design elements, than fantasized protocells. Yet atheists in particular, almost demand evidence of Gods existance. If nothing tangible is put before them, then they say that he does not exist. They need to look at the abiogenesis situation. Similarly the pre-biotic soup has no evidence, and is also a made up scenario, so that it fits the theory.

Atheistic evolutionists write whole books poetically trying to substantiate chemical evolution of the single cell. They are so smart at applying atheistic concepts that many put faith in the oversimplified assertations. Countering the straight abiogenesis of the single cell is something that is still warranted.



Your quote:
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.



All organic life is made of L-isomer amino acids. (Known as left handed) If a D-isomer ( Right handed) bonds with an L-isomer, no organic life can form. This is a fact recognised by all biologists. Its called chirality. However, it is also recognised that there was equal amounts of (and still is found to be so today) left and right handed amino acids in the supposed pre-biotic soup. These left handed forms have to join with other left handed forms after colliding/ reacting, and whilst still amongst the right handed forms, that can equally combine with the left handed ones. If the right handed forms join, then that puts an end to any further chance of life forming....A lock out. The left handed amino acids would have also managed to avoid all the other kinds of non-peptide reactions amino acids would have undergone in a hypothetical ‘primordial soup’.


There are 20 essential protein forming amino acids in life forms ( In fact 22, but 2 are extemely rare.) Out of thousands of various types of amino acids. Its theorised that a lesser amount can be used to create life if we are to believe in the earliest protocell. The barest amount required is realistically 14, based on a number required to form a stable 3D structure. If it is not stable it cannot hold together...no life. 8 is not really enough.


This is just the basic idea of essential amino acid combining. There are many many other processes involved, and each process has massive inhibiting barriers that seem to say that abiogenesis is implausible. Evolutionists theories tend to grossly oversimplify the formation of even the simplest amino acid combinations.




Your quote:
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.



True, the surface of early earth is unknown, nothing is really known about the early earth..atmosphere, life etc....But don't you think that evolutionists assume that they have the answers and tend to imply that the theory of subsequent evolution has now been neatly packed up in a box with shiny wrappings and ribbons ? Its promoted as fact.

Different ideas keep on getting put forward, they don't hold any ground for long, because scientists, even those on both sides of the fence analyse such things as chemical reactions, chemicals present, how temperature affects them, stability, organisation of complex molecules under adverse conditons etc. Each time it is recognised that there are extremely complex matters to get past before even the simplest set of polymers can form. After a period of time the theories are found to be implausible. The basics are put across to us as literally factual, but the actual indepth points aren't.



The 'tar' layer would have been the result of a mass amino acid build up if there had been a pre-biotic soup, as this is what happens to amino acids, they degrade into a 'tar'. The tar is in essence the 'fossil' remains of the soup. How the actual amino acid soup came about has to be analysed. This theory is highly unrealistic. All amino acids congregated together to make a concentrated soup......How, where, when, possibilities, water inhibitation, why only amino acids, other chemical inhibitors etc. etc.



Not all rocks are subducted into the mantle. There should be some evidence somewhere. Granted, the tar layer would be so ancient as to make it difficult to distinguish. I don't have any faith in radiometric dating methods of rocks. There are many glaring anomalies with radio isotope datings and the dating methods are by no means accurate by a long shot.



Your quote:
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'm sure that natural selection has never been applied to chemical evolution....inanimate life. They might casually apply the terms natural selection to chemical evolution of monomers and polymers, but it is only words......The actual meaning of natural selection is by means of sexual reproduction refering to animate life. Selection by so called beneficial genetic mutations. Simple chemical combinations don't work that way. Complex information carrying molecules such as DNA have the ability to supposedly 'naturally select'. It is recognised that DNA wasn't found in early monomers and polymers. The precise order of amino acids in proteins in cells is governed by information on the nucleic acids that code for them. Its about information content found only in complex molecular structures. This can be likened to your computer. The whole working structure can be an information carrier, but take away 90% of the vital parts and it is no longer functional as an information carrying unit.



Your quote:
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.



Thankyou but....Intellect ! I've the brain of a battery hen, with a ruined life of broken families and haunting ex-wives. About as intelligent as a protocell and as streetwise as a bedbug..... Violins.
Contrary to what you think, I am actually opened minded about various possibilities.....not totally against theistic evolution where many say that God created the first cell and life originated from there on, or even cosmological evolution whereby God got the ball rolling and everything formed there after, even abiogenesis ( Matthew 19:26: With God all things are possible.) Although this is in conflict with evidence and his written word in genesis to a certain extent. I'm a believer in the scriptural genesis account, (and some creative indications in the book of Job) in the way that genesis is a basic account given to us by God, so that we don't go off on a tangent in believing that he is not the creator by one means or another, or that he is not a sentient being without creative powers. The truth of the Genesis account can be found more accurately by looking at the original language used.

What I contest is the way that the whole spectrum of the evolution theory as is presently promoted worldwide as undeniable fact. Atheistic evolutionists imply.... because evolution has a certain amount of evidence, abiogenesis has to be fact. Or rather its made to be fact by factualising its speculations. The theory is promoted as fact, it has worked on people, as many still say to me that life has been created in the laboratory, whereby it hasn't been. Equally some religious proponents are unfair to evolution when they say "How could we have evolved from tadpoles in 30,000 years !" What I am saying is, either way, many base their beliefs as truth on the basic things that they are told.



Your quote:
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.


I wasn't focusing on it, but merely answering what I think is defending the indefensible. You may notice that I try to answer every paragraph question put over. This one included. Its not reciprocal though.

I have no connection with the church either, or most of their doctrines. What the old church believed about the flat earth etc. is in no comparison with the actual scriptures where it says in Isaiah 40:22 "There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth ", and "The earth hangs upon nothing". It was clearly written in the bible, and for them to see at the time. Scientists and atheists have a right to pick them up on this.

We are often slammed for so called false prophecies. You could bring me to task on that subject and I'd have a difficult time. Have to take the rough with the smooth. Give and take. No ones perfect.



Your quote:
And as for tunnel vision...well people in glass houses are foolish to throw stones.

I've thrown a few, but we are all living in glass houses, its a pane, so we might as well have a smashing time.



Your quote:
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 the reasons are in your sentence "sorry we don't know how yet" ...'Yet'.......It implies that they think that they are on the right road and will find the answer." They are determined to look for the answer by avoiding God. Looking for the origins of life by naturalistic means. I'm not attacking them. Its an indirect result of defending ones own beliefs.

Please look at your previous threads on the creation/ evolution statistic discussion where you hit out at creationists, prior to me 'attacking' evolutions ideas on abiogenesis.



Your quote:
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.


What gave you the idea that I believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago !? Have you heard of OEC (old earth creationists) as opposed to YEC (young earth creationists.) I am of the former. I'm not convinced with the 6000 year creation timing. Although the YEC proponents do have good arguments.

Shalohm

[E99]

Hello Bob


Your quote:
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.


Are you making two below the belt jabs ? ...Copy and paste others material and denigrating God. I write my own material, based on years of acquiring the concepts that make up creationism and evolution, ( I was a strict atheist evolutionist ) but at times I refer to websites and books to refresh my memory.


You make a good point in your last paragraph, regarding Einstein and natural workings is God, except that I am not denigrating God. That is an unjustified statement. Naturalistic abiogenesis is not substantiated.


I agree with you to a certain extent that God is the natural workings, but also that I would add that he is also a being separate from them. My concept of God is based on the scriptures, which to me is clear that it was his deliberate inspired writing as a means to put across his purposes to us. It gives an indication of his nature and reasonings, He has a personality, a name and various qualities, so that we can relate to him. He walked with Adam in the breezy part of the day, He parted the red sea holding back two high congealed walls of water. He sent his son to as a ransom sacrifice to eventually get the perfection that we had lost by means of sin. Closed the door of the ark behind Noah. He asks us to do his will. He was a friend of Abraham, recognised by the three monotheistic religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity.


This is not a flippant view about God, but one based on lengthy study of the bible. There are points where he intervenes. The Genesis account is one where prior to day one he has already created the heavens and the earth. He then proceeds to act out further creation elements in the six creative periods. It shows that it is not purely naturalistic, but one where God uses his force to create specifically when he chooses, or needs to do so. The bible has a whole interlinking theme leading up to the point where God will revert everything back to what he originally intended..... eternal life in a paradise world. There is no reason for me to entertain the idea of that God is only a natural force or mystical force, when it is clear that we are dealing with three different forms of sentient beings. Humans, angels/demons and God himself, all with personalities.


Time is too short to work it all out. In reality its about faith, and we put God into our hearts by faith, but faith is dead without working at it. Doing his will as he asks, and getting doors slammed in your face and abuse by those that don't want to know !


Shalohm

[Tao_Equus]

Hi E99

The current evidential first life organism is a single cell bacteria, based on the fossil record. Have you found something else of an earlier origin ? The other pre-cursor forms are not real, but assumed by evolutionists. Made up... They are assumed to have occured so that they fit 'a-priori' into a theory called abiogensis evolution. The theory comes first, the rest is made to fit, hammered in, because there is no evidence of those life forms, and then the theory is pushed so hard upon us that we begin to think that it is fact.

No I dont have any fossil evidence to support non-celular life. As I pointed out on an earlier post as its the Cell wall that gets preserved in these earliest fossils you can deduce that anything without one would not. However there is a highly diverse and super-abundant life form that is non-cellular. The Virus. There are to my knowledge no examples of a fossil virus either.
A virus only caries a tiny peice of coding, either DNA or RNA but not both, and uses a coating of protiens or lipids to protect itself instead of a cell wall. There are even simpler organisms than them that have no cell wall either Viroids and Prions for example. Modern Virus like organisms are highly specialised but we have no real ideas of how they came to be. I know that you are going to argue that they are not organisms because they need another host organism to replicate. My answer would be so do we, all the bacteria that keep us alive, and all the food we eat without which we would not reproduce.

Yet atheists in particular, almost demand evidence of Gods existance

. Nothing 'almost' about it. However the majority of scientists are not atheists.

The barest amount required is realistically 14, based on a number required to form a stable 3D structure. If it is not stable it cannot hold together...no life. 8 is not really enough.

The 8 amino acids Arginine, Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalanine, Threonine and Tryptophan are the only amino acids that are not self synthesised by the organism. So as the oraganism will naturaly produce what it specificly requires the probability equations you persist with again make no sense.

True, the surface of early earth is unknown, nothing is really known about the early earth..atmosphere, life etc....But don't you think that evolutionists assume that they have the answers and tend to imply that the theory of subsequent evolution has now been neatly packed up in a box with shiny wrappings and ribbons ? Its promoted as fact.

I am sorry but I have to disagree. In all my delvings into this issue I have yet to discover any claim of fact. On the contrary every scientist seems to make it clear that the whole field is still full of many unanswered questions.

I'm sure that natural selection has never been applied to chemical evolution....inanimate life. They might casually apply the terms natural selection to chemical evolution of monomers and polymers, but it is only words......The actual meaning of natural selection is by means of sexual reproduction refering to animate life.

Natural selection is the term used to describe the way in which evolution by survival of the fittest uses both inerritance and mutation. This can apply in animate or inanimate form. This can take place in aromatic oily bubbles and non-cellular life can use this pedictable proccess as a safe enviroment in which to evolve themselves for example.

What I contest is the way that the whole spectrum of the evolution theory as is presently promoted worldwide as undeniable fact.

No, no, no........invariably it is as you state....THEORY.

I have no connection with the church either, or most of their doctrines. What the old church believed about the flat earth etc. is in no comparison with the actual scriptures where it says in Isaiah 40:22 "There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth ", and "The earth hangs upon nothing". It was clearly written in the bible, and for them to see at the time. Scientists and atheists have a right to pick them up on this.

There are other explanations for how this 'knowledge' came to be.

I've thrown a few, but we are all living in glass houses, its a pane, so we might as well have a smashing time.

lol......touche!!!

Please look at your previous threads on the creation/ evolution statistic discussion where you hit out at creationists, prior to me 'attacking' evolutions ideas on abiogenesis.

Its true I do present arguments against the 6000yr creationists. But if you were to read more of my posts you would see I have never discounted intelligent design.

Respect and regards

TE

[bob x]

The current evidential first life organism is a single cell bacteria, based on the fossil record.

You have an exaggerated notion of how much the microfossils tell us, or how much they could be plausibly expected to tell us. What we see are little bubbles, of various shapes and sizes. When, as is common in the later Archaeozoic, we see a rod-shape as well as a size typical of modern bacilli, we are justified in assuming these are bacilli. But when, as you find in the earlier Archaean ("Cryptozoic", or "Hadean"), the bubbles have no rigid shape, you might conclude that they are like mycoplasmates, which also don't retain shape, but this single negative trait "lack of membrane rigidity", does not entitle you to assume these things had any of the positive traits of mycoplasmates. Did they have any transport control at all over what passed in or out of the membrane? Did they have any co-ordination of DNA copying with the membrane splitting? Did they have any DNA at all?
In the Isua basement rocks, mineralogists have claimed (some dispute this but I will assume the results correct) that the carbon-fixation shows isotope specificity indicative of some kind of metabolic process: but we see no "bubble" microfossils. Can we conclude this was a non-cellular life-form based on this negative evidence? Of course not: microfossil preservation is rare, and shouldn't be expected all the time. But can we conclude that the life-forms were like modern prokaryotes, in anything other than having a carbon-based metabolism? No, you can't conclude that either.

I write my own material

Good. I'm sorry if you felt it was "below the belt" to ask, but I have had a lot of sorry experience as I hope you can understand.

I agree with you to a certain extent that God is the natural workings, but also that I would add that he is also a being separate from them.

There, of course, we disagree. The "separate" God to me is just a fifth wheel.

What the old church believed about the flat earth etc. is in no comparison with the actual scriptures where it says in Isaiah 40:22 "There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth "

A flat circle, not a "ball". Just look around you and you can "see" the world is a circular disk. The Hebrews had no conception of the "antipodes"; many scriptures take it for granted that you can see the whole world at once, from high enough up.

The barest amount required is realistically 14, based on a number required to form a stable 3D structure. If it is not stable it cannot hold together...no life. 8 is not really enough.

You and Tao Equus are talking at cross-purposes. The set of "20" which most life-forms have DNA codes for has nothing magical about it, as the existence of some organisms which make some substitutions shows. The set of "8" which humans need in their foodstock (making the others from those) is of no relevance either, to the question of how large a set of amino acids would be needed by a primeval life-form just starting to use proteins.
I have no idea where you get "14". Amino acids X-(NH2-CH-COOH) come in three basic types depending on whether X has an electronegative pole at the end, or an electropositive, or neither; of course it also matters for the stacking whether X is a short or long chain, but less so. If the amino acids alternate positive and negative, they form a beta-pleat; if most are neutral, they form an alpha-coil; if there are interruptions to these patterns, the coil or pleat will be kinked by the particular inter-attractions. To form a good variety of 3D structures, you could get away with 3 amino acids, although I doubt there was ever any living system that simple.

[E99]

Hello Tao Equus

Your quote:
No I dont have any fossil evidence to support non-celular life. As I pointed out on an earlier post as its the Cell wall that gets preserved in these earliest fossils you can deduce that anything without one would not. However there is a highly diverse and super-abundant life form that is non-cellular. The Virus. There are to my knowledge no examples of a fossil virus either.
A virus only caries a tiny peice of coding, either DNA or RNA but not both, and uses a coating of protiens or lipids to protect itself instead of a cell wall. There are even simpler organisms than them that have no cell wall either Viroids and Prions for example. Modern Virus like organisms are highly specialised but we have no real ideas of how they came to be.



The cells structural shape is what is preserved. By these means scientists ascertain that the earliest cellular organisms are of similarity to those present day ones. The prokaryote cells had a cell wall, hence, when found to be preseved in rock, the cells structure within the rock has been matched to that of modern day prokaryotes.There apparently turns out to be little difference. They are assumed to be of ancient origin because they are found in rocks that are dated to be so. Which is by no means accurate anyway.

The prokaryotes have been found in abundance in certain parts of the world. If you consider a hypothetical cell...say a cell 25 % simpler than the prokaryotes, an earlier form of the cell, it could have still had a cell wall. Why have no cells a little simpler than the prokaryotes ever been found ? More importantly there is a gap of around 1.5 billion years between the prokaryotes and the more complex eukaryotes, yet no intermediateries have been found.


As I've said before the cell is a highly complex unit with interacting functioning parts, like that of the workings of a factory. This 'factory' is capable of multiple processes, including that of reproducing itself. Directing all of the workings is a blueprint....the coded information contained in the DNA (sometimes RNA). The single fully functioning parts are a requirement for the cell to self replicate. Lesser parts, and it cannot. A virus is very different, It has by far lesser parts, it contains a small amount of this ‘blueprint’ material (RNA or DNA). It does not have the workings of the cell, cannot motion on its own, produces no energy of its own, and has no means by which to duplicate itself.... It has to parasitize.

It ' attacks' a cell and releases its 'material' into it, and the information on the virus ‘blueprint’ takes over the functioning of the cell, which starts to make copies of the virus. The cell bursts, and out pours many virus copies to renew their 'attacks' again. The virus is only a unit containing a code, which takes over the cells code to reproduce. The virus can in no way be used as an evolutionary intermediate. Its not a self reproducing life form. It needs to have all the complex workings of a living, cellular organism to survive.

As it has the DNA and RNA why does it not self replicate ?.... Because it still needs uniformed and intricate workings like that of a cell. Viruses tend to prove the case regarding irreducable complexity.......Anything lower than a cell, and it cannot survive without having all of the interacting parts.


Your quote:
I know that you are going to argue that they are not organisms because they need another host organism to replicate. My answer would be so do we, all the bacteria that keep us alive, and all the food we eat without which we would not reproduce.


Good guess...I think that you are suggesting that because the virus is somewhat simpler than the cell it is an example of a simpler living organism that can exists and simpler forms could exist. They however, could not exist prior to the existance of the more complex cell that they invade and need so as to replicate. The same with other simpler forms... Irreducable complexity to fully function.

We humans of course are said not to have existed before bacteria. So we couldn't exist without bacteria....Like the virus, we can only exist after the earlier form. Simpler life forms could not exist by the need to have a fully functioning replicating and complex coding information system.



My quote:
The barest amount required is realistically 14, based on a number required to form a stable 3D structure. If it is not stable it cannot hold together...no life. 8 is not really enough.

Your quote:
The 8 amino acids Arginine, Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalanine, Threonine and Tryptophan are the only amino acids that are not self synthesised by the organism. So as the oraganism will naturaly produce what it specificly requires the probability equations you persist with again make no sense.



No other known compounds have the required properties for life than the amino acids adenine, uracil, guanine and cytosine possess. Cytosine is an essential amino acid required for life. It is unstable even at temperatures as cold as 0º C. Without cytosine neither DNA or RNA can exist.

A high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine" because these compounds break down far too fast in a warm environment.

The rapid rates of hydrolysis of these nucleotide bases, at temperatures much above 0° C would make it nigh impossible for these essentials to accumulate in the so called primordial soup, or under hydrothermal conditions.


On top of this, assuming by magic that all amino acids do not have inhibititive and restrictive properties, and the prebiotic soup held a party by strict invite only for amino acids, the requirement of a bare minimum that I stated before....14 amino acids in a specific order for 'life' are for the following reasons.....

In modern day proteins, 20 essential amino acids are required and an extreme bare minimum of 250 proteins for a cell to function ( not even to self replicate.)

To form a very very basic hypothetical protocell, a minimal 14 amino acids are required to make up each basic number of 12 proteins, coded by a minimal amount of codons. Each protein must have the ability to perform the individual fundamental tasks in the cell e.g maintain the membrane. Proteins generally have specific tasks. It must have the ability to self replicate. With so few amino acids and proteins, it would have no room for error protection in its RNA genetic code when it produces other proteins. It almost certainly would not be able to replicate properly.

I'm by-passing the origins of the genetic code itself, which is always pushed to one side. In reality the genetic code, intangible, must have been a pre-existing code of information that comes before any assembly of a protein or protocell. If we are to believe in naturalism, it had to be finely tuned by nature itself. How do the 20 particular essential life producing amino acids understand the specific information 'language' passed on by DNA/RNA ?

However, for the sake of debate...


The protein has to be able to fold into the required 3D stable shape. It has to be stable for the following reason....
A very small number of amino acids are needed to make the smallest of 3D helices in a linear chain. They group themselves together into sub units. It is fundamentally essential that the build up of these helixes are rigid, if not the proteins in a cell will have disordered fluctuations and would not function. Studies of protein structures show that chains of 7 amino acid sub units are required to create the secondary stage stable body. The final overall protein structure requires two of these 3D structures to join and fold to create a definate 3D stable structure, so as to make a rigid and reproducible protein .This is the bare minimum. In reality, far more amino acids and grouping of subunits are required. It is also improbable that the bare minimum 14 amino acid proteins could fold in water.....Primeval sea.




My quote:
True, the surface of early earth is unknown, nothing is really known about the early earth..atmosphere, life etc....But don't you think that evolutionists assume that they have the answers and tend to imply that the theory of subsequent evolution has now been neatly packed up in a box with shiny wrappings and ribbons ? Its promoted as fact.


Your quote:
I am sorry but I have to disagree. In all my delvings into this issue I have yet to discover any claim of fact. On the contrary every scientist seems to make it clear that the whole field is still full of many unanswered questions.



Please look at any scientific or biology website....... Abiogenesis is put across to us as fact. Its part of the education system. Any TV program or book about natural history and the earliest life forms are assumed that they have come about by the basic abiogensis methods that they promote. But the intricacies regarding the essential various chemicals and their properties required for life, the way that they react etc are so incredibly inhibitive, plus the improbability that they could combine in a soup of fantasmagorical combinations of specific chemicals.....It could not have happened. They simplify it and simply sew the basic speculations together without the evidence, and imply that it did happen.

Richard Dawkins the atheist evolutionist has said that any one that cannot see that evolution and abiogenesis is not true is basically ignorant. He may be a smart professor that puts his fanciful assumptions across like cream cakes to kids, but he's on the wrong track, caught the wrong train...The Hogwart express.



My quote:
I'm sure that natural selection has never been applied to chemical evolution....inanimate life. They might casually apply the terms natural selection to chemical evolution of monomers and polymers, but it is only words......The actual meaning of natural selection is by means of sexual reproduction refering to animate life.


Your quote:
Natural selection is the term used to describe the way in which evolution by survival of the fittest uses both inerritance and mutation. This can apply in animate or inanimate form. This can take place in aromatic oily bubbles and non-cellular life can use this pedictable proccess as a safe enviroment in which to evolve themselves for example.



The words 'natural selection' are being used out of context when you apply it to chemical evolution. Its nearly always used for animate life. Evolutionists would say that its not a 'predictable process,' inanimate or animate..... We went over this before.... 'teleology'..... progression as if following a preconceived design. Where as evolutionists will say that its progression by natural changes that happens, by what went before ....Beneficial genetic mutations by sexual reproduction. They cringe at any indication of the presence of any possible design element. I see why you say that even chemicals would have an intrinsic form of natural selection, because of your Gaia beliefs. Which does make some sort of sense when applied to animate evolution, but I have to disagree with it when applied to chemical evolution.



My quote:
I have no connection with the church either, or most of their doctrines. What the old church believed about the flat earth etc. is in no comparison with the actual scriptures where it says in Isaiah 40:22 "There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth ", and "The earth hangs upon nothing". It was clearly written in the bible, and for them to see at the time. Scientists and atheists have a right to pick them up on this.


Your quote:
There are other explanations for how this 'knowledge' came to be.

And Bobs quote:

A flat circle, not a "ball". Just look around you and you can "see" the world is a circular disk. The Hebrews had no conception of the "antipodes"; many scriptures take it for granted that you can see the whole world at once, from high enough up.


I've read about a few other reasons, but I'd like to hear more. I've put up an answer on the creation debate as its more appropriate there. The common one is that its a flat disc that is being described as Bob states. This I dispute by looking at the original scriptural translation and biblical concepts.




My quote:
Please look at your previous threads on the creation/ evolution statistic discussion where you hit out at creationists, prior to me 'attacking' evolutions ideas on abiogenesis.



Your quote:
Its true I do present arguments against the 6000yr creationists. But if you were to read more of my posts you would see I have never discounted intelligent design.


6000 year creationists do seem to have to find a lot explaining, considering that the dating methods of rocks and fossils etc, although completely out of kilter, do still imply ages well beyond 6000 years. I have however debated this once with theologians on the EvC forum. They say that the dating methods are so out of order as to not to be relied on at all. They state that the universe and all life was created in the six 24 hour periods, some say that we are only given an impression put in our minds by God that everything is dated as having eons of existance, with this argument you come to an impasse. Some say that it is as we see it, they say that the dating methods are totally wrong.


With the little free time that I have, I have read your gaia posts and you seem to be at a crossway point between evolution and intelligent design. (correct me if I'm wrong, and please excuse by ignorance regarding your beliefs.) I'm confused as to why you make such a stance for abiogenesis when you have a belief in intelligent design. Do you see that God is the intelligent designer, but he is the essence of everything ? If so I can understand your want to back-up abiogenesis, if not, then intelligent design can be by an intelligent designer, a creator, and considering the all encompassing unity, finely tuned universe and intricacies of everything ...he can be an omnipotent God creator with a personality. One that can motion the complexities of life into action when required to do so, or directly create.

With equal respect

Shalohm

[I am free]

Hi E99,

Originally Posted by E99

I'm confused as to why you make such a stance for abiogenesis when you have a belief in intelligent design.

You ask an interesting question. A question that I would like to put on its head and ask you back if you don't mind....If you believe in God and if you believe God is all powerful why should abiogenesis be a problem for your faith?

I see God in everything around me. In the way a tiny seed grows into a massive tree, in the way a wriggly caterpillar metamorphoses into a gorgeous butterfly. When I drive up the mountains during the rains I am amazed at all the little streams of water that seem to have appeared overnight....I am amazed at how they somehow find each other and unite into a bigger stream...I am amazed at how they find their way to the sea a thousand miles away and I am amazed at the drops they take on their way down the mountains to form spectacular waterfalls.

Yeah yeah yeah, science has precise explanations for every one of these phenomena, but should that mean that there is no God's hand in these events?

Then why should I not see God's hand in chemicals coming together to form life? Why should I not see God in the miracle of simple life forms growing ever and ever so complex, diverse and beautiful over time. For me abiogenesis and evolution are an affirmation of God.

Should we actually be able to detect how & when God does it to know that God exists? Isnt that what the "intelligent design science" tries to do...to explain when, where and how God interfered in his creation...to me that idea is preposterous. If ever we find "proof" of intelligent design, I would have to think that we were all created by aliens.

For me, the way I feel/ believe/ think about God, he can be known only through love and through my heart. A God that can be proved through science may not be a God at all.

Just my thoughts.
Regards.

[Tao_Equus]

Hello I am Free

For me abiogenesis and evolution are an affirmation of God.

Exactly !!!

[Tao_Equus]

Dear E99,

please forgive that I dont reply to every single point, if you ever require and answer to something I have failed to respond to I will be happy to oblige however.

With the greatest respect I am now finding the debate you present entrenched and imoveably fixed on what I see as an erronous notion that the first life was a complete cell. Such an occurrence is of course implausible in terms of abiogenesis. If you do not accept the possibility of life existing prior to the first prokaryotic cells then the debate is really at an end. I did try to stress that the modern virus is itself the product of evolution. The first virus may well have not used a cell but a bubble of organic rich elements in which to replicate, and then adapted in time to exploit cellular life, simlairly the same for pre-cellular microbes. And inanimate protiens and polymerase have been shown to perform natural selection, it is you who wishes to narrow this defenition in spite of the facts. You will continue to win your argument if you continue to set your own unjustifiable parameters for what constitutes the basic minimum.

Note: The amino acids you mention are all synthesised by the organism and dont have to be found floating around.


Regards and respect

TE

PS: I have answered your final question on the Evidence for thr Creationist Model thread........TE

.
.

[bob x]

No other known compounds have the required properties for life than the amino acids adenine, uracil, guanine and cytosine possess.

None of those chemicals are "amino acids". Do you know what an "amino acid" is?

[E99]

Hi Bob...


Your quote:
You have an exaggerated notion of how much the microfossils tell us, or how much they could be plausibly expected to tell us. What we see are little bubbles, of various shapes and sizes. When, as is common in the later Archaeozoic, we see a rod-shape as well as a size typical of modern bacilli, we are justified in assuming these are bacilli. But when, as you find in the earlier Archaean ("Cryptozoic", or "Hadean"), the bubbles have no rigid shape, you might conclude that they are like mycoplasmates, which also don't retain shape, but this single negative trait "lack of membrane rigidity", does not entitle you to assume these things had any of the positive traits of mycoplasmates. Did they have any transport control at all over what passed in or out of the membrane? Did they have any co-ordination of DNA copying with the membrane splitting? Did they have any DNA at all?


I'm not the one with an 'exaggerated notion of what microfossils tell us' I take the information from evolution scientists and their common consensus knowledge, those that have analysed the earliest cellular life and found an almost identical comparison of those found today. Although that is debatable. Formations, as in bubble shapes, or archaeaic bacteria structures ...they are all highly dubious if one is trying to put the complex workings of a cell or protocell within the structures found . I go along with their analysis for the sake of debate. I don't hold any attachment to truth or any accuracy of the radio isotope dating methods used. Take up your argument with them on another evolution forum if you contest what they say. Its not my creationist idea, but an evolutionist one....... Are you actually assuming that bubble shapes are protocells simply because of the shape ? Is it not you that is having an exaggerated notion of what microfossils tell us ?



Scientists have found from microscopic examination of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) fossils, dated to be 3.4 billion years old, that are essentially identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today. Microscopic algae barely changed over 3.5 billion years of evolution. These bacterium are some of the oldest prokaryote bacteria discovered. They have been found in abundance in 3.4 billion year-old rocks from South America. Modern soil bacteria have been found in Precambrian rocks. Again it is debatable as to how they analyse and conclude similarities between modern and ancient micro organisms.



They have also found prokaryote cells in some of the oldest known rocks that are from the earliest archaean period, cells that are rod shaped, found in chertz rock in Southern Australia...some of the oldest rocks....the oldest recognised organisms... rod shaped with a cellular structure that implies that they had a cell wall. However, the analysis of these earliest cells has been disputed by some.
The formations found on martian rock was at first thought to be fossilized single celled life, based on the tiny structures, but eventually proven not to be fossilized life forms. The similar structures found in ancient chertz rock is argued against that they are microfossils, and nearly proven not to be early cellular life, on the same basis as that of discounting the martian rock structures. To be fair, I have assumed by what I read that prokaryote fossil structures were evidence of early life, but reading further info, there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence at all of any early life forms. Taking into consideration these cell structures, you assume that bubble structures could have been protocells. Coupled with the dubious evidence, I have no reason to believe that they were protocells along with the fact that the formation of any very simple functioning organism are nigh impossible in the first place..........But the biggest debate about earliest life comes from the Isua rocks in West Greenland.....


Your quote:
In the Isua basement rocks, mineralogists have claimed (some dispute this but I will assume the results correct) that the carbon-fixation shows isotope specificity indicative of some kind of metabolic process: but we see no "bubble" microfossils. Can we conclude this was a non-cellular life-form based on this negative evidence? Of course not: microfossil preservation is rare, and shouldn't be expected all the time. But can we conclude that the life-forms were like modern prokaryotes, in anything other than having a carbon-based metabolism? No, you can't conclude that either.


Quote taken from an evolutionists website:

>>"Repeated claims regarding spherical microbes found in isua chert (Age 3.7 billlion years) are implausible. These spheres occur in rocks which are extremely strongly deformed by stretching, and no spherical shape could possibly have been preserved from time of deposition. The spheres are almost certainly recent biological contaminants residing on the rock's surface and in cracks. Thus it is essential that all analysed ancient sedimentary rocks must be completely decontaminated from younger organisms before being tested by any technique for genuinely ancient biological activity."<<

>>"It is concluded that the most strongly disputed rocks (on Akilia Island, West Greenland) contain no record of biological activity whatever. Indeed, recent work demonstrates that the crucial carbon-bearing rocks on Akilia Island, identified by several workers as chemical sediments closely related to banded iron-formation (BIF), are actually banded quartz-pyroxene rocks of mixed igneous and metasomatic parentage which have no intrinsic biological significance."<<




We can conclude that that these are non cellular life forms, a lot more hard evidence is required before your world of speculations become fact.

Abundant Archaean organic carbon is a residual product of photosynthetic oxygen production. Microfossils are not rare, they have been found in abundance. (e.g. South America)



The barest amount required is realistically 14, based on a number required to form a stable 3D structure. If it is not stable it cannot hold together...no life. 8 is not really enough.


Your quote:
The set of "20" which most life-forms have DNA codes for has nothing magical about it, as the existence of some organisms which make some substitutions shows.


These are in essence 'magical,' they are unique. The subunits, or links, in proteins consist of amino acids. Of the hundreds of amino acids that are chemically possible, only 20 are found in life giving proteins. The subunits of DNA, which make up the genetic material or genes, and of RNA, material used by the cell to translate the genetic messages contained in the genes into the specific structure of proteins and other structures found in living things, consist of amino acids and four different kinds of nucleotides.



Your quote:
I have no idea where you get "14". Amino acids X-(NH2-CH-COOH) come in three basic types depending on whether X has an electronegative pole at the end, or an electropositive, or neither; of course it also matters for the stacking whether X is a short or long chain, but less so. If the amino acids alternate positive and negative, they form a beta-pleat; if most are neutral, they form an alpha-coil; if there are interruptions to these patterns, the coil or pleat will be kinked by the particular inter-attractions. To form a good variety of 3D structures, you could get away with 3 amino acids, although I doubt there was ever any living system that simple.




I am talking about the construction by the known correct specific amino acids required to make up proteins in a hypothetical extremely simple protocell. Specific proteins are required to carry out the specific basic functions such as waste disposal etc. I have explained why 14 amino acids out of the twenty are a minimum to make up 12 proteins for the basic functions in my previous post. Amino acids etc cannot be synthesized unless a functional cell does the work. Initially, the known protein forming amino acids are required to make up this hypothetical simple cell.
Repetition for emphasis....


The protein has to be able to fold into the required 3D stable shape. It has to be stable for the following reason....

A very small number of amino acids, (possibly four) are needed to make the smallest of 3D helices in a linear chain. known as the primary structure. You state three, but more are required to make a stable structure, any number if unstable will not suffice for the protein to function. As you say, the amino acids group themselves together into sub units..the alpha helixes, beta sheets and beta turns........ It is fundamentally essential that the build up of these helixes are rigid, if not the proteins in a cell will have disordered fluctuations and would not function. Studies of protein structures show that chains of 7 amino acids are required to create the secondary stage stable structure. The overall protein structure is the tertiary structure, the final structure requires two of these 3D structures to join and fold to create a definate 3D stable structure, so as to make a rigid and reproducible protein. With thermal energy the protein twists it folds itself into a more solid structure with lumps and indentions, these determine where the electrical charge builds up and controls the proteins function.This is the bare minimum. In reality, far more amino acids and grouping of subunits are required. But I am scraping the bottom of the barrel to reason on formation on a hypothetical protocell. It is also improbable that the bare minimum 14 amino acid proteins could fold in water.....Primeval sea.



My quote:
No other known compounds have the required properties for life than the amino acids adenine, uracil, guanine and cytosine possess.



Your quote:
None of those chemicals are "amino acids". Do you know what an "amino acid" is?




Your powers of observation are truly stunning ! !

Spot a mistake and attempt to belittle the one making it.....

Proof of evolution.... a transitional ?....The eyes of a hawk and the tongue of a viper.
Spotting obvious typo's and nitpicking like a subservient chimp grooming the dominant male ..... such good eyesight, you're going to go far, (always be top of the troop..... at nitpicking, that is.) It's probably why you can see life forming in blobs of jelly and bubbles, where no one else can.

I made it clear in previous posts regarding an understanding of nucleotides and amino acids etc. Saying amino acids on my last post was an obvious mistake, didn't check....not amino acids, but bases (including thymine)... okay.

Do you know the difference between a flat circle and a sphere yet ?

[bob x]

None of those chemicals are "amino acids". Do you know what an "amino acid" is?

Your powers of observation are truly stunning ! !

Spot a mistake and attempt to belittle the one making it.....

Well it's not like it's a small mistake. It is more like trying to discuss Christianity with someone who says "King Saul, also called Paul, was one of the 12 disciples" or "The Koran is one of the books of the New Testament". It indicates that you don't know the basics, and don't care to learn. You clarify your "understanding" by saying thing like:

The subunits of DNA, which make up the genetic material or genes, and of RNA, material used by the cell to translate the genetic messages contained in the genes into the specific structure of proteins and other structures found in living things, consist of amino acids and four different kinds of nucleotides

NO. No subunits of DNA or RNA are amino acids.

The set of "20" which most life-forms have DNA codes for has nothing magical about it, as the existence of some organisms which make some substitutions shows.


These are in essence 'magical,' they are unique.

NO. They are not "unique"; a different set could have been used. There is nothing magical about the set of 20, and no need that it has to be as large as 20, or 14 either.
You explained where you got your number "14" from:

Studies of protein structures show that chains of 7 amino acids are required to create the secondary stage stable structure. The overall protein structure is the tertiary structure, the final structure requires two of these 3D structures to join and fold to create a definate 3D stable structure, so as to make a rigid and reproducible protein

Alpha- or beta-chains shorter than about 7 are not very stable; but there is no requirement that the 7 be of 7 different kinds. The protein that makes silk is a very long beta-sheet alternating just 2 different amino acids over and over; alpha-coils can be formed with every amino acid the same.
And not every protein needs to have two or more chains to form a tertiary structure; and in those proteins that are formed this way, there is generally no difference, or little difference, between the amino acids in the one chain and the other (hemoglobin for example is made of four chains, two identical "a" and two identical "b" with little difference between "a" and "b"; except that in lower chordates the "monomeric" hemoglobin only has one chain).

Do you know the difference between a flat circle and a sphere yet ?

I always did. And so did the Hebrews: they depict the Earth as a flat circle, not as a sphere.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by bob x

NO. No subunits of DNA or RNA are amino acids.

A small but important technical point: DNA and RNA are nucleic acids made up of four different nucleotides (A, T, G, C). Proteins are made up of amino acids.

cheers,
lunamoth

[E99]

Hello bob.....I've been away, so a late reply.


My quote:
Your powers of observation are truly stunning!! Spot a mistake and attempt to belittle the one making it...


Your quote:
Well it's not like it's a small mistake. It is more like trying to discuss Christianity with someone who says "King Saul, also called Paul, was one of the 12 disciples" or "The Koran is one of the books of the New Testament". It indicates that you don't know the basics, and don't care to learn.



If someone continued to promote that King Saul was one of the disciples, then it would be a mistake. If that same person admitted that it was an error in a typed thread, then he showed what he actually meant, then the mistake is shown as just that. He then clarifies what he meant.....


Your nitpicking is only a diversionary tactic to veer from the subject in hand that you cannot substantiate, flitting from one new theory to another, and an inability to grasp the insurmountable chemical problems faced in ALL processes required to get animated life to start. You divert by attempting to belittle an opponent of your belief, by accentuating an obvious mistake, trying to show that the one disagreeing with abiogenesis does not understand the ins and outs. Making one error into a mountain, deflecting from the real discussion on the fact that abiogenesis is impossible because you're getting bogged down in dealing with the realistic complexities involved that you obviously find hard to stomach when you have to chew on them.


I can see that you can't even grasp the aspects about cellular amino acids and proteins, the requirements, upwards to 20 L-isomer amino acids that are needed to form a most basic protocell. You keep going off on a tangent to look at modern day cells and other various proteins that aren't relative at all to the earliest assumed workings of protocells, those with different and specific functions.


The proteins I am talking about are specific to the functioning of a hypothetical protocell, not haemoglobin molecules or silk protein etc. (Are you deliberately being obstructive and awkward ? ) I don't know why you cannot understand this need for the specific amino acids and proteins that I am talking about. The proteins for instance would need a good amount of the 20 specific L-isomer amino acids to form, and those first proteins would need to have a specific function such as waste product ejection ...... If each protein is representative of say the parts of a bicycle, what good is the bike without the chain or wheels ? Evolutionists have a bad habit of bypassing irreducible complexity and fantasize that the bicycle can run along smoothly without the wheels and chain....same with the so called first simple life form.


I stepped this hypothetical protocell down to a ridiculously low amount of only 12 proteins, each with an essential function. In reality cells need to have a bare minimum of 250 proteins to work. Most have a lot more.

If you think that I'm picking my ideas on this subject out of thin air, evolutionist scientists have a similar understanding about the required amino acids and particular proteins required to make the most extreme basic protocell work..... e.g. Sagan and Shklovskii have put up calculations on their formations by estimating the number of amino acids (and types required) present in the speculative primeval sea etc. They use the same concepts that I am using, and calculate the probabilities of getting the very first living simplest protocell by random processes.


Your quote:
The set of "20" which most life forms have DNA codes for has nothing magical about it, as the existance of some organisms which make up substitutions shows.


My quote:
These are in essence 'magical' they are unique.


Your quote:
NO. They are not "unique"; a different set could have been used. There is nothing magical about the set of 20, and no need that it has to be as large as 20, or 14 either.
You explained where you got your number "14" from:

Are you on the same planet ? Are you made up of non life giving amino acids then ?..... (unless you are a troll ? Hmmm.....Come to think of it!) Out of all of the hundreds and hundreds of amino acids (and all the other millions of molecules) only 20 'left handed' amino acid molecules have the essential ingredients that are required for life...the ingredients amongst zillions of non-life giving molecules, a miniscule amount needed to animate life, the first protocell.......And you say that they are not unique !! These somehow got together amongst millions of other chemicals by chance and life started ! Really !

What other 'set' could have got together to form the simplest cellular functioning protein ?


My quote:
Studies of protein structures show that chains of 7 amino acid sub units are required to create the secondary stage stable body. The final overall protein structure requires two of these 3D structures to join and fold to create a definate 3D stable structure, so as to make a rigid and reproducible protein.


Your quote:
Alpha- or beta-chains shorter than about 7 are not very stable; but there is no requirement that the 7 be of 7 different kinds. The protein that makes silk is a very long beta-sheet alternating just 2 different amino acids over and over; alpha-coils can be formed with every amino acid the same.
And not every protein needs to have two or more chains to form a tertiary structure; and in those proteins that are formed this way, there is generally no difference, or little difference, between the amino acids in the one chain and the other (hemoglobin for example is m