Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

Cheap Scenery: Giant Mossy Rocks

Well, they're certainly cheap...


Featured Profile Article

Gwen's Brother-in-Law Comes Home

Thanks in part to your donations, Personal logo Editor Gwen The Editor of TMP's brother-in-law has been able to leave the hospital after his cancer operation.


Current Poll


47,742 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

crhkrebs15 Apr 2009 4:04 p.m. PST

TJ,

The copy I have of "The Chemistry of Life" is the 1972 paperback issue. Is this a problem? How much of the actual biochemistry detailed in the book has changed?

Well, the actual biochemistry describing the Krebs cycle hasn't changed and Darwin's findings haven't changed, but an enormous amount of new knowledge has happened in the intervening 37 years. For example in the field of abiogenesis, more than 70 amino acids have been found in meteorites that have fallen to earth. Also small peptide chains have been found to have also survived the crash-landing on Earth.

Meteorites also contain other important components needed for life, water, ammonia, hydrogen, oxygen and methane. I wonder if Dr. Rose would modify his line:

The chemicals which compose present life forms require to be synthesized by specifically catalyzed reactions, and these specifically catalyzed reactions, and these specific catalysts are themselves the products of living organisms and cannot arise spontaneously.

given this new information.

Since there was a time where no life existed on Earth and now life does exist, abiogenesis has happened.

Yet another simple statement of fact; on this we agree.

Whether it was caused randomly by the aggregation of large molecules on a wet clay surface, or a Divine Creator created life exactly as explained in Genesis, …

So, which was it? …an aggregation of large molecules on a wet clay surface (just one of many such naturalistic scenarios)… or a Divine Creator created life … and don't forget it could be a bit of both? And therein is the point I'm trying to get across: Which is it? Was abiogenesis a purely naturalistic process or did it require some form of supernatural input… and all that that implies.

…abiogenesis has occurred and is not germane [relevant, connected] to your question.

At this point of your response this is an unsupported statement of belief on which we have always disagreed.

No it is not a statement of belief, your reading comprehension is again somewhat tentative. Abiogenesis has occurred--you agreed. The MEANS by which abiogenesis has occurred is NOT GERMANE to the question regarding linking evolution to abiogenesis. Read this again, it's not belief it's logic.

How exactly is it that abiogenesis and biological evolution are NOT linked?

I still say they are inescapably linked; you (and others here) still maintain that there is no link between them.

Oh Boy. No one said they are not linked. There is a casual relationship to them. Please reread my comment that you took care of copying but clearly not bothering to understand. I wrote that Evolution and Darwinism and abiogenesis are NOT THE SAME, and consist of mechanisms that are independent of each other. Abiogenesis does not need to exist for evolution to exist and vice versa. One is a mechanism describing life being created from non-life, and the other is a mechanism that explains how heritable changes in a population develop over time. Sure they can be linked but each ones existence doesn't depend on the other.

Dr. Rose "… MAY regard it, FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, as impossible." … In other words, his difficulty with abiogenesis does not undermine his belief in the validity of the theory of evolution.

Clearly, what you are suggesting here is that even if something is, for all "practical purposes", shown to be impossible (and as you have pointed out, that conclusion was by a learned evolutionist), that because it wasn't shown to be "absolutely" impossible, then there is still a chance to cling to, no matter how microscopically small, that it still "may" have happened… somehow… somewhere… sometime. Sounds scientific doesn't it?

No!, that is not what I am suggesting, again what is with the reading incomprehension? I meant exactly what I wrote, which I will reproduce for you once again:

"….his difficulty with abiogenesis does not undermine his belief in the validity of the theory of evolution.

Clearly, Dr. Rose (in 1966 during his writing of this text) had some difficulty in accepting what he believed was the low probability of a purely chemical, random source of abiogenesis. This however did not affect his belief in Evolution. Therefore Dr. Rose doesn't seem to think they are independent on each other for their existence. I don't think so either and apparently I'm in good company with the good Doctor.

To change your mind would be to concede that a naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible and that would open the door to the possibility of the supernatural existing; you would have to "let a divine foot in the door"… and all that implies.

True, and since you are of such a scientific bent, you can illustrate some scientific examples that would point to this, "divine foot in the door". I'm sure all of us would be interested. But then I'm still waiting for the erroneous Talk Origens articles you promised to single out for us a while back.

Ralph

Last Hussar15 Apr 2009 6:07 p.m. PST

TJ- please turn off the anti-evolution filters and try to understand WHY evolution does not rely on abiogenisis as is in the 'then cells existed' version.

There is life on Earth (though wiki would probably put the 'citation needed' flag on this). There are two ways life could have appeared on Earth.

1) The life from non-life which you don't believe in.
or
2) It was placed here by some extraterrestial, supernatural or non-natural force. Now that could be aliens, or it could be a 'god' or something. However if you don't accept the classic version of 'poof, life appeared' then it must be one of these. Your arguments are this Option 2, or some form there of.

If Option 2 is true then no abiogenesis in the classic way, which is what you do not believe in. Fair enough. There is 'something else' putting life on earth

So the 'designer' 'designs' lots of the most basic single celled organisms that can exist and be called life. It travels to Earth and dumps them all over the place. We have life on Earth without abiogenisis.

Those single celled things then reproduce AND EVOLVE.

Evolution without abiogenisis.

crhkrebs16 Apr 2009 6:12 a.m. PST

TJ,

I'd like to comment on your most interesting statement here:

Now, before we go any further, let it be clear that I accept natural selection as a real process, a process that operates on living organisms. Natural selection, as such, definitely operates in weeding out the gene pool within a species. What I don't accept, for various reasons, is that mutations and subsequent natural selection leads to a process (that is, "evolution") that eventually leads to different species. That's where I stand.

So you accept natural selection as a viable process, correct? Well that is Darwinism, which you have been attacking all along. And the mechanism of expressing these selected differences in plants and animals is done by mutations in the genetic molecules (DNA and RNA), correct?

Then you are more than half way there to understanding how speciation could happen. First since you still seem to be hostile to Darwin, I would still recommend that you read his On the Origin of Species, where he lays out his argument.

Ok, when Darwin was a boy he marvelled at the pigeon breeding done by his father, uncles and their friends. He couldn't believe the diversity that could be (artificially) selected for by the breeders. He also was attentive enough to notice that the most physiologically different pigeons could not recognize each other as thus, and would, thereby, refuse to breed with each other. However, they are still the same species.

Fast Forward to the Galapagos Islands. Darwin notices that there are similar but slightly different groups of Finches on each of the islands. They are also similar (but not quite) to the finches in England. He finds that they are actually individual species now, because they are incapable of breeding and producing viable, fertile offspring. These are observed facts and still exist today on these islands.

Finches apparently recognize each others facial features to determine if they are indeed finches, and thereby capable of breeding. Most birds share this trait.

The facial features of the finches on these various islands differ quite a bit. This depends on natural selectivity, which is a concept that you have stated you are comfortable with. Therefore, the finches on the island with a species of thick walled nuts have developed large and powerful beaks
to open the nuts. Finches on islands that have soft skinned berries have smaller beaks. Finches on island with few berries and nuts feed in small insects hiding in the bark of trees and need longer and slenderer beaks.

This also applies to claw shapes and morphology. The finch that grabs onto the bark and pecks for insects has a different claw shape than one that grasps twigs and branches to stand on when eating berries.

So Darwin determined that the finches had their phenotypes "selected" by the environment they found themselves. The genes which manifested into these phenotypes could not disperse into the greater finch population because some of the islands are too far apart for the birds to fly to, and thereby breed.

Darwin also noted that the finches with certain traits, such a long slender beaks would only breed with others of their same facial morphology. Therefore the finches, like the pigeons of before, only breed with individuals that they recognize as the same.

So if you are happy with external changes, such as beaks and claws, why not smaller, more subtle changes that affect the fertility of offspring? Therefore, the big beaked finches not only breed mainly with other big beaked finches, but internal mutations make it impossible to produce fertile offspring with anyone else.

Now Darwin did not know anything about DNA, genes and things like genetic drift. Genetic drift will also segregate genes in populations and I'll refer you to read that up yourself.

Ultimately, we end up with a population of finches which show morphological diversity and breed selectively and produce fertile offspring only within their breeding groups. That is the definition of species. On the Galapagos of today, we now have 13-14 separate species of "Darwin Finches", or more accurately the genus "Geospizinae".

from Wiki:

In 2004 a group led by Harvard biologist Dr.Cliff Tabin proposed that the bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4) and its differential expression during development was responsible for the variation in beaks' size and shape among finches. BMP4 acts in the developing embryo to lay down skeletal features (including the beak). They supported their in situ hybridization data by functional experiments in the model organism Gallus gallus, getting the hypothesized transformations. The work was published in Science.^ Abzhanov, Arhat; Meredith Protas, B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant, Clifford J. Tabin (September 3, 2004). "Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches". Science (USA: AAAS) 305 (5689): 1462–1465. doi:10.1126/science.1098095. ISSN 0036-8075. OCLC 1644869. PMID 15353802. link Retrieved on 2008-03-08.

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP16 Apr 2009 6:55 a.m. PST

Just to make it REALY easy,

Small changes over short times, becomes BIG changes over long times.

Small changes like slightly bigger paws, longer claws, bigger teeth, changes cat like ansestors into, tigers, lions and jaguars ect.

This is seen very clearly in Cetacea, we can follow the evolution of theise animals from medium sized wolf like animals about 50 million years ago, into dolhpins, propusis and whales.
We have ALL the fossils showing the transformation of a land animal into a 100% aquatic animal, alle the small little changes that turns into big big changes over million of years

Ghecko23 Apr 2009 10:39 p.m. PST

Some recent responses raise an interesting question: First this was posted…

"…For example in the field of abiogenesis, more than 70 amino acids have been found in meteoritesthat have fallen to earth. Also small peptide chains have been found to have also survived the crash-landing on Earth. Meteorites also contain other important components needed for life, water, ammonia, hydrogen, oxygen and methane.

Mmm… all simple molecules including oxygen, the presence of which is fatal to all abiogenesis theories… and this…

…So the "designer" "designs" lots of the most basic single celled organisms that can exist and be called life. It travels to Earth and dumps them all over the place. We have life on Earth without abiogenesis. Those single celled things then reproduce AND EVOLVE. Evolution without abiogenesis.

So, the question is:

Why do people suggest that life was seeded from outer space?

Clearly, this a tacit admission that the science says no; that the chemistry says no; that the thermodynamics says no; no way that abiogenesis could have happened here on Earth, so it must have happened out there in space somehow… sometime… somewhere… and then arrived here somehow, be it on a meteorite, a spaceship, in Dr Who's time machine or whatever.

All that does is to shift the problems with the evolutionary abiogenesis from here on Earth to somewhere out there in space where there is absolutely no chance of scientifically studying anything about how it might have happened. It may be an interesting hypothesis, but it sure isn't science; it's simply sweeping the issues under the carpet.

World renowned astronomer Fred Hoyle was the first to suggest this theory of "panspermia" as a solution to the scientific problems surrounding abiogenesis. He studied the problem in detail and came to the conclusion that abiogenesis couldn't have happened here, and so to keep his evolutionary beliefs intact, he shifted the problem to out there somewhere and then delivered here somehow; problem answered he believed. Nonsense; he answered absolutely nothing. It's totally beyond any sort of scientific scrutiny; unobservable; untestable; a flight of the imagination. And in the same vein…

Abiogenesis has occurred--you agreed. The MEANS by which abiogenesis has occurred is NOT GERMANE to the question regarding linking evolution to abiogenesis. Read this again, it's not belief it's logic.

Simply saying that it's not germane (relevant) is exactly like Hoyle sweeping it under the carpet. Let's go through it. What did I ask?

How exactly is it that abiogenesis and biological evolution are NOT linked?

Again, I said that they are inescapably linked; you maintain that there is no link between them. So, what's this about then?

"Oh Boy. No one said they are not linked."

Eh? Then there's:

As you can clearly see from the definitions, and many others that can be gleaned from scientific sites in the Internet, Evolution, Darwinism and Abiogenesis are not the same and are mechanisms that are independent of each other. The characteristics and behavior of one is not dependent on the characteristics and behavior of the other. Ergo, they are different.

And there's:

"There is a casual relationship to them. … I wrote that Evolution and Darwinism and abiogenesis are NOT THE SAME, and consist of mechanisms that are independent of each other."

Are you conducting an exercise in semantics? So which is it? Are they linked or not linked? Are they're related or are they not related? Are they dependant or are they independent? Then there's:

"Abiogenesis does not need to exist for evolution to exist and vice versa. One is a mechanism describing life being created from non-life, and the other is a mechanism that explains how heritable changes in a population develop over time. Sure they can be linked but each ones existence doesn't depend on the other.

Now there's a "Sure they can be linked…"; so they're independent of each other but there's a link? It's all either just a game in semantics, that is, you're simply playing with words in an attempt to muddy the waters, or, as I hope, you have been simply unable to put your ideas clearly into the right words to get your point across. I think you need to take the time to spell out clearly and unambiguously the point you're trying to get across.

And as for "Abiogenesis does not need to exist for evolution to exist and vice versa"… Mmm… vice versa? I wonder: What if abiogenesis never occurred?

Could biological evolution occur if abiogenesis never occurred?

Biological evolution needs life and life has abiogenesis as its starting point, regardless of whether that abiogenesis occurred here on Earth or "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away". The very existence of life and the process of abiogenesis that brought that life into existence are inescapably linked, especially by the laws of the chemistry involved and then further by the laws of thermodynamics involved. Abiogenesis, life and "evolution" are all inescapably linked and intertwined, like it or not… and all semantics aside.

"To change your mind would be to concede that a naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible and that would open the door to the possibility of the supernatural existing; you would have to "let a divine foot in the door"… and all that implies."

True, and since you are of such a scientific bent, you can illustrate some scientific examples that would point to this "divine foot in the door". I'm sure all of us would be interested.

True? That is an interesting remark. Does it mean that you may, and I repeat may, be prepared to consider that the "supernatural" exists in some form?

But then I'm still waiting for the erroneous Talk Origins articles you promised to single out for us a while back

As previously noted, I have already posted details about Talk Origins and its total mistreatment and misunderstandings on the relationship between abiogenesis, evolution and the Laws of Thermodynamics. They are still there for your perusal. Need I point out that I am still waiting for one or two requests from you also?

Now crhkrebs; I said:

Now, before we go any further, let it be clear that I accept natural selection as a real process, a process that operates on living organisms. Natural selection, as such, definitely operates in weeding out the gene pool within a species. What I don't accept, for various reasons, is that mutations and subsequent natural selection leads to a process (that is, "evolution") that eventually leads to different species. That's where I stand.

You then asked if I accepted natural selection as a viable process; I said yes.

Well that is Darwinism, which you have been attacking all along.

No; let's look closely at and think about what I said:

…What I don't accept, for various reasons, is that mutations and subsequent natural selection leads to a process (that is, "evolution") that eventually leads to different species.

Clear? Continuing, you said:

And the mechanism of expressing these selected differences in plants and animals is done by mutations in the genetic molecules (DNA and RNA), correct?

Yes, mutations are said to be the driving force behind evolution. It should be obvious that no mutations would mean that the first organism and all of its descendants would remain exactly the same; thus, no evolution would be possible, regardless of whether natural selection existed or not.

However, before worrying about things like whether random mutations of the genome followed by natural selection pressures on a population of organisms could actually lead to a new genus, the question one should be asking is this…

How did that first living, reproducing organism, along with all of its DNA, RNA, proteins, etc, etc, come into being in the first place?

Can abiogenesis be shown to be possible by purely natural processes (occurring here on Earth or thereabouts where we can all actually study them I should add)? What are well educated scientific researchers (and often evolutionists) really telling us? It is consistently "Yes, abiogenesis definitely happened…" leaving out the "… somehow… sometime… somewhere… but it sure wasn't here" bit.

Evolutionary abiogenesis is, and has always been, just a belief taken in faith. Where's the evidence, for example the chemistry, to back it up?

britishlinescarlet224 Apr 2009 2:16 a.m. PST

Evolutionary abiogenesis is, and has always been, just a belief taken in faith. Where's the evidence, for example the chemistry, to back it up?

I am a simple man and as such identify this statement as the crux of the differing of opinion. The two standpoints seem to me:

1. Somebody waved a magic wand and "SHAZAM!" there is life.
2. Through a natural chemical/biological/geophysical/sub atomic process life began.

The first option can never be proved unless the higher being (or whatever you wish to call the entity) chooses to reveal their purpose and design. This I understand to be called "faith". I would guess this is why there is no evidence forthcoming on how abiogenesis occurred from one party, it is taken on faith that it simply happened and that is an end to it.

The second option may eventually be proved by a scientific process. Whether we have the knowledge at this particular time is immaterial, after all it was only five hundred years ago that man still believed in alchemy. However, the process of scientific study does at least point us forward to a possible solution to the question.

Humanity has proved time and time again throughout history that superstition can be explained by the scientific process and means:

link

Just because we cannot completely explain a phenomenon now does not mean that we cannot explain it in fifty, a hundred or a thousand years time.

I do not try to belittle faith. I, as many have my own perceptions of spirituality. I do however believe that it can close one eyes to the potential of what man can achieve by condemning those that do not follow it's mantra's. Science at least gives humanity the opportunity to open its eyes.

I might be proved wrong, there maybe an all encompassing "other" but that is not my point. My point is that simply saying "No, you are wrong and you will never be right!" desecrates the memory of thousands of scientists who have striven to understand.

Pete

crhkrebs24 Apr 2009 6:04 a.m. PST

Are you conducting an exercise in semantics? So which is it? Are they linked or not linked? Are they're related or are they not related? Are they dependant or are they independent?

I think it is you playing semantic games here. Thanks for using my own quotes to reprove my point that I never used the rather ambiguous word "linked".

How about 4 possible scenarios:

Abiogenesis could have occurred, and then the lifeforms, thus created have evolved. Or abiogenesis could have occurred and all the created lifeforms could have never evolved and stayed in a steady state. Or God created life, and it has hence evolved, according to His laws. Or finally, God created all life as it is now without any evolution, all the creatures existing in a steady state.

In two cases abiogensis and evolution are "linked" and in two cases they are not. For the eighth time they are not related and describe different mechanisms. One describes the formation of life from non-life, the other describes a mechanism by which lifeforms change over time. I have no experience in remedial teaching and therefore cannot explain it any clearer than that. I'm sorry you don't see that. Apparently, as I showed you, Dr. Rose, who you were so happy to quote earlier, sees it that way too.

Ralph

crhkrebs24 Apr 2009 1:16 p.m. PST

My dear TJ,

To deal with the issues, let's do a trip down memory lane;

a) Feb. 14

To believe that such a thing could have evolved via the the unguided and random proceses of time and chance is simply irrational.

Ahh, your first example of "argument from ignorance". My, how things do not change.

Then, concerning Darwin:

I for one will lament what beliefs his theory led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.

When I asked you to explain yourself………..silence.

b) Feb 15 more "argumentum ad ignorantium". A new component enters, your confusion between unguided and random when used to describe evolution. Gunfreak explains it to you and you ignore him.

c)

Sigh. No abiogenesis = no life at all = no biological evolution. Surely even you can see that.

The beginning of the TJRaymond Hobby Horse! See the equal signs TJ?

d) Later that same day this eventually mutates into:

No abiogenesis = no cell = nothing to evolve biologically = no evolution. Obviously some here are having a liitle difficulty in grasping this concept.

I agree with your last sentence, TJ. I answered you on Feb. 20th

e) On Feb 22 you asked a total of ten questions! Some seemed to be rhetorical only.

f) On Feb 23 I answered 5 of these questions. I also asked:

I asked you about your comment:
I for one will lament what beliefs his theory led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.
No answer.

and

When I asked for examples of articles in TalkOrigens that were "just plain wrong", from your statement:
I have read many articles on this site over the years, probably more than anyone here; some are good (though misleading); some a little out of date; some just plain wrong.
I got no answer.

Finally I asked:

…….where is all the ID research that these smart people are doing? Show us the paleological findings, the paleo-botanical findings, the geological findings, the cell research, the microbiological research, the cancer research, the drug research, etc. etc. that the Iders are doing, that have been published in accordance with proper peer reviewed protocols, that show that ID exists, it works, it explains the evidence and can be predictive.
No answer again.

Your response to all that was:

So, when you can answer my questions on abiogenesis – I'll move onto yours.
No abiogenesis = no cell = nothing to evolve biologically = no evolution.

I had already answered you on Feb. 20th. Remember?

g) Feb 26. You bring up thermodynamics and chirality of molecules. But no mention how this disproves articles in TalkOrigens.. But you do mention that evolution breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics. Remember this comment?

……..the Laws of Thermodynamics; that's what every process observed in the universe does. Evolution on the other hand has to describe an as yet unknown property of inanimate matter that allows it to self-organise into a living reproducing organism in opposition to this law, a law which has never been broken, never proven wrong.

h) Mar. 13th. Now you are getting to Talk Origins (almost a month after you were asked). You present many quotes regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You then present an unconvincing and somewhat incoherent attack on Dr Steiger's. Sorry, but I find Steiger more compelling than Raymond, especially given your comment above. You also use George Simpson's quote, but misrepresent it's meaning.
You finish that entry with this:

Steiger's essays, like so much of the so-called "information" on Talk Origins, when investigated in detail, contains deliberate deceptions, omissions, uninformed statements or just plain "feel good" rantings and ravings;……..

I'm sorry, is that your proof? The Talk Origins article on Thermodynamics shows that evolution does not contraindicate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your rambling Mar 13th entry does nothing to dissuade me otherwise. What you need to show is how your perceived differences between Steiger, Prigogine, Simpson and the others you "quote-mine", show any fundamental flaw in the Theory of Evolution. You have not done so. Then you cap it off with:

Such misleading and dishonest tactics are typical amongst hard-core, God hating, creationist hating evolutionists.

Well Trevor, during my undergraduate degree in Molecular Biology, I had the privilege to be shown how evolution follows the laws of Thermodynamics by a host of excellent professors. Some like my Genetics Prof., the late Dr. Threkeld were ardent Christians. Your stupid comment does us all, and especially him, a disservice.

i) Later that day you misinterpret Mark Isaac's article. You then state another laughably ludicrous comment:

What's was that? Life irrelevant to the 2nd law? That statement is clearly erroneous and dare I say, simply irrational. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is inseparable from the mechanisms of the processes of life. Correct? I need say no more.

Rocky points out your love of "False syllogisms". I answer you on Mar 24th, again stating that you haven't shown how any of your "proofs" have shown any article in Talk Origins is "just plain wrong". (Quotes are yours). I also answered your confused quote from above.

j) Mar 26> Trot out the old hobby horse of, "Show me how this is wrong":

No abiogenesis = no living reproducing cell = nothing to evolve (biologically)

You have to add, "Still Waiting" while you have been answered before. Not to your liking of course.
You also respond to me indicating that you did not understand my defense of Mark Isaacs comments:

Life IS irrelevant to the 2nd Law. But the 2nd Law IS NOT irrelevant to life. There is a difference.

To which you reply:

I'm sure we would all like to see you explain how life (which of course includes all of the natural processes of life) is irrelevant (immaterial, unrelated, exempt) from the Laws of Thermodynamics… we await your boundless wisdom.

Your lack of reading comprehension hinders a subtle point once again.

k) April 7th. Then Dr. Steven Ross, Professor of Biology, University of Leipzig shows up. Except that he is really Dr. Steven Rose of London University. In a 40+ year old biology textbook Dr. Rose states:

….for even the simplest of present day living organisms are highly complex, highly improbable molecular structures, whose chance assembly from their elements would involve odds of such astronomic unlikelihood that we may regard it, for practical purposes, as impossible.

Tj takes that to mean that Dr. Rose has stated, unequivocally, that abiogenesis IS impossible. I countered that I'm not sure Dr. Rose said that exactly. Given the amount of biological precursor chemicals that have been shown to be made abiogenically and have even fallen from space in meteorites, whose discovery happened since the publication Dr. Rose's book, I wondered if Dr. Rose would alter his opinion today.

Unfortunately for TJ, Dr. Rose is an evolutionist whose reticent attitude 40 years ago on abiogenesis doesn't seem to conflict with his belief in the validity in the Theory of evolution. Apparently, evolution doesn't seem to depend on abiogenesis to have validity for Dr. Rose, but TJ demands that from me.

TJ neatly sidesteps this issue and demands, once again:

No abiogenesis = no living reproducing cell = nothing to evolve biologically
How exactly is it that abiogenesis and biological evolution are NOT linked?

Jeez!

l) This bring us to today. Some comments.

Mmm… all simple molecules including oxygen, the presence of which is fatal to all abiogenesis theories…

Fatal? How so? Please explain. What abiogenesis theories do you mean?

Clearly, this a tacit admission that the science says no; that the chemistry says no; that the thermodynamics says no; no way that abiogenesis could have happened here on Earth, so it must have happened out there in space somehow… sometime… somewhere… and then arrived here somehow, be it on a meteorite, a spaceship, in Dr Who's time machine or whatever.

What science says no? What chemistry says no? How does Thermodynamics prove abiogenesis could not happen here on earth? No one says that abiogenesis occurs in outer space. Where did you read that? All I said was that many, many organic molecules, necessary to life seem to be manufactured, somehow outside of Earth and have arrived here on meteorites. This is fact.

All that does is to shift the problems with the evolutionary abiogenesis from here on Earth to somewhere out there in space where there is absolutely no chance of scientifically studying anything about how it might have happened.

I agree with the first clause of that sentence and disagree with the second clause. Never say never. Why do you have the impression that there is "absolutely no chance of studying anything" just because it happen in space?

Evolutionary abiogenesis is, and has always been, just a belief taken in faith. Where's the evidence, for example the chemistry, to back it up?

I don't know what evolutionary abiogenesis means. Having "evolutionary" as an adjective to modify the word "abiogenesis" does not imbue the term abiogenesis with any special meaning. At the current level of science I would hazard to guess that there is no good Theory of Abiogenesis, not if we are using the term theory as in Theory of Evolution. Therefore, there is no data to back up a theory. There are, however, many hypotheses which are interesting. So I would agree that a belief in a non theistic, purely chemical abiogenesis IS now taken on faith.

We do know that complex organic molecules can be synthesized without the presence on living organisms, in sharp contrast to Dr. Rose's 40 year old comment. Science has come a long way from the simplistic Miller experiments from the 50's. It is conceivable that abiogenesis may be solved in our lifetime. On the other hand it may prove to be a dead end. Either way evolution is still a fact. Darwinism (acting with genetic drift) still is the best mechanism to explain the means by which the variations of life are produced. I'm sorry, but that is the current status of that theory.

I now challenge you to put down the metaphorical wrecking ball and pick up the trowel. Build up for us the competing theory which you feel best explains the observed facts, is totally in sync with any aspect of the laws of Thermodynamics you can think of, and does away with the "nasty" issue of abiogenesis. Show how this competing theory handles the shortcomings of evolution and Darwinism, especially the origin of speciation. Who knows, you may make some converts!

To refresh your memory, feel free to view my unanswered question to you from Feb.23rd, and reproduced earlier in this entry:

……where is all the ID research that these smart people are doing? Show us the paleological findings, the paleo-botanical findings, the geological findings, the cell research, the microbiological research, the cancer research, the drug research, etc. etc. that the Iders are doing, that have been published in accordance with proper peer reviewed protocols, that show that ID exists, it works, it explains the evidence and can be predictive.

That might help.

Need I point out that I am still waiting for one or two requests from you also?

Yes, I'm sorry but you do. Please refresh me. I have actually answered many, many of your questions and cannot seem to remember your "one or two requests". Thanks.

Ralph

britishlinescarlet225 Apr 2009 11:31 a.m. PST

Thank you Ralph, you make the point a thousand times better than I ever could!

Pete

Last Hussar26 Apr 2009 4:29 a.m. PST

TJ claims there is no evolution. The only conclusion from this is that all life on Earth came into existence exactly as it appears now.

TJ. Please give the evidence of a creator. Something that doesn't rely on a unverifiable big book of bronze age fairy tales, or oral tradition. Actual real verifiable evidence of the creator, which 'I don't believe in evolution' isn't.

Ghecko29 Apr 2009 10:48 p.m. PST

TJ. Please give the evidence of a creator. Something that doesn't rely on a unverifiable big book of Bronze Age fairy tales, or oral tradition. Actual real verifiable evidence of the creator, which "I don't believe in evolution" isn't.

Ok, I will try not to be Biblical or oral; present something you can verify if you wish; I'm going to look at some of the actual chemistry proposed for abiogenesis and see what that tells us.

Now, according to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life goes something like this: you start with a chance accumulation of simple compounds of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, on so on; mix them altogether in a primordial soup and simmer for millions of years… and life is produced. Yes, I know it's a little simplistic but in a nutshell that it is what is proposed.

Firstly, any chemist can tell you that chemical reactions do not produce life; that's why in ALL of the scientific literature known to man there is not a single example of life resulting from chemical reactions. That is verifiable.

Next, it is obvious that living bodies contain proteins, DNA, fats, carbohydrates, etc, but then again so do dead bodies. What that indicates is that chemicals are certainly necessary for life to exist, but they do not "create" life merely by their presence. This is verifiable at any morgue. Chemicals and chemical reactions certainly are necessary to "maintain" the life that is already present; life comes from life; the Law of Biogenesis. This is also verifiable.

Next, it should be obvious that origin of life researchers have a major problem in that they cannot go back and directly study anything in the past, especially the distant past; they can only look at the present and formulate theories about what happened in the past that would make life in the present the way it is today. So, with that in mind, let's take a closer "present day" look at proteins and DNA and the problems of their chemical synthesis as proposed by the evolutionary scenario.

Proteins are polymers of amino acids all linked together in a long chain. There are literally thousands of different proteins in the human body, and they all differ by the sequence of the amino acids in the polymer chain. This is verifiable.

DNA is a polymer of nucleotides; nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules consisting of a deoxyribose molecule and a phosphate chemically bonded to one of four heterocycles: guanine, cytosine, thymine or adenine; only these four heterocycles are used in life. The DNA chain contains literally billions of nucleotides all connected together in a long precisely ordered chain. This is also verifiable.

Proteins and DNA contain a unique sequence of individual components. The order of the individual components is not a simple repeating pattern such as ABABAB or AABBAABB… but it is not a random order either. The order within these polymers is highly ordered and very precise; it is this highly ordered sequence that allows these polymers to perform their intended purpose. This is verifiable. If the sequence is changed even slightly, by mutation for example, then the altered polymer is no longer capable of performing the same function. This is verifiable.

Evolutionary theory says that amino acids eventually combined to form proteins and that the nucleotide molecules eventually combined to form DNA, and from them we eventually got life. This might sound reasonable at first, but this is not how real chemistry works. There are some basic problems confronting the idea that life arose from chemicals and chemical processes: one is the problem of chemical stability; the next is the problem of chemical reactivity; another problem is the problem of chemical selectivity during the chain building process.

Chemical stability is the question of whether the components can even react at all. It should be obvious that all of the starting components in some hypothetical primordial soup must have all been stable, for if they were not, then they would have already reacted and formed other compounds. Correct?

So, what do we know about amino acids? Yes, amino acids are relatively stable in water but they do not spontaneously react to form proteins in water, and similarly, nucleotides do not spontaneously react to form DNA. This is verifiable.

In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer they must be chemically "activated" to react with other chemicals; they need something to get them going, something like heat or a catalyst for example. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because once the amino acids and nucleotides are activated they will readily react with the water itself and break down into other compounds. This is verifiable. The question is: How could proteins and DNA form in some hypothetical "watery" primordial soup if the compounds, once activated, cannot survive in water?

Chemical reactivity deals with how fast the components react in a given reaction. If life began in some primordial soup by natural chemical reactions, then the laws of chemistry should be able to predict the sequence in the chains. Chemists tell us that when amino acids react chemically, they react according to their reactivity and not in some very specific order as necessary for life. As the protein or DNA chain is increasing in size via chemical reactions, chemists tell us that we should see the most reactive amino acid joining the chain first, followed by the next most reactive amino acid, and so on.

For example: Let's assume that we begin with the sequence X-Y-Z and will add two amino acids "A" and "B" to it. If amino acid "B" is the most reactive amino acid, then the sequence would be X-Y-Z-B-A. However, if "A" is the most reactive amino acid, then the sequence would be X-Y-Z-A-B. In a random chemical reaction, the sequence of amino acids would be determined by the relative reactivity of the different amino acids involved.

Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, the polymer chain found in proteins and in DNA has a very precise sequence that does not correlate with the individual components' reaction rates, the main reason being that all of the amino acids have relatively similar reaction rates, that is, they all react at about the same rate. This is verifiable. Thus, achieving a precise sequence as required by life by random chemical reactions is extremely unlikely.

Chemical selectivity is the problem of where the components will react. Since the chain has two ends, an amino acid can join to either end of the chain. Considering the previous example, the products would be X-Y-Z-B-A and A-X-Y-Z-B as well as A-B-X-Y-Z and B-X-Y-Z-A. The result is a mixture of isomers in which the desired sequence would seldom result… and this is with only two amino acids reacting. Add a third, fourth, fifth and so on into the mix… it virtually ensures randomness, not a precise sequence as required by life. Since proteins may contain hundreds or even thousands of amino acids in a very specific sequence, imagine the vast number of undesired isomers that would be present if such large proteins were formed by such a random process.

Evolutionists occasionally argue that, yes, all proteins were formed in this manner but nature then "selected" the ones that worked. Obviously this is an ad hoc assumption; wishful thinking. Nature is not "intelligent"; even evolutionists espouse that nature is "blind"; "random"; "it has no goal"; "no purpose"; and yet, what is required is precise selection at each and every step of the chain building if you want life.

The level of chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is simply not possible via natural random chemical processes. The synthesis of proteins and DNA in a laboratory would require a very intelligent chemist to control the reaction conditions, a chemist that thoroughly understood the reactivity and selectivity of the components, a chemist that can carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain builds in size. Correspondingly, to successfully form the protein and DNA chains required for life in some primordial soup must surely require exactly the same high level of control of the reactivity and selectivity of all of the components involved; it would require the participation of "something" very intelligent… even before life itself existed…

Chemicals, in and of themselves, cannot "think", "plan" or "organise" themselves to do anything. How can a chemical reaction "know" what it is its making? How can a chemical process make DNA or make a protein that would be unique and essential to the cell, and do so without any controlling mechanism that already "knows" what the end product is supposed to do?

The bottom line is this: evolutionary theorists hope that you won't dig into the chemistry. When evolutionary theorists propose that random chance natural processes formed life as we know it, they conveniently fail to mention that the chemistry of their thesis is anything but random… and anything but natural. When the actual chemistry is scientifically studied, here and now, it's more reasonable to conclude that life is the work of an outside intelligence; a "creator"… and all that implies…

Ok. Was I Biblical? Any oral traditions involved? Is the chemistry correct? It is… but that's for you to verify isn't it? Is there any actual verifiable evidence to show how real chemistry and real chemical processes could lead to abiogenesis despite just these three verifiable chemical hurdles?

So, I guess it's over to you: Can you present actual verifiable chemical evidence to show how abiogenesis could have occurred naturally as proposed by the evolutionary thesis? I should add (with tongue in cheek)… something that doesn't rely on Darwin's book of modern day fairy tales, or any "oh, it just happened somehow… sometime… somewhere" oral traditions.

crhkrebs30 Apr 2009 12:59 p.m. PST

TJ

The bottom line is this: evolutionary theorists hope that you won't dig into the chemistry.

Utter nonsense! What % of Chemists and Biologists are also evolutionists? The overwhelming majority (95% according to recent polls)

Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, the polymer chain found in proteins and in DNA has a very precise sequence that does not correlate with the individual components' reaction rates, the main reason being that all of the amino acids have relatively similar reaction rates, that is, they all react at about the same rate. This is verifiable. Thus, achieving a precise sequence as required by life by random chemical reactions is extremely unlikely.

Assuming you are correct that the assembly of proteins from amino acids and the assembly of nucleic acids from nucleotides and sugars occur at different rates how does that contradict evolutionary theory?

Again, outside of Dr. Behe and a handful of others, most Biologists, Geneticists, Molecular Biologists, Physicists etc. etc. believe that evolution exists. Maybe your objections haven't occurred to them yet.

How is your competing theory coming along?

Ralph

britishlinescarlet230 Apr 2009 2:03 p.m. PST

Firstly, any chemist can tell you that chemical reactions do not produce life; that's why in ALL of the scientific literature known to man there is not a single example of life resulting from chemical reactions

Perhaps not yet, but who is to say what discoveries will be made at some point in the future?

Chemical stability is the question of whether the components can even react at all. It should be obvious that all of the starting components in some hypothetical primordial soup must have all been stable, for if they were not, then they would have already reacted and formed other compounds

Why is this obvious?

So, what do we know about amino acids? Yes, amino acids are relatively stable in water but they do not spontaneously react to form proteins in water, and similarly, nucleotides do not spontaneously react to form DNA. This is verifiable.

In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer they must be chemically "activated" to react with other chemicals; they need something to get them going, something like heat or a catalyst for example. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because once the amino acids and nucleotides are activated they will readily react with the water itself and break down into other compounds. This is verifiable. The question is: How could proteins and DNA form in some hypothetical "watery" primordial soup if the compounds, once activated, cannot survive in water?

Why do you keep referring to "water" in the "primordial soup"? Scientists don't actually think it was a bowl of pea and ham. It is simply a generic term to refer to an amalgamation of possible components, H2O is not necessarily one of those components.

Evolutionists occasionally argue that, yes, all proteins were formed in this manner but nature then "selected" the ones that worked. Obviously this is an ad hoc assumption; wishful thinking. Nature is not "intelligent"; even evolutionists espouse that nature is "blind"; "random"; "it has no goal"; "no purpose"; and yet, what is required is precise selection at each and every step of the chain building if you want life.

No, you are looking at this backwards. You are assuming that where we are now is where life was intended to be (Intelligent Design), hence you believe it is unlikely that evolution could work to bring us to where we are now. If you remove the presumption (and obscene arrogance) of Intelligent Design then the very randomness that you dismiss offhand is the only likely way that life could begin and develop. You mistake the very instance of "randomness" and call it "selected" (not I suggest a case of semantics but a deliberate decision).

Chemicals, in and of themselves, cannot "think", "plan" or "organise" themselves to do anything. How can a chemical reaction "know" what it is its making? How can a chemical process make DNA or make a protein that would be unique and essential to the cell, and do so without any controlling mechanism that already "knows" what the end product is supposed to do?

Yet again you talk of an "End Product". The very nature of "Randomness" negates this argument. Why does an action have to be aware of an end product?

When evolutionary theorists propose that random chance natural processes formed life as we know it, they conveniently fail to mention that the chemistry of their thesis is anything but random… and anything but natural.

You truly do not understand the definition of "random". You look at it from here and now rather than from "then". It is the very nature of "random" that makes this so fascinating a scientific study.

When the actual chemistry is scientifically studied, here and now, it's more reasonable to conclude that life is the work of an outside intelligence; a "creator"… and all that implies…

Why? All we can say at the moment is that we cannot reproduce what happened billions of years ago. That is no reason to say that something ethereal occurred. David Attenborough stated:

"The correct scientific response to something that is not understood must always be to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause"

And I for one agree with him.

Anyway the question was:

TJ. Please give the evidence of a creator. Something that doesn't rely on a unverifiable big book of Bronze Age fairy tales, or oral tradition. Actual real verifiable evidence of the creator, which "I don't believe in evolution" isn't.

I have yet to see anything other than : "I don't believe in evolution".

Again, I will state. Simply because we cannot explain something now does not mean that we will not have an answer in fifty, a hundred or a thousand years.

Pete

crhkrebs30 Apr 2009 2:22 p.m. PST

If the sequence is changed even slightly, by mutation for example, then the altered polymer is no longer capable of performing the same function. This is verifiable.

No you are actually wrong. Chanting "This is verifiable" does not make it so. If the sequence is changed even slightly, chances are nothing happens. Unless the tertiary (or quaternary) structure structure is affected, or the mutation alters the "active" part of the molecule, a single change will have little affect. That is verifiable!

But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because once the amino acids and nucleotides are activated they will readily react with the water itself and break down into other compounds. This is verifiable.

No, this verifies that your grasp of the chemistry is lacking.

Are these your "3 verifiable hurdles"? Can't wait to hear from your "hurdle free" competing theory.

Ralph

crhkrebs30 Apr 2009 2:45 p.m. PST

From this religious website:

link

we have this quote:

1987: Beliefs of American earth and life scientists:

According to Newsweek in 1987:

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science…"

That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%

Ralph

RockyRusso30 Apr 2009 4:02 p.m. PST

Hi

Actually, TJ, your assmptions starting with "it should be" are, again, either false outright or fail to exhibit your point.

This latest is the old "it's too complex to be by accident.

Which, actually, has no bearing on evolution! in a very real sense, if there were a prime spark, it doesn't differ in any practical "proof" of abiogenesis than does "lots or random happening until, by accident, things work ONCE.

Actually, if it just god waving his hands, why did god way for 2 billion years and tell us 6 days?

All you have done is just make assertions and prove nothing.

Why was the transition from quadrapedia to upright posture a 30 million year transition…and still being in transition we STILL get lowerback pain. If it is just god and special creation.

R

Last Hussar30 Apr 2009 5:25 p.m. PST

TJ- why is the human body so badly designed- eyes, teeth, taste, knees, back, intestine, reproductive system? A number of these systems are superior in other animals. Why do sharks grow more teeth, and humans not? Why is our eyesight inferior to a number of animals? Why is the skeleton so badly 'designed' for walking upright? Why put in a appendix, something used only by herbivores, and then shrivel it up and have it only useful for something that it isn't designed to do (apparently there is evidence it helps fight infection, but very inefficiently). Beards- what's the point? Why provide so much redundancy in some things, (kidneys, lungs, testes, ovaries) then only one heart? Why is the prostrate so badly positioned?

Frankly, the human body is such a mess it is impossible to believe it was engineered.

Why do whales have legs?

crhkrebs01 May 2009 7:15 a.m. PST

Why do whales have legs?

Hey Last Hussar, why do Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Don't worry, TJ is going to explain all that when he presents us with his alternative to the obviously flawed "theory of evolution".

Ralph

Last Hussar01 May 2009 7:02 p.m. PST

But whales really have back legs.

crhkrebs02 May 2009 8:40 a.m. PST

I know, I'm just being facetious.

Ralph

Last Hussar02 May 2009 7:10 p.m. PST

I know. They never explain the whale legs, though.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP04 May 2009 2:03 p.m. PST

It's funny how creationst acuttaly has the balles to go after the theory of evolution, probebly the most documented and well founded theory there is, they should realy start on something easier like string theory, lots of holes in that one, even ALOT of academic bikkering about it, with leading scienticts going against it.

That would be alot easier, but no, they have to go against the theory that is backed up by thousands upon thosuand of fossils, genetic evidence, anatomical, aswell as lab experiments, observed instances of evolution.
The near 100% agreemnet in the scientific comunity.

Hell even going after gravity would be easier then evolution

crhkrebs05 May 2009 6:54 a.m. PST

Because String Theory doesn't upset any religious world view……….yet.

The Theory of Gravitation didn't upset any religious notions, so Newton was OK.

The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System however did, and cost Giordano Bruno his life. Almost did Galileo in too. Copernicus was lucky enough to live out of the Inquisition's reach.

If Darwin was a modern day Muslim in Saudi Arabia and published his works today, how long do you think he would last?

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP05 May 2009 9:06 a.m. PST

Ofcourse Gavity is against god, it says god has to use the it to hold people down on earth, this can not be because god is all powerfull and hold each and every living thing on the planet to ground with his might power.

Gravity is for heritics, true christians don't belive in gravity. If you belive hard enough they can fly

RockyRusso05 May 2009 9:51 a.m. PST

Hi

Gunfreak, in science there are a couple different ways to approach "theory".

In the case of "string theory"..the issue isn't actually the theory but what it models. That is high energy physics, light and similar bits of the subject aren't clearly understood, but some "MODELS" allows you to work math matically with the subject.

An example we all know is THE EARTH IS FLAT.

Grin.

In essence, the ancient egyptians had no idea of a spherical earth(or oblate spheroid!) For the purposes of plotting "whose pasture" after the spring floods, the earth as a ball, or model is irrelevant and unnecessary.

But at another point in the world, the oblate spheriid is critical to the model, but the surface irregularities are not(an orange is proportionally more irregular).

String theory is a way to model the phenomena without actually having such a universal explanation that is evolution.

As I like to point out, IF god was explaining creation to a stone age shepard with no number in his vocabulary bigger than 1000, none of what we considered ordinary science has any way of being explained. And today given the average IQ of 100 and the state of the education system in the first world…current science is still a form of magic.

The "big bang" is as well understood by most as "He said 'let there be light'". And in the day to day life out there, evolution is irrelevant as well….until we start suggesting DNA research and therapies.

Rocky

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP05 May 2009 11:43 a.m. PST

My point was that String theory has major oposition in the scientific comnuity, in fact sevral leading scientist feel that i's not only not a theory, but not even science, it's philosofy as it has no testeble parts.

This isn't realy true, there are test beeing done now in Cern that atleast can either disprove it or give hints that it might be true.

My point was that if you want to have an easier target to try and disprove or poke holes at, string theory would be easier.

Evolution is probebly the best understood and the thoery with the most evidence to back it up, I said gravity becasue even tho it's almost univerily accepted it does infact has less evidence then evolution and is alot less understood

Ghecko09 May 2009 8:46 p.m. PST

I asked: Can you present actual verifiable chemical evidence to show how abiogenesis could have occurred naturally as proposed by the evolutionary thesis? I should add (with tongue in cheek)… something that doesn't rely on Darwin's book of modern day fairy tales, or any "oh, it just happened somehow… sometime… somewhere" oral traditions.

Let's look at some of the responses…

I said: The bottom line is this: evolutionary theorists hope that you won't dig into the chemistry.

Response: Utter nonsense! What % of Chemists and Biologists are also evolutionists? The overwhelming majority (95% according to recent polls)

I was hoping for some science and some chemistry in reply; instead we get… statistics… What poll? Where and how was it taken? And if throwing statistics about: What percentage of the six billion plus people here on planet Earth believes in some sort of "god" or deity? Mmm…

I said: Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, the polymer chain found in proteins and in DNA has a very precise sequence that does not correlate with the individual components' reaction rates, the main reason being that all of the amino acids have relatively similar reaction rates, that is, they all react at about the same rate. This is verifiable. Thus, achieving a precise sequence as required by life by random chemical reactions is extremely unlikely.

Response: Assuming you are correct that the assembly of proteins from amino acids and the assembly of nucleic acids from nucleotides and sugars occur at different rates how does that contradict evolutionary theory?

Assuming? In other words… you couldn't be bothered to go off and verify it. And note what it was that I wrote; its underlined; not what you "assumed" I wrote. They all have relatively the same reaction rates: that means that if the chains could actually build up naturally, then they would build up in totally random sequences…

I said: Firstly, any chemist can tell you that chemical reactions do not produce life; that's why in ALL of the scientific literature known to man there is not a single example of life resulting from chemical reactions.

Response: Perhaps not yet, but who is to say what discoveries will be made at some point in the future?

And so, at last, you finally admit it… So, is the evolutionary theory of chemical abiogenesis actually developed from the observations of chemistry and chemical processes, or is it simply "assumed" to be true and you are now waiting for someone… somewhere… sometime… to come up with the answers for the theory from chemistry? The answer to that IS obvious.

I said: Chemical stability is the question of whether the components can even react at all. It should be obvious that all of the starting components in some hypothetical primordial soup must have all been stable, for if they were not, then they would have already reacted and formed other compounds.

Response: Why is this obvious? [Etc]

Eh? Are you serious? Did you read the next bit…?

So, what do we know about amino acids? Yes, amino acids are relatively stable in water but they do not spontaneously react to form proteins in water, and similarly, nucleotides do not spontaneously react to form DNA. This is verifiable. In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer they must be chemically "activated" to react with other chemicals; they need something to get them going, something like heat or a catalyst for example. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because once the amino acids and nucleotides are activated they will readily react with the water itself and break down into other compounds. This is verifiable. The question is: How could proteins and DNA form in some hypothetical "watery" primordial soup if the compounds, once activated, cannot survive in water?

So, sidestepping this awkward and verifiable scientific fact we get this instead…

Why do you keep referring to "water" in the "primordial soup"? Scientists don't actually think it was a bowl of pea and ham. It is simply a generic term to refer to an amalgamation of possible components, H2O is not necessarily one of those components.

Again, "scientists"; what scientists? Are you suggesting that the hypothesized primordial soup did not contain any water? That flies in the face of everything I've ever read about it. On what basis do you make such a bold assertion… and with no evidence or references whatsoever to back it up I'll add?

For example, the famous Miller and Urey experiments used a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and yes, water, and note they deliberately used an oxygen free environment. Why? The reason is really quite simple: Miller and Urey knew their chemistry; they knew that any oxygen in the system would hamper the formation of amino acids because amino acids readily oxidise in the presence of oxygen.

I said: Evolutionists occasionally argue that, yes, all proteins were formed in this manner but nature then "selected" the ones that worked. Obviously this is an ad hoc assumption; wishful thinking. Nature is not "intelligent"; even evolutionists espouse that nature is "blind"; "random"; "it has no goal"; "no purpose"; and yet, what is required is precise selection at each and every step of the chain building if you want life.

Response: No, you are looking at this backwards.

Eh? …and evolutionists aren't? In case you haven't noticed, both sides of the debate are in the here and now, and thus both sides are "looking backwards" into the past. The chemistry here and now says it's not possible… of course you could really go out on a limb and suggest that chemistry was somehow "different" back then… continuing:

…If you remove the presumption (and obscene arrogance) of Intelligent Design…

You know, I really thought better of you than this. All I can say is that those who can argue the point directly will do so; those who can't, who are outside their depth, or find themselves in a corner, invariably start attacking the person instead… continuing:

…then the very randomness that you dismiss offhand is the only likely way that life could begin and develop. You mistake the very instance of "randomness" and call it "selected" (not I suggest a case of semantics but a deliberate decision).

I said: Chemicals, in and of themselves, cannot "think", "plan" or "organize" themselves to do anything. How can a chemical reaction "know" what it is its making? How can a chemical process make DNA or make a protein that would be unique and essential to the cell, and do so without any controlling mechanism that already "knows" what the end product is supposed to do?

Response: Yet again you talk of an "End Product". The very nature of "Randomness" negates this argument. Why does an action have to be aware of an end product? … You truly do not understand the definition of "random". You look at it from here and now rather than from "then". It is the very nature of "random" that makes this so fascinating a scientific study.

Eh? "…the only likely way…"? Says who? Please note: no science again; just word play and semantics instead. Ok; let's all have a look at the dictionary definition of "random":

random: adjective; 1) lacking any definite plan or pre-arranged order; haphazard. 2) Statistics a; (of a variable) having several possible experimental values any one of which is uncertain and depends on chance. b; (of a sampling process) carried out so that each member of the population has an equal probability of being selected. 3) British; another word for bank (sense 3). 4) at random. In a purposeless fashion; not following any pre-arranged order.

Seems clear to me that "random" evolutionary chemical processes means that they lack any definite plan or pre-arranged order; they are haphazard; each possible molecule generated has an equal probability of being selected; is purposeless; is not following any pre-arranged order. It should be obvious (though around here I wonder) that DNA and protein molecules are anything but "random"; they are specifically complex having a particular purpose via their specific pre-arranged order… an order which cannot come about by the chemistry involved. Thus I said:

I said: When the actual chemistry is scientifically studied, here and now, it's more reasonable to conclude that life is the work of an outside intelligence; a "creator"… and all that implies…

Response: Why? All we can say at the moment is that we cannot reproduce what happened billions of years ago. That is no reason to say that something ethereal occurred. David Attenborough stated: "The correct scientific response to something that is not understood must always be to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause." And I for one agree with him.

Good advice. However, when you actually do that and study the actual science, the actual chemistry required for abiogenesis to occur and find that it clearly says no, it's just not possible, then you have hit a pretty solid scientific boundary; thus it is not unreasonable to step across that scientific boundary and conclude that life as it exists on Earth is the work of an outside intelligence; a "creator"… and all that implies.

You said: Anyway the question was: TJ. Please give the evidence of a creator. Something that doesn't rely on a unverifiable big book of Bronze Age fairy tales, or oral tradition. Actual real verifiable evidence of the creator, which "I don't believe in evolution" isn't. I have yet to see anything other than: "I don't believe in evolution".

Well, you can't have been looking too hard; what of the chemistry (yet again)? And by the way, I am yet to see anything here other than "I believe in evolution". Where's the science; where's the chemistry to back up YOUR beliefs? Nothing; absolutely nothing! Only the likes of…

Again, I will state. Simply because we cannot explain something now does not mean that we will not have an answer in fifty, a hundred or a thousand years.

And again, this is a very clear admission that the evidence just isn't there and so YOUR belief in evolutionary chemical abiogenesis is unsupported by the science of chemistry… just as I have been saying all along.

According to Newsweek in 1987…

Good grief… now it's a twenty two year old Newsweek poll! I really do shudder to think what "reference" will be presented next. And why quote statistics? Where's the chemistry; the science? Your scientific evidence is quite noticeable by its absence. Oh, that's right, I forgot… you don't have it right now but you might have it in fifty, a hundred or a thousand years or whatever…

That of course begs a question: If in a thousand years from now the scientific chemical evidence is still not there, and it's difficult to see how it would be, would evolutionists give up on the idea of chemical abiogenesis? Of course not; they would simply say "we don't have it right now but we might have it in another fifty, hundred or a thousand years… just you wait and see." You can have a million; we'll still be waiting. Chemistry is chemistry; in the past; now; and in the future.

Actually, TJ, your assumptions starting with "it should be" are, again, either false outright or fail to exhibit your point. This latest is the old "it's too complex to be by accident".

Nonsense; what I have regularly pointed out is that real chemistry does not support YOUR belief in evolutionary chemical abiogenesis. All you have done so far is to make unfounded assertions and have provided NO scientific evidence whatsoever to support YOUR beliefs. Then there's this odd statement:

…Frankly, the human body is such a mess it is impossible to believe it was engineered.

… And I was accused of "obscene arrogance". My only comment is that the design seems to be serving you, me and at least six billion other people here on Earth rather well, isn't it? Then there's this little gem of silliness:

Of course Gravity is against god, it says god has to use it to hold people down on earth, this can not be because god is all powerful and hold each and every living thing on the planet to ground with his might power. Gravity is for heretics, true Christians don't believe in gravity. If you believe hard enough they can fly.

Those who can do; those who can't ridicule … and rather poorly in this case.

So, what was it I asked?

Can you present actual verifiable chemical evidence to show how abiogenesis could have occurred naturally as proposed by the evolutionary thesis? I should add (with tongue in cheek)… something that doesn't rely on Darwin's book of modern day fairy tales, or any "oh, it just happened somehow… sometime… somewhere" oral traditions.

Did we get ANY real science; ANY real chemistry; anything tangible at all? No; but we might have stumbled upon a new recipe for evolutionary abiogenesis:

Throw in some old and dubious "statistics", add some "it just happened somehow… sometime… somewhere…" Darwinian rhetoric, add a pinch of "random" semantics and a little "ridicule" and simmer for a few million years (without any water of course) and abracadabra… life!

I'd ask the question again, but what's the point… what's the point indeed.

britishlinescarlet210 May 2009 6:40 a.m. PST

For example, the famous Miller and Urey experiments used a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and yes, water, and note they deliberately used an oxygen free environment. Why? The reason is really quite simple: Miller and Urey knew their chemistry; they knew that any oxygen in the system would hamper the formation of amino acids because amino acids readily oxidise in the presence of oxygen.

I know you are asking what you expect to be a loaded question. As you already know we have the original Miller-Urey test which produced basic amino acids in a lab jar. It is considered flawed now, not because of errors in the test, but in assumptions made of early earth conditions. But "Miller Tests" continue as we learn more about possible early earth conditions. This in fact becomes one of the stumbling points in solving Abiogenesis. We still do not have a strong grasp on what early earth was like. So while one group is dealing with early earth research, another is working with other possible "Miller Tests" based on various early earth models. One such is Sidney Fox's spontaneously formed microspheres. It is based on volcanic reactions, one of the strongly held early earth models. Fox later found proteinoids similar to those he had created in his laboratory in lava and cinders from Hawiian volcanic vents and determined that the amino acids present polymerized due to the heat of escaping gases and lava. Other catalysts have since been found; one of them, amidinium carbodiimide, is formed in primitive Earth experiments and is effective in dilute aqueous solutions. Such as MIGHT be found on early earth. It is just another step in the path.

Creationists like to try to reject Sidney Fox's work out of hand because it, as WOULD be expected, is just another step along the way. They like to pretend that unless everything is laid out in front of them in total, none of it counts. But it is a very valid advancement in the "Miller Tests" sequence.

Also, consider:

PDF link

PDF link


Petitio principii / Begging the question

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form.

It is a loaded question. You are requiring an apprioi acceptance that there IS or most like IS a god. That that is the defacto starting point only to be challenged if some OTHER stance can be determined.

An intellectually honest approach, one lacking a fallacy just drops such nonsense until there is VALID PROOF to even assert a god in the first place. NOT as a foundation to require disproof.

We start WITHOUT ANY preconceptions. If a god based proposition became apparent in and of itself, then it would be part of the evaluation process. It is NOT correct to start with the existence of a god as a preconception whether it is to include or disallow it.. It should not enter into the discussion until it would be identified by itself to be a valid supposition in the particular proposition.

And that is a major Fallacy. It will ALWAYS stop you from reasoned, logical thinking.

This particular god belief is well defined as it is based on a book written some 1600 years ago which is claimed by it's followers to be (at conflicting levels of degree) the PERFECT inspired word of this all powerful being/ god.

So if we look at the question of "Where did life come from?" and one answer is science based Abiogenesis and we don't have any particular strongly supported theoretical process as the leading front runner, then "I don;t know" would be the only honest answer. And thus acceptable.

However if the alternative is promoted, Creationism, it is WRITTEN DOWN in a BOOK. We can look at the specific claims made and ask for proof. We can expect as strong of evidence as we do strength of adherance. As Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Abiogenesis is an hypothesis that is based on factual evidence. We do not arrive there blindly,… just thinking, HEY,… this ought to answer everything. Even though we don't know all the answers, we do have evidence that predicts abiogensis must have occurred.

On the other hand,… creation has no factual evidence to support it. I am not trying to disprove it,… it just simply doesn't carry any weight for lack of evidence.

And I was accused of "obscene arrogance".

Actually you were not. If you look at the sentence I was simply stating that the theory of ID in itself is obscenely arrogant.

Function: noun
Date:
14th century

: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.

Surely a "presumptuous claim" is a very accurate definition of ID as there seems to be no scientific evidence to back it up.

All that you have offered are "negative proofs" of creationism. I have yet to see you offer one constructive piece of evidence (one that was not proved incorrect) towards a theory that supports your position. Simply gainsaying a theory that is still in its infancy does not make it wrong, or indeed prove any opposites.

crhkrebs10 May 2009 9:02 a.m. PST

TJ,

I'll keep this simple.

1) All your talk of nucleotides, protein synthesis rates, Miller and Urey experiments, etc., reads like someone skimming a molecular biology text and gaining a superficial understanding. But you haven't assimilated any of these facts into a coherent argument to disprove evolution.

2) The vast majority of scientists (pick any poll you like my friend, they will all corroborate this) don't seem to be "impressed" with your "facts" either, as they overwhelmingly side with evolution. Biologists, Biochemists and Earth Scientists are close to 100%.

3) When do we get to hear of your competing theory? (Third time asked, but I'm not holding my breath. Neither is anyone else I suspect. It's not the IDers way of doing things).

Until then, please don't bore us.

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP10 May 2009 9:40 a.m. PST

Lets use David Attenborough as an exampel, he even at early age found it quite obvious just by looking af fossils on the beach that evolution happend, he was only a young man, no special training, all he had was commen sense, and an open mind.

And thats it. you can quote this and that, talk about those experments and them experimants.
But the simple fact is, that any mormal person that dosn't have some major hang up you will come to the very obvious conclution that evolution happanes.
To come to any other means you have to twist the evidence to the extreme

britishlinescarlet210 May 2009 11:39 a.m. PST

So, what do we know about amino acids? Yes, amino acids are relatively stable in water but they do not spontaneously react to form proteins in water, and similarly, nucleotides do not spontaneously react to form DNA. This is verifiable. In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer they must be chemically "activated" to react with other chemicals; they need something to get them going, something like heat or a catalyst for example. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because once the amino acids and nucleotides are activated they will readily react with the water itself and break down into other compounds. This is verifiable. The question is: How could proteins and DNA form in some hypothetical "watery" primordial soup if the compounds, once activated, cannot survive in water?

This is wrong and has been proven to be so:

link

britishlinescarlet210 May 2009 12:09 p.m. PST

Here are some more references for you to peruse

1) Kalapos MP. The energetics of the reductive citric acid cycle in the pyrite-pulled surface metabolism in the early stage of evolution. J Theor Biol. 2007 Sep 21;248(2):251-8.
2) Trevors JT, Abel DL. Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life. Cell Biol Int. 2004;28(11):729-39.
3) Martin W, Russell MJ. On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophicprokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2003;358:59e83
4) Plasson R, Kondepudi DK, Bersini H, Commeyras A, Asakura K. Emergence of homochirality in far-from-equilibrium systems: mechanisms and role in prebiotic chemistry. Chirality. 2007 Aug;19(8):589-600.
5) Chessari S, Thomas R, Polticelli F, Luisi PL. The production of de novo folded proteins by a stepwise chain elongation: a model for prebiotic chemical evolution of macromolecular sequences. Chem Biodivers. 2006 Nov;3(11):1202-10.
6) de Duve C. Chance and necessity revisited. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2007 Oct 1;
7) Anet FA. The place of metabolism in the origin of life. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2004 Dec;8(6):654-9.
8) Pross A: Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism or replication first? Origins Life Evol Biosphere 2004 34:307-321.

All of them are merely steps towards answering the question of Abiogenesis as this study, as mentioned before is in its infancy. All of them are valid papers that can be purchased at a reasonable price.

Perhaps you could now provide us with your references to a competing theory or hypothesis?

britishlinescarlet210 May 2009 12:21 p.m. PST

AS to the nature of "Randomness"?…you might like to read this:

link

crhkrebs10 May 2009 6:39 p.m. PST

britishlinescarlet2

Don't be confused by TJ, he is not interested in learning about anything that may contradict his infallible and immovable world view. Like all Iders, he has some skill at poking holes but cannot accumulate enough mutually reinforcing facts to produce a theory himself. That is why we will not be treated to TJ's competing thesis/theory any time soon. What we will get is more ill conceived vaguely biological sounding verbiage about your last entry. The pattern then repeats. Best of luck.

Ralph

britishlinescarlet211 May 2009 12:36 p.m. PST

Ralph

Thanks for the kind words. I must admit that I do find this all a little disappointing. I really am interested in looking at all points of view and ideas on this subject, but strongly believe that such ideas should be backed by at least a modicum of science and that we should not simply assume that if any point cannot currently be proved then it must have been "divine intervention". A discussion is when two parties both bring something to the table. TJ may have not supplied us with an alternate theory but he has made me take a closer look at Abiogenesis and I should at least thank him for that as it is such a fascinating subject. As I mentioned before, I look at this with an open mind and am waiting with baited breath for TJ's hypothesis.

Pete

crhkrebs11 May 2009 5:18 p.m. PST

Well that is good then, Pete. Abiogenesis is a fascinating topic, one that probably will be answered in our lifetimes.

However some, like TJ, insist on having the observed notion of evolution contingent upon a fully described and understood abiogenesis. The two are mutually independent of each other for their existence. One describes how life formed from non-living sources, and the other describes how variability exists amongst the living things.

Let's see what transpires.

Ralph

britishlinescarlet214 May 2009 5:04 a.m. PST
crhkrebs14 May 2009 6:32 a.m. PST

Research abstract from Russian experimental research including that from satellite Bion-11 from 2002:

link

Abstract reads:

Abiotic formation of such complex biochemical compounds as nucleotides and oligopeptides on the surface of interstellar and interplanetary dust particles (IDP) by cosmic radiation was examined. In order to study the formation of organic compounds on IDPs, solid films prepared from nucleososide and inorganic phosphate were irradiated with high energy protons. Irradiated products were analyzed with HPLC. The natural nucleotides were detected. The main products were 5′ AMP (3.2%) and 2′3′ cAMP (2.7%). The results were compared with others experiments on the action of ultraviolet radiation with different wavelengths, γ-radiation and heat on solid mixtures of biologically significant compounds. The experiment on abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides on board of space satellite "BION-11" was compared also. The present results suggest that a considerable amount of complex biochemical compounds formed in extraterrestrial environments could have been supplied to the primitive earth before the origin of life.

This could go a long way to answering objections (such as Dr. Shapiro's) to Dr. Sutherland's research.

Ralph

Last Hussar15 May 2009 4:17 p.m. PST

TJ. Exactly how does failure to prove abiogenesis disprove evolution. Not "no life = no evolution" because I have given scenarios where the basic first cells were indeed 'created' and then evolved, and you concentrated on the 'alien seed' concept- "how did the alien abiogenisis take place?" You basically concentrated on something completely different.

I will repeat it.

Even if the initial basic one cell life forms had to be created/designed/whatever you want to call it, how does this disprove evolution?

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP16 May 2009 1:20 p.m. PST

I'm realy lookingforward to TJRAYMOND's theory that not only disproves evolution but explanes the divirsity of life.
I also realy hope his theory explanes how the ark fits into it all to.

Ghecko18 May 2009 10:27 p.m. PST

…As you already know we have the original Miller-Urey test which produced basic amino acids in a lab jar. It is considered flawed now, not because of errors in the test, but in assumptions made of early earth conditions. But "Miller Tests" continue as we learn more about possible early earth conditions. This in fact becomes one of the stumbling points in solving Abiogenesis. We still do not have a strong grasp on what early earth was like.

Your openness is refreshing … but your comments do raise some questions, for example:

Has the evolutionary theory of abiogenesis come from actual scientific data or have the evolutionary theorists formulated their theory from their beliefs and premises and are now looking for the data to support their theory?

And, do people here know why the Miller-Urey experiments are now considered "flawed" and are now considered, as you say, somewhat of a "stumbling block" to abiogenesis?

I believe we need to look at what Miller-Urey did a little closer. I will start here:

What scientific evidence is usually put forward in textbooks today for abiogenesis (that is, the natural chemical evolution of life)?

If you do a quick survey around the textbooks you will find that the Miller-Urey experiments are the major (and usually only) research cited to support the idea that life could have occurred naturally and spontaneously from non-living chemical compounds. This of course begs the question: Why is this… if they are known to be "flawed"?

That aside, people do not realise that rather than showing abiogenesis to be possible, the actual details of the famed Miller-Urey experiments (and the like) actually show that chemical abiogenesis would be virtually impossible, especially in light of modern research into chemistry, cells and cell structure. So, in the light of modern research, let's look at what Miller and Urey actually did. What did the Miller-Urey experiments actually show? Could all of life's building blocks be naturally and spontaneously generated?

First, Miller and Urey postulated that the "early" atmosphere consisted of a mix of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour. The popular conception is that they then built an apparatus, put these components in, heated it all up, circulated the components around through a spark to simulate lighting and the basic building blocks necessary for life were formed and science had taken a huge step forward in proving that life had simply "evolved" on Earth.

Now, let's see what actually happened…

References:

S. M. Miller and H.C. Urey, "A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions", Science, Volume 117, (1953)

S. M. Miller and H.C. Urey, "Organic Compounds Synthesis on Primitive Earth", Science, Volume 130, (1959)

The gases they produced were mainly carbon monoxide and nitrogen; the solids they produced were mainly an insoluble, toxic and cacogenic mixture called "tar" or "resin". No amino acids were detected in the first attempt and so the experiment was repeatably modified. Eventually they did find trace amounts of two of the simplest amino acids: glycine and alanine. After modifying the experiment hundreds of times more they managed to produce trace amounts of several other simple amino acids.

Now, modern research shows us that there are 20 amino acids essential for all life and they are: Alanine, Cysteine, Glutamic Acid, Aspartic Acid, Arginine, Valine, Threonine, Tryptophan, Glycine, Lysine, Methionine, Asparagine, Glutamine, Phenylalanine, Histidine, Isoleucine, Proline, Tyrosine, Serine and Leucine. All of the proteins required by a cell cannot be produced without all of these 20 amino acids being available as a complete set. This leads to the first problem.

In order to produce many of these amino acids in a Miller-Urey style laboratory experiments, the starting scenarios required need to be much more complicated, the apparatus required need to be much more complicated and the methods required to synthesise them are much more complicated than anything Miller and Urey used. This lack of non-artificial, natural everyday processes to produce all of the particular amino acids needed for a cell is just the first "trade secret" of the Miller-Urey experiments, and there are many more.

For example, what was the composition of the "early" atmosphere exactly? As noted, Miller and Urey postulated that the "early" atmosphere had a mix of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour. Note that they deliberately used an oxygen free atmosphere. Why? The reason is really quite simple; Miller and Urey knew their chemistry; they knew that any oxygen in the system would impede the formation of amino acids because amino acids readily oxidise in the presence of oxygen. So, was the "early" atmosphere oxygen free? This is unlikely for several reasons.

Firstly, their proposed "early" atmosphere contained much water vapour. This leaves no doubt that there must have been considerable free oxygen in the atmosphere because of the process known as photo-disassociation, the process where radiation from the Sun breaks the bonds of the water vapour molecules in the upper atmosphere yielding free hydrogen and free oxygen molecules. Is there any other evidence to support this? Yes. The fact that the "early" atmosphere must have had a high concentration of oxygen in it is supported by the large amounts of oxidised materials that are found in the "earliest" Pre-Cambrian geological strata. This oxygen problem has been known for a long time, and yet was conveniently bypassed by Miller and Urey. This is another "trade secret" of the Miller-Urey experiments.

Further, a major source of the likely gases involved in any "early" atmosphere would have been from volcanoes. Today volcanoes emit carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and lots of water vapour (as steam). Because of this, it is now believed that the hydrogen, methane and especially the ammonia as used by Miller and Urey were probably not major components of any "early" atmosphere. Further, free ammonia is very soluble in water and thus would have almost certainly been dissolved into the oceans, not free in the atmosphere as Miller and Urey postulated. These are more "trade secrets" of the Miller-Urey experiments.

Next, as chemists, Miller and Urey realised they had to deal with the problem of undesirable cross-reactions with other compounds. Thus, any and all compounds that would interfere with the formation of amino acids had to be removed from the system or they would have had no hope of producing any amino acids. Therefore Miller and Urey had to remove as many of the contaminants and impurities as possible for their experiments because many organic compounds (such as the ethanol and isopropyl alcohol often used in cleaning apparatus) totally disrupted the reactions they were looking for. Further, common reactive heavy metal ions such as Silver (Ag+), Lead (Pb++) and Mercury (Hg+) had to be removed from the water because they would also disrupt the reactions. Even with these artificially clean and pure conditions, the experiments themselves still produced many undesirable compounds such as cyanides and carbon monoxide which also added to the cross-reaction problems.

To help overcome these problems, Miller and Urey included a "trap" in their apparatus to remove any desirable products that were formed before they could be recirculated back through the system and be possibly destroyed by these other compounds or even by the spark itself. Considering all of this, the experiments can only be described as completely artificial, not replicating anything found in nature. These problems are further "trade secrets" of the Miller-Urey experiments.

The next problem: Even if all of the required 20 amino acids were produced "naturally" somehow, then how did all these many diverse and reactive amino acids come together into the one place at the one time and then link up and form the required proteins? This assembly problem is yet another "trade secret" stemming from the Miller-Urey experiments.

Miller and Urey themselves postulated that the "early" oceans would have needed to have a concentration of upto 10% of these organic compounds for this to even have a chance of happening. However, this level of concentration is equal to a concentration of around 100 times that which you would find in any modern sewerage system. Since such a level of concentration of organic compounds in the oceans at any time is extremely improbable, it has been suggested that the necessary compounds concentrated in pools, or around deep sea thermal vents, or around submerged volcanoes. However, each of these scenarios has their problems.

Modern research shows us that amino acids are both chemically and physically "fragile"; that means that the very conditions theorised to form them also have the capacity to destroy them. For example, very few amino acids and proteins remain biologically viable above 50 deg C or below 30 deg C (as shown by cooking and refrigeration). It is common knowledge that the temperatures in and around submarine vents approach 350 deg C and around submerged volcanoes even more; such high temperatures would easily destroy any amino acids or proteins formed. This problem is another "trade secret" stemming from the Miller-Urey experiments.

To form a protein, amino acids link together with each other by forming a peptide bond, and in doing so the reaction liberates a water molecule. However, modern research shows that there is a much greater tendency for the reverse to happen, that is, that proteins and amino acids tend to break down in water, especially hot water (as shown by cooking).

Further, to form proteins by linking amino acids together requires restricting the links to peptide bonds only, and only then in the correct locations. The average protein consists of around 400 amino acids all linked together by peptide bonds. Research shows that if you get just one bond wrong then the whole protein becomes virtually useless. Any and all other chemical bonds must be prevented from being formed and that is no easy task. In living cells, a complex control system involving many enzymes exists to ensure that any inappropriate bonds do not occur. Even then, without high energy compounds such as ATP to drive the process along and without the various enzymes available, amino acids simply do not spontaneously form into long chains to form proteins.

Further, pH levels also affect the bonding process of amino acids into proteins and so the pH level of the oceans or ponds would have also been critical. So, how did they join up… especially in water? These problems are further "trade secrets" of the Miller-Urey experiments.

Then there is always the problem of homochirality. The amino acids produced by experiments like Miller and Urey's are always racemic, that is, they tend to form an even mixture of "left-handed" and "right-handed" molecules. However, in every organism on Earth, the proteins are formed exclusively from left-handed amino acids. In fact, with proteins, the right-handed type is not only useless, they can even be lethal. This homochirality problem is another "trade secret" of the Miller-Urey experiments.

Next, Miller and Urey postulated that the energy source was lightning and/or UV radiation. As we know, there is plenty of UV radiation coming in from the Sun, but UV radiation is deadly to life… that's why it is often used in hospitals, dental surgeries, laboratories, etc, to sterilise and kill micro-organisms. Would being submerged in the oceans help? No, not really; UV radiation from the Sun can penetrate several metres into the ocean or ponds; that's why you get sunburn even under water. Miller and Urey knew this as well; that's why in their experiments they fine tuned their "lightning" spark so as to screen out as much of the stray UV wavelengths as coming off it as they could. These problems are further "trade secrets" of the Miller-Urey experiments.

Of course, this also takes us back to whether the atmosphere was oxygen free or not. We know that the ozone layer is critical for life's survival here on Earth today; that's why scientists are so worried about the hole in the ozone layer. However, if there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere as postulated by Miller and Urey, then there would be no protective ozone layer either to filter out most of the destructive UV radiation coming in from the Sun as it does now. This problem is another "trade secret" of the Miller-Urey experiments.

A critical item for life is the information code stored within the DNA (or in the case of retroviruses RNA). What must be explained is the source of this information, not just its existence. Interestingly, the DNA genetic code is without any biological function at all unless it is translated, that is, it is totally useless unless it is used to synthesise the proteins whose structures are set out in the code. However, the DNA code cannot be translated except by using those very products of the DNA translation, none of which form naturally… it's the chicken or the egg. This problem is another "trade secret" stemming from the Miller-Urey experiments.

So, with all these known "stumbling blocks" (and more), why is it that the Miller-Urey experiments have had such a strong and continuing impact on the origins of life field… even if "flawed"? The answer involves psychology rather than real science and chemistry. To put it simply:

The Miller-Urey experiments psychologically support the idea of evolutionary abiogenesis; people want to believe in a natural, chemical only abiogenesis despite all of the scientific evidence stacked up against it because there is only one alternative… and all that it implies.

Not so? Well, go off and check it out for yourself. Virtually all textbooks today simply accept the Miller-Urey experiments as some sort of evidence or "proof" as to how the first building blocks of life were produced… without any critical analysis of the experiments whatsoever. Go and check.

Even as late as the 1920's the cell was still thought of as being relatively "simple". We now know that the cell is much more complex than even Miller and Urey believed it to be when they did the experiments in the 1950's. Now, after more than half a century of research since the Miller-Urey experiments were done, we know that the so-called "simple" eukaryote cell is in fact extremely complex indeed.

I believe that evolutionists really need to understand something: After more than half a century of research into how evolutionary abiogenesis might have occurred, there is virtually no solid scientific evidence (theoretical or otherwise) to show how it could have happened "naturally" and "spontaneously"… but as we have seen there is certainly plenty of evidence to show how it couldn't have happened "naturally" and "spontaneously"… and continued research just seems to keep mounting up against the concept.

The Miller-Urey experiments and the like are completely artificial. They do not enlighten anyone in the slightest as to how real functional proteins came about "naturally" and "spontaneously".

That's one hell of a "stumbling block". Again, go and check for yourselves; textbooks virtually never mention any of the above problems… and they are certainly never mentioned by any evolutionary theorists. So, while those evolutionary theorists and their textbooks keep people in the dark about the realities of the Miller-Urey experiments and the like, we will always get simple ill-informed statements of belief like…

…It is just another step in the path… is just another step along the way… fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached [such as with chemical abiogenesis]… We start WITHOUT ANY preconceptions [what utter nonsense]. If a god based proposition became apparent in and of itself, then it would be part of the evaluation process [oh surely you jest – evolutionists would let "god" in?]… "Where did life come from?" and one answer is science based abiogenesis and we don't have any particular strongly supported theoretical process as the leading front runner, then "I don't know" would be the only honest answer [but don't put that in any textbooks]… Even though we don't know all the answers, we do have evidence that predicts abiogenesis must have occurred […only we don't know how – special pleading again]… a theory that is still in its infancy… Abiogenesis is a fascinating topic, one that probably will be answered in our lifetimes [now there's some faith]… The two are mutually independent of each other [the same old rhetoric again]… on the surface of interstellar and interplanetary dust particles by cosmic radiation [the somehow… somewhere… sometime… yet again]… The present results suggest that a considerable amount of complex biochemical compounds formed in extraterrestrial environments could have been supplied to the primitive earth before the origin of life [from a galaxy far, far away no doubt]

As Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Yes; very true… but when it comes to evolutionary abiogenesis, perhaps we should say:

"Extraordinary claims require… well… at least some evidence."

Exactly how does failure to prove abiogenesis disprove evolution… Even if the initial basic one cell life forms had to be created/designed/whatever you want to call it, how does this disprove evolution?

If you have to ask this question, then you really don't understand the issue at all…

Has the evolutionary theory of abiogenesis come from actual scientific data or have the evolutionary theorists formulated their theory from their beliefs and premises and are now looking for the data to support their theory?

Apply this simple test to evolutionary theory in all areas and you will soon see what I mean… Do they get their beliefs from the data, or do they constantly impose their beliefs onto the data…?

crhkrebs19 May 2009 3:15 a.m. PST

What did I tell you, Pete?

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP19 May 2009 3:30 a.m. PST

This is a video TJ should watch

YouTube link

crhkrebs19 May 2009 3:33 a.m. PST

I was reading an article in the Skeptical Inquirer, in which Prof. Massimo Pigliucci (professor of Biology and Philosophy, Stoney Brook, NY) discusses the concept of "cumulativeness" in Science.

This is an important criterion because the lack of progress, ie, lack of cumulative results over time is one of the distinctive features of pseudoscience. For example the idea of intelligent design in biology has made no progress since it's last serious articulation by William Paley in 1802.

Compare that to the stunning advances in the field of evolutionary biology since Darwin's publication of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, and one has a good picture of the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Food for thought, eh TJ?

Ralph

crhkrebs19 May 2009 4:02 a.m. PST

I wonder if this is where TJ gets his bullBleeped text from:

link

There is a supposed geologist there who actually states that the oxygen gas levels of the pre-biotic world was the same as today. Some one should tell him, and TJ, that the hydrolysis of water vapor in a reducing environment does NOT produce oxygen gas.

BTW, all the "arguments" presented are in sharp contrast to what is actually known. There is that concept of "cumulativeness" again. Oh ya, have a look at this:

link

BTW, how is your theory coming along, TJ?

Ralph

britishlinescarlet219 May 2009 6:48 a.m. PST

In order to produce many of these amino acids in a Miller-Urey style laboratory experiments, the starting scenarios required need to be much more complicated, the apparatus required need to be much more complicated and the methods required to synthesise them are much more complicated than anything Miller and Urey used. This lack of non-artificial, natural everyday processes to produce all of the particular amino acids needed for a cell is just the first "trade secret" of the Miller-Urey experiments, and there are many more.

This is an invalid argument. Complexity of apparatus has no bearing on the validity of the experiment. The electron microscope is complex but it does not invalidate what is seen through it.

Firstly, their proposed "early" atmosphere contained much water vapour. This leaves no doubt that there must have been considerable free oxygen in the atmosphere because of the process known as photo-disassociation, the process where radiation from the Sun breaks the bonds of the water vapour molecules in the upper atmosphere yielding free hydrogen and free oxygen molecules. Is there any other evidence to support this? Yes. The fact that the "early" atmosphere must have had a high concentration of oxygen in it is supported by the large amounts of oxidised materials that are found in the "earliest" Pre-Cambrian geological strata. This oxygen problem has been known for a long time, and yet was conveniently bypassed by Miller and Urey. This is another "trade secret" of the Miller-Urey experiments.

Banded Iron formations are layers of hermite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 – 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant amounts beginning about 2.5bilion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidise and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formation mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron. In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist in detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds. These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high oxygen conditions. "Red Beds" which are terrestrial sediments with large amounts of iron oxides need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years old, but are increasingly common after this time. Sulphur isotope signature of ancient sediments show that oxidising weathering was very low 2.4 billion years ago (Farquhar et al, 2000).
The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere had 0.1 percent or less (Copely 2001). Free oxygen in the atmosphere today is mainly the result of photosynthesis. Before photosynthetic plants and bacteria appeared we would expect little oxygen in the atmosphere for lack of a source. The oldest fossils (3.5 billion plus years old) were bacteria; we do not find fossils of fish, clams or other organisms that need oxygen in the oldest sediments.

Further, a major source of the likely gases involved in any "early" atmosphere would have been from volcanoes. Today volcanoes emit carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and lots of water vapour (as steam). Because of this, it is now believed that the hydrogen, methane and especially the ammonia as used by Miller and Urey were probably not major components of any "early" atmosphere. Further, free ammonia is very soluble in water and thus would have almost certainly been dissolved into the oceans, not free in the atmosphere as Miller and Urey postulated. These are more "trade secrets" of the Miller-Urey experiments.

Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2007 Nov;6(11):1210-7. Epub 2007 Oct 11.
Prebiotic chemistry: chemical evolution of organics on the primitive
Earth under simulated prebiotic conditions.
Dondi D, Merli D, Pretali L, Fagnoni M, Albini A, Serpone N.


A series of prebiotic mixtures of simple molecules, sources of C, H,
N, and O, were examined under conditions that may have prevailed
during the Hadean eon (4.6-3.8 billion years), namely an oxygen-free
atmosphere and a significant UV radiation flux over a large
wavelength range due to the absence of an ozone layer. Mixtures
contained a C source (methanol, acetone or other ketones), a N
source (ammonia or methylamine), and an O source (water) at various
molar ratios of C : H : N : O. When subjected to UV light or heated
for periods of 7 to 45 days under an argon atmosphere, they yielded
a narrow product distribution of a few principal compounds.
Different initial conditions produced different distributions. The
nature of the products was ascertained by gas chromatographic-mass
spectral analysis (GC-MS). UVC irradiation of an aqueous methanol-
ammonia-water prebiotic mixture for 14 days under low UV dose (6 x 10
(-2) Einstein) produced methylisourea, hexamethylenetetramine (HMT),
methyl-HMT and hydroxy-HMT, whereas under high UV dose (45 days; 1.9
x 10(-1) Einstein) yielded only HMT. By contrast, the prebiotic
mixture composed of acetone-ammonia-water produced five principal
species with acetamide as the major component; thermally the same
mixture produced a different product distribution of four principal
species. UVC irradiation of the CH(3)CN-NH(3)-H(2)O prebiotic
mixture for 7 days gave mostly trimethyl-s-triazine, whereas in the
presence of two metal oxides (TiO(2) or Fe(2)O(3)) also produced
some HMT; the thermal process yielded only acetamide.

A Reassessment of Prebiotic Organic Synthesis in Neutral Planetary
Atmospheres.

Cleaves HJ, Chalmers JH, Lazcano A, Miller SL, Bada JL.
The action of an electric discharge on reduced gas mixtures such as H
(2)O, CH(4) and NH(3) (or N(2)) results in the production of several
biologically important organic compounds including amino acids. However, it is now generally held that the early Earth's atmosphere was likely not reducing, but was dominated by N(2) and CO(2). The synthesis of organic compounds by the action of electric discharges on neutral gas mixtures has been shown to be much less efficient. We
show here that contrary to previous reports, significant amounts of amino acids are produced from neutral gas mixtures. The low yields previously reported appear to be the outcome of oxidation of the organic compounds during hydrolytic workup by nitrite and nitrate produced in the reactions. The yield of amino acids is greatly increased when oxidation inhibitors, such as ferrous iron, are added
prior to hydrolysis. Organic synthesis from neutral atmospheres may have depended on the oceanic availability of oxidation inhibitors as well as on the nature of the primitive atmosphere itself. The results reported here suggest that endogenous synthesis from neutral atmospheres may be more important than previously thought.

Next, as chemists, Miller and Urey realised they had to deal with the problem of undesirable cross-reactions with other compounds. Thus, any and all compounds that would interfere with the formation of amino acids had to be removed from the system or they would have had no hope of producing any amino acids. Therefore Miller and Urey had to remove as many of the contaminants and impurities as possible for their experiments because many organic compounds (such as the ethanol and isopropyl alcohol often used in cleaning apparatus) totally disrupted the reactions they were looking for. Further, common reactive heavy metal ions such as Silver (Ag+), Lead (Pb++) and Mercury (Hg+) had to be removed from the water because they would also disrupt the reactions. Even with these artificially clean and pure conditions, the experiments themselves still produced many undesirable compounds such as cyanides and carbon monoxide which also added to the cross-reaction problems.

Cyanide (and formaldehyde) are necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including amino acids (Abelson 1996) they are not toxins in this context.

The next problem: Even if all of the required 20 amino acids were produced "naturally" somehow, then how did all these many diverse and reactive amino acids come together into the one place at the one time and then link up and form the required proteins? This assembly problem is yet another "trade secret" stemming from the Miller-Urey experiments.

I believe that I have already touched on the subject of "Randomness"

Miller and Urey themselves postulated that the "early" oceans would have needed to have a concentration of upto 10% of these organic compounds for this to even have a chance of happening. However, this level of concentration is equal to a concentration of around 100 times that which you would find in any modern sewerage system. Since such a level of concentration of organic compounds in the oceans at any time is extremely improbable, it has been suggested that the necessary compounds concentrated in pools, or around deep sea thermal vents, or around submerged volcanoes. However, each of these scenarios has their problems.

You might like to look at this paper : Amplification of enantiomeric concentrations under credible prebiotic conditions.
Ronald Breslow* and Mindy S. Levine
Department of Chemistry, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027
Contributed by Ronald Breslow, July 13, 2006

Modern research shows us that amino acids are both chemically and physically "fragile"; that means that the very conditions theorised to form them also have the capacity to destroy them. For example, very few amino acids and proteins remain biologically viable above 50 deg C or below 30 deg C (as shown by cooking and refrigeration). It is common knowledge that the temperatures in and around submarine vents approach 350 deg C and around submerged volcanoes even more; such high temperatures would easily destroy any amino acids or proteins formed. This problem is another "trade secret" stemming from the Miller-Urey experiments.

The iron-sulphur world (Russell and Hart 1997, Wactershausser 2000). It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalysed by iron and nickel sulphides. Iron sulphide precipitates could have served as precursors to cell walls as well as acting as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003).
Levy and Miller (1998) also dispute this. "At 0 Deg Celsius, C, A, U, G and T appear to be sufficiently stable (half life greater or equal to a million years) to be involved in a low temperature origin of life." They also say that cytosine is unstable enough at 0 deg C that it may not have been involved in the first genetic material. The discovery of ribozyme without C-G bases shows that genetic material without cytosine is plausible (Reader and Joyce 2002).
If synthesis of nucleo-bases is catalysed and hydrolysis is not, we expect the nucleo-bases to accumulate. Formamide, which can form under prebiotic conditions, has been found to catalyse the formation of nucleo-bases (Saladino et al, 2003).
RNA degrades quickly today because there are enzymes (RNAses). Those enzymes would not have evolved if RNA degraded quickly on its own. If complex organic molecules were so fragile, life itself would be impossible

Then there is always the problem of homochirality. The amino acids produced by experiments like Miller and Urey's are always racemic, that is, they tend to form an even mixture of "left-handed" and "right-handed" molecules. However, in every organism on Earth, the proteins are formed exclusively from left-handed amino acids. In fact, with proteins, the right-handed type is not only useless, they can even be lethal. This homochirality problem is another "trade secret" of the Miller-Urey experiments

A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of "single-handedness" in an initially random mixture of left and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al, 2001)
Self assemblies on two dimensional surfaces can amplify a single handedness (Zepic, 2002)
An excess on handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyses the handedness of other organic products, such as threose (Pizarello and Weber 2004)
Amino acids found on meteorites from space show significantly more occurrence of left-handedness, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early universe (Pizarello and Cronin 1999)
The weak nuclear forces responsible for beta decay produce only electrons with left handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are more likely to form left handed crystals (Service 1999)
Some bacteria use right handed amino acids (McCarthy et al, 1999)

Of course, this also takes us back to whether the atmosphere was oxygen free or not. We know that the ozone layer is critical for life's survival here on Earth today; that's why scientists are so worried about the hole in the ozone layer. However, if there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere as postulated by Miller and Urey, then there would be no protective ozone layer either to filter out most of the destructive UV radiation coming in from the Sun as it does now. This problem is another "trade secret" of the Miller-Urey experiments

When simple organic molecules are held together in a fairly concentrated area, such as stuck to a dust or ice grain, the UV light actually enhances the formation of more complex molecules by breaking some bonds and allowing the molecules to recombine (Bernstein et al 1999, Cooper et al 2001) DN A and RNA are relatively resistant to UV light. UV light gives nucleic acids a selective advantage and may in fact have been an essential ingredient of abiogenesis (Mulkid-janian et al 2004; Mullen 2003).

Pete

crhkrebs19 May 2009 8:22 a.m. PST

Wow, Gunfreak, that video is made for TJ. Love the Goldfrapp song too.

Ralph

britishlinescarlet220 May 2009 4:12 a.m. PST

Well here's a surreal event. I was walking home from town today with my daughter in her push chair when I was accosted by two American gentlemen wishing to talk to me about God. As I live in a very "English" part of England that was strange enough in itself! Anyway we had a discussion about omnipotence, omnipresence and omni benevolence and the implications of such with regard to freewill and freedom of action, referencing the story of Job for good measure. We came to a bit of an impasse and so out of interest I asked them their opinion on Evolution. They responded that "Man was made in God's image" as written in the Bible. I, of course, asked them to show me the reference and one of the gentlemen got out his Bible.

"But I can't believe that!", I stated.
"Why not? it's the word of God", replied gentleman number one.
"Because your Bible is not an Authorized King James version!" I responded.
"What? Who's King James?" my American cousin queried.
"Being English I can only believe the word of the 1611 Translation of the Bible, Authorised by King James, anything else is not considered an accurate translation and hence is not the Word of God".
"But doesn't it say the same thing? Gentleman number two asked.
"Yes, but it is not the Authorised Word of God and hence I cannot believe it!"

At this point the two gentlemen began to get somewhat irate and so I made my excuses and left. I did ask them about Abiogenesis but they had never heard of it!

You couldn't make it up.

Pete

crhkrebs20 May 2009 6:40 a.m. PST

"What? Who's King James?"

Too funny, and yes, surreal. So you do have a little troublemaker streak in you.

Ralph

britishlinescarlet220 May 2009 6:43 a.m. PST

So you do have a little troublemaker streak in you.

Sometimes I just can't help myself.

Pete

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34