Microspheres and Coacervates O.O

[Ead]

First question is: Do you know what those are? Well, ill explain.

These are two substances, among a few others, that mimic a few of the qualities of life. They form spontaniously from organic compounds, which are common in the envirement. Microspheres look like little balls, which are composed of sugars and amino acids, and Coacervates look like cell membranes. This wouldnt be too important, other than the fact that they both have many elements of life. Microspheres reproduce themselves, Coacervates grow larger, and they both absorb (or consume) materials from around them. They are not alive, however, because they only lack heredity, or DNA and RNA.

But this shows that life-like structures CAN come into existance from inorganic compounds relitively easy. These could have lead to the first life possibly, and most probably.

Any comments?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Have you got any references for articles on them? I find abiogenesis research fascinating.

 

[lemmings]

Are you refering to phospholipids? They natualy form structures nearly identical to that of the simpler cell membranes when released in water because their tails are hydrophobic (non-polar). Could you please provide a link to any sites that show them 'reproducing', it sounds intresting.

 

[Xeriar]

Dunno of any links. Making them (self-replicating lipid bubbles) is an introductory biology lab, though.

Our particular biology teacher opted not to do the lab because students often got the impression they'd created life, when it's merely a very small component of the process.

 

[dad]

They are not alive, however, because they only lack heredity, or DNA and RNA.

Well, it seems that all we would have to do is add some intelligent coding there, and a few things, and we might have something?
However, not everything without life, that looks somewhat like things that are alive, really may be a candidate for life!
I offer as an example the morgue! There are dead things there that may look a lot like the living, but, really, are just dead.
The only thing that will bring a body back to life is a touch of the devine, as the saved will rise from the dead, and get new bodies.
So, appearances can be deceiving!

 

[lemmings]

Well, it seems that all we would have to do is add some intelligent coding there, and a few things, and we might have something?
However, not everything without life, that looks somewhat like things that are alive, really may be a candidate for life!
I offer as an example the morgue! There are dead things there that may look a lot like the living, but, really, are just dead.
The only thing that will bring a body back to life is a touch of the devine, as the saved will rise from the dead, and get new bodies.
So, appearances can be deceiving!

"All living things have an orderly structure, grow, and develope, and adjust to changes in the environment" - Life defined by my Biology book.

Neither a creator nor intellegence is mentioned in that definition. Some creatures such as bacteria are proof that life =! intelegence. A bacterium goes about it's short life rapidly reproducing within it's host. After the population gets large enough, the host dies and the bacteria will starve never to reproduce.

 

[dad]

"All living things have an orderly structure, grow, and develope, and adjust to changes in the environment" - Life defined by my Biology book.

Neither a creator nor intellegence is mentioned in that definition.

Hey, thanks for pointing that out! Let's get that out of the schools fast! There is a difference in living things. Not all are created equal.

Some creatures such as bacteria are proof that life =! intelegence.

Why would all things need intelligence?
(By the way, when I mention adding some intelligent coding, I didn't mean intelligence to bacteria. I meant that God, who is intelligent, just needs to add the instructions, or code, etc. So that the bacteria do the job they were meant for)

 

[Hydra009]

Well, it seems that all we would have to do is add some intelligent coding there, and a few things, and we might have something?

If only RNA/DNA could be produced naturally...

 

[dad]

If only RNA/DNA could be produced naturally...

So, they tinkered around, reduced, and such, and, what, cooked up some materials that are used in the blueprint of life? Great. Now, all we need to do is intelligently program the blank paper here, with instructions, then make it alive, and send it off do do it's little job, in vast creation! And, we need no cook to cook it up, or progam or instruct, or bring to life! Keep working, there, I will try not to laugh!

 

[Xeriar]

So, they tinkered around, reduced, and such, and, what, cooked up some materials that are used in the blueprint of life? Great. Now, all we need to do is intelligently program the blank paper here, with instructions, then make it alive, and send it off do do it's little job, in vast creation! And, we need no cook to cook it up, or progam or instruct, or bring to life! Keep working, there, I will try not to laugh!

Self-replicating PNA chains are actually quite simple. In fact the big question isn't so much why life evolved, but why, out of all the possible combinations that have been shown to feasibly produce self-replicating, mutating chains (some with no more than a few dozen base pairs), why RNA overtook it all.

 

[dad]

Self-replicating PNA chains are actually quite simple. In fact the big question isn't so much why life evolved, but why, out of all the possible combinations that have been shown to feasibly produce self-replicating, mutating chains (some with no more than a few dozen base pairs), why RNA overtook it all.

A couple of things here.
You mention RNA.
"The biggest concern about the RNA world is that there has been no convincing prebiotic creation of the activated monomers" in any plausible prebiotic world, says Ferris. Despite years of experiments with dozens of different strategies, no one has figured out how to make this most essential of starting ingredients for an RNA world."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1079

It goes on to say,
"There is a growing realization that we may need to look beyond RNA," Szostak says, to molecules whose chemistry is a bit more tractable, such as a peptide nucleic acid (PNA), a synthetic amino acid–nucleotide hybrid.."
Now, if I read this right, that means that they experiment a thousand ways from Sunday, and have been for YEARS, and come up empty! Not with a warm pond, and sterile conditions, but purposely concocting, and scheming, and fabricating, or, if you prefer, syntesizing things, trying to make something that could be defined as 'life'. They have not even managed to conceive this Frankenbacteria after all that!!
They ASSUME that evolution goes back to the pond, without proof, firstly. Then they slap together any and all elements of creation, they can mix, weld, or grow together, and have the ordasity to be ready to claim whatever they manage to mix just right as the first lifeform!!!!! (Should they even be able to formulate the feeble frankensteinian fraud of a fantasy first lifeform)

But hey, thanks for pointing that out. These guys should be stopped.

 

[Xeriar]

A couple of things here.
You mention RNA.
"The biggest concern about the RNA world is that there has been no convincing prebiotic creation of the activated monomers" in any plausible prebiotic world, says Ferris. Despite years of experiments with dozens of different strategies, no one has figured out how to make this most essential of starting ingredients for an RNA world."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1079

Did I say something contrary to this?

We're talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis (though some portions have evidence behind them and are thus considered theory, and some points are simple fact - such as the self-replicating lipid bubbles referenced in the original post).

In any case, the gist of what he is stating is that, on its own, the RNA world could not have come out of nothing. Something had to have proceeded it. It's easy enough to see, for example, RNA transitioning into DNA. RNA almost certainly did not develop on its own.

It goes on to say,
"There is a growing realization that we may need to look beyond RNA," Szostak says, to molecules whose chemistry is a bit more tractable, such as a peptide nucleic acid (PNA), a synthetic amino acid–nucleotide hybrid.."

Your emphasis is mildly misleading. Keep in mind we're dealing with extremely ancient biochemistry on a scale we don't have a feasible means of replicating. We can, for instance, synthesize RNA or DNA. The result is synthetic, even though it's based off of a natural process.

Of course, it appears now that PNA is a poor solution for the problems inherent in a spontaneously developing RNA world. Other possible alternatives are TNA or GNA, for example, or PAH world.

Again, though, these are all hypothesis.

Now, if I read this right, that means that they experiment a thousand ways from Sunday, and have been for YEARS, and come up empty!

Yes well, you can move a mountain. It's easy. Just carry small stones.

This is a project whose enormity rivals sending a probe to Alpha Centauri, including the entire space program development that would let us reach such a point.

Not with a warm pond, and sterile conditions,

Not a warm pond. The ideal surface is a moist rock in an oxygenless, methane atmosphere, since free oxygen does not exist in such quantities without life.

but purposely concocting, and scheming, and fabricating, or, if you prefer, syntesizing things, trying to make something that could be defined as 'life'. They have not even managed to conceive this Frankenbacteria after all that!!

Scientists have been making 'frankenbacteria' for some years now.

The challenge is finding what kind of plausible prebiotic soup makes an RNA/DNA world like ours.

They ASSUME that evolution goes back to the pond, without proof, firstly.

As I said, they don't. The current hypothesis seems to point to the most likely candidate being on wet rocks.

Then they slap together any and all elements of creation, they can mix, weld, or grow together, and have the ordasity to be ready to claim whatever they manage to mix just right as the first lifeform!!!!!

Nope. In fact I rather much doubt we'll ever be -certain- what was the first life, unless we witness enough examples on other worlds and RNA/DNA proves to be common.

(Should they even be able to formulate the feeble frankensteinian fraud of a fantasy first lifeform)

But hey, thanks for pointing that out. These guys should be stopped.

Heh, you're a bit late, sorry

 

[Ead]

I dont have a link per say, but i did read about it in my biology book called Modern Biology by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

The microspheres resemble many characteristics for life. They reproduce by budding, they take in nutrients, and they grow a lil bit. It resembles life, just like a very simple viris, but niether are technically alive because they lack a few compnents of scientific life. Thats all. You could say in loose terms that they act as though they were alive.

What i am getting at is, under the right conditions, it is very possible that real life could hve started from that. Maybe a Microsphere got stuck in a Coacervate and reproduced with a membrane on it when it budded off? Possible i guess. It is possible for a bug to get stuck in a bean (Mexican jumping beans ), so why not a microscopic goo ball? There would be enough as it was for that to be fesable.

I think there was something more primitive than RNA and DNA when life first technically started. To hold a code is not nessisarily that complicated. Take a snowflake for instance. It is not alive by far, yet it does have those pretty patterns and shapes. What programs it to form that way? Well, the designing force behind it isnt Jack Frost, but a small particle of dirt. The water condences and freezez around it, with each molecule of water having a certain predetermined shape (All the water molecules will look the same) The difference between each snowflake, however, it the dirt. The water attactes to the dirt and forms around it. The contures of the dirt gives the 'Code' for the snowflake. It thus grows bigger and bigger, going in predictable patterns, until it makes that pretty little thing =D So you can have a primitive code without anything actually having to be alive!

I remember there was an area on TalkOrigins.org that showed a possible first lifeform thingy. It was only a few molecules big too... Ill try to get the link to that later.

DNA and RNA are made of long chains of Nucleotides, which are

 

[dad]

Did I say something contrary to this?

Well, did you not say this?
"In fact the big question isn't so much why life evolved, "
Life in no way evolved. That is utter nonsense. Life, evolves, yes, as creation was equipped to do, and much more so in the past, apparently. The rest is 100% imagination, assumption, and belief.

We're talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution.

Oh!!? I thought you dun just finished claiming life evolved??? I thought you meant from the pond.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis (though some portions have evidence behind them and are thus considered theory, and some points are simple fact - such as the self-replicating lipid bubbles referenced in the original post).

Whoah!
"The scientists suggest that genetic material that replicated quickly may have been all the bubbles needed to edge out their competitors and begin evolving into more sophisticated cells.
This possibility, revealed by laboratory experiments with artificial fatty acid sacs,.."
http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak4.html
Now, all that is, in effect, is a statement of faith. It says, 'We BELIEVE life evolved from nothing, or non life, and so IF it did, it must have done it in a way like we fabricate, syntesize, and artificially tinker around with!'
That's it. Let's see evidence that evolution began with anything other than the creations of God!!!????? You have NOTHING, and NEVER will, it never happened.

In any case, the gist of what he is stating is that, on its own, the RNA world could not have come out of nothing.

Woulda coulda, shoulda, mighta, maybe this maybe that, If there was no creation, and no God. Yeah right, thanks for the evo dreams there. Now, if anyone has science and evidence for the preposterous claims, speak up.

Something had to have proceeded it. It's easy enough to see, for example, RNA transitioning into DNA. RNA almost certainly did not develop on its own.

Easy enough to imagine, in godless dreams, I suppose. I wouldn't know. Certainly nothing in real life proves that in any way at all.

Your emphasis is mildly misleading. Keep in mind we're dealing with extremely ancient biochemistry on a scale we don't have a feasible means of replicating.

That is because it never happened. Maybe George Lucas could help you there? He can make dreams come to the screen at least.

We can, for instance, synthesize RNA or DNA. The result is synthetic, even though it's based off of a natural process.

And I could glue a toothpick on my eye, and claim I decended from a stick man, I suppose. Cut the games here, and the claims, and deal in reality, and hard evidence.

Of course, it appears now that PNA is a poor solution for the problems inherent in a spontaneously developing RNA world. Other possible alternatives are TNA or GNA, for example, or PAH world.

Great, another one bites the dust. R.I.P.

Again, though, these are all hypothesis.

You're telling me?

Yes well, you can move a mountain. It's easy. Just carry small stones.

Right, and live 3.2446 billion years. Sumerians, eat your heart out.

This is a project whose enormity rivals sending a probe to Alpha Centauri, including the entire space program development that would let us reach such a point.

It is a project that rivals Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Not a warm pond. The ideal surface is a moist rock in an oxygenless, methane atmosphere, since free oxygen does not exist in such quantities without life.

So now we dream up an entire atmosphere, and planetary contions to go along with the dream. Great. God help us if any call that science!

Scientists have been making 'frankenbacteria' for some years now.

The challenge is finding what kind of plausible prebiotic soup makes an RNA/DNA world like ours.

Inventing something plausible for the gulible doesn't make it so, does it?

As I said, they don't. The current hypothesis seems to point to the most likely candidate being on wet rocks.

Great, so Granny Luca lived in a moist crack, fine.

Nope. In fact I rather much doubt we'll ever be -certain- what was the first life, unless we witness enough examples on other worlds and RNA/DNA proves to be common.

Thank you. So much for that.

 

[dad]

The microspheres resemble many characteristics for life. They reproduce by budding, they take in nutrients, and they grow a lil bit. It resembles life, just like a very simple viris, but niether are technically alive because they lack a few compnents of scientific life. Thats all. You could say in loose terms that they act as though they were alive.

So do these. Neither crawled out of a pond, or wet rock.

What i am getting at is, under the right conditions, it is very possible that real life could hve started from that.

If we arrange creation in just the right way, we could get something that almost looks alive, so what? We could arrange a lot of things. The question is Who arranged creation???

Maybe a Microsphere got stuck in a Coacervate and reproduced with a membrane on it when it budded off?

These days it might get charged for that!

Possible i guess. It is possible for a bug to get stuck in a bean (Mexican jumping beans ), so why not a microscopic goo ball? There would be enough as it was for that to be fesable.

Hmm, let's not get too scientific here. We might lose some lurkers.

I think there was something more primitive than RNA and DNA when life first technically started.

Oh, do you now? Maybe you should patent it, it could make a book one day.

So you can have a primitive code without anything actually having to be alive!

But a snowflake come from a real cloud, in a real planet, in a real atmosphere, in real temperatures, and real materials, all of which were created to begin with, and did not pop out of nowhere. They also operate under the laws of our current universe, which didn't just pop out of nowhere either. They are also seen by you, that popped out of a woman, that did not pop out of nowhere either.

 

[Xeriar]

Well, did you not say this?
"In fact the big question isn't so much why life evolved, "
Life in no way evolved. That is utter nonsense. Life, evolves, yes, as creation was equipped to do, and much more so in the past, apparently. The rest is 100% imagination, assumption, and belief.

Hardly. As mentioned, the original post goes over one of the known steps required and plausible in the early abiogenesis process - one step out of a hundred or a thousand, it doesn't matter - it's not 100% unknown.

Oh!!? I thought you dun just finished claiming life evolved??? I thought you meant from the pond.

Twist words and mince semantics how you like, that doesn't change the truth.

Whoah!
"The scientists suggest that genetic material that replicated quickly may have been all the bubbles needed to edge out their competitors and begin evolving into more sophisticated cells.
This possibility, revealed by laboratory experiments with artificial fatty acid sacs,.."
http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak4.html

We also make synthetic oil, and create plutonium through neutron absorption via U-238. It's still oil, it's still plutonium. Artificial lipid bubbles are still the same lipid bubbles that make up our cell membranes. If it can be shown that they thrive in the primordial soup, they become a likely candidate.

Now, all that is, in effect, is a statement of faith. It says, 'We BELIEVE life evolved from nothing, or non life, and so IF it did, it must have done it in a way like we fabricate, syntesize, and artificially tinker around with!'
That's it. Let's see evidence that evolution began with anything other than the creations of God!!!????? You have NOTHING, and NEVER will, it never happened.

Yes, like we never would land on the Moon or break the sound barrier.

However, plausible scenarios given known historical chemical abundances (of which there is evidence), can point the way for more appropriate tests.

So the process of abiogenesis on Earth turned out to be more complicated? So what? That just makes it all the more enticing.

But you are misrepresenting people. Your claim is that scientists claim what they in fact do not. You are bearing false witness.

Woulda coulda, shoulda, mighta, maybe this maybe that, If there was no creation, and no God. Yeah right, thanks for the evo dreams there. Now, if anyone has science and evidence for the preposterous claims, speak up.

Is there a point to your invective here?

Easy enough to imagine, in godless dreams, I suppose. I wouldn't know. Certainly nothing in real life proves that in any way at all.

...deoxyribonucleic acid differs from ribonucleic acid by the loss of a single hydroxyl molecule (-OH). Likewise, thymine is methylated uracil.

That is because it never happened. Maybe George Lucas could help you there? He can make dreams come to the screen at least.

Again the invective. Why?

And I could glue a toothpick on my eye, and claim I decended from a stick man, I suppose. Cut the games here, and the claims, and deal in reality, and hard evidence.

Care to buy?

Or something potentially more sinister.

Science really is a double edged sword.

Great, another one bites the dust. R.I.P.

And three more replace it.

You're telling me?

A hypothesis can be falsified, and then discarded if so. A theory has evidence behind it, of which in abiogenesis there are only a few such, and then only in matters of process. Ie, given scenario A, B is likely enough to occur.

Right, and live 3.2446 billion years. Sumerians, eat your heart out.

Eat your heart out while you're at it.[/url]

It is a project that rivals Raiders of the Lost Ark.

If it were so simple, it would be long since completed already.

So now we dream up an entire atmosphere, and planetary contions to go along with the dream. Great. God help us if any call that science!

Dream up?

We see trillions of stars at all mass and metallicity ranges possible for stars, at all points in their life. Those of Sol's mass and metallicity are rare, but not so rare to prevent us from understanding that the Sun is 33% brighter now than it was after it cooled from its protostellar collapse. Likewise, we can get a good estimate on the slowing of Earth's rotation through coral reef data (not trivial - a second every few years has crept up to roughly a third of a day since the time of Christ), and of course the increased geothermal activity that comes with being so much richer in uranium.

Add to the fact that life is the only known 'natural' process by which massive amounts of oxygen is released (it is the second most electronegative element, after all - it doesn't remain free in an atmosphere for long)... What is the logical leap in that?

Sure. Scientists aren't certain whether or not Earth's original atmosphere was reducing or neutral (I think the evidence is leaning towards neutral, but the problem is the oldest, truly prebiotic soils no longer exist on Earth) - but so what?

If, eventually, a natural, plausible path to RNA/DNA is discovered, and it requires one atmosphere or another, that's just evidence that Earth's atmosphere was so ordered originally (a bit weak compared to the evidence for the age of the Earth, of course, especially considering - after all this searching, there may be multiple paths).

Inventing something plausible for the gulible doesn't make it so, does it?

If I see a mathematical problem, and someone presents a working solution to me, why reject it? The working solution has uses. It cures diseases, it provides a basis for new, innovative ways of solving otherwise exceedingly hard problems. Abiogenesis research enriches the human experience.

What does Creationism enrich us with? What value does learning it provide to society?

Thank you. So much for that.

Doesn't mean it's not worth looking. See, there apparently were a lot of bases floating around in the prebiotic soup. "Why RNA/DNA?" is an important question, because a large number of other, apparently solutions seem to have been plausible.

But they're not ruling Earth right now. So the exact process of selection may be meaningless to you, but it means a lot to those who wish to know the downfalls of the current alternative biochemistries.

 

[dad]

Hardly. As mentioned, the original post goes over one of the known steps required and plausible in the early abiogenesis process - one step out of a hundred or a thousand, it doesn't matter - it's not 100% unknown.

Of course it it, because there was no such process, they just assume that, beccuase it has been assumed the evolution means no creation. (Or whatever, but it is just imagination)

We also make synthetic oil, and create plutonium through neutron absorption via U-238. It's still oil, it's still plutonium. Artificial lipid bubbles are still the same lipid bubbles that make up our cell membranes. If it can be shown that they thrive in the primordial soup, they become a likely candidate.

Emphasis on 'create'. The oil does not plop off a comet, syntesized. The only way a likely candidate could exist as a candidate is if there was candidates needed. There aren't, save in your head. The whole excercise is not based on any reality. The extrapolation from similar looking creatures, and present evolving has no logical reason, or basis in any fact at all to be imagined all the way to the pond. So why cook up so called potential pond scum candidates in a lab?

Yes, like we never would land on the Moon or break the sound barrier.

Setting foot on a created body relatively close, is not in the same ballpark as proving that the created body was not created. No one questions that science has some grasp on present principles, and laws. Nothing to do with relating life to a wet rock crack orgin at all!

However, plausible scenarios given known historical chemical abundances (of which there is evidence), can point the way for more appropriate tests.

How are 'known chemical abundances' for the imagined primordial soup, or whatever is fashionable to call it, determined? Hopefully more than 'Gee, kife needed no oxygen to self appear for millions of years, so that was how it was'!

So the process of abiogenesis on Earth turned out to be more complicated? So what? That just makes it all the more enticing.

There was no such thing. Tinkering with creation, to get something that resembles abiogenesis imagination, is
an abomination.

But you are misrepresenting people. Your claim is that scientists claim what they in fact do not. You are bearing false witness.

But you are talking words that are clouds without rain here. It is claimed that a common ancestor lifeform existed. You are a false accuser of the saints.

Is there a point to your invective here?

It was noting that there is no evidence that links us to rock crack life.

...deoxyribonucleic acid differs from ribonucleic acid by the loss of a single hydroxyl molecule (-OH). Likewise, thymine is methylated uracil.

What is it that you think this proves, exactly????

Again the invective. Why?

Pointing out that Luca is no more evidenced than sci fi is simple fact, not invective. Apparently, you have some trouble realizing that there is nothing at all to the claims you are aiding and abbeting, and promoting here? In particular, that life did not start out as a creation, but came from some moist rock crack, pond, or wherever you would like to imagine it. If you did prove that, why, yes, go ahead and try to mix up some frankenbacteria, and see if you can play god. Until then, don't cloak your beliefs as science.

Care to buy?

Or something potentially more sinister.

Tinkering with creation is no surprise. In fact we can expect horrible monsters soon, in the endtime. I never thought they were natural, God made monsters, they come from wicked man.
But wicked man was not ther creating the universe, and all life. Nothing at all says it was not created. Nothing says we came from germs, viruses, or bacteria, or anything you cook up in a lab.

Science really is a double edged sword.

More like a not so sharp box cutter.

And three more replace it.

They better. I assume they always will, as long as they are hell bound to back up the so far baseless claims! Until we stop them, as I assure you, when Jesus comes, we will.

A hypothesis can be falsified, and then discarded if so. A theory has evidence behind it, of which in abiogenesis there are only a few such, and then only in matters of process. Ie, given scenario A, B is likely enough to occur.

In other word, assuming no creation, and if processes of the present were in effect, and laws, they look for ways to make a plausible creation replacement story.

Eat your heart out while you're at it.[/url]

They admit they can't really address the problem, but hope to address the damage, and prolong life that way. A couple of points there. When I first got saved, I was told that as the end time gets progressing, and knowledge even more increased, we would see things like that. They said cancer would likely be cured, and we may even live for long long times.
So, if there was time for something like this to progess, I would not be surprised. After all, it says in the bible, that men will want to die, in the end here, but won't be able to!

Dream up?

Absolutely!!!

We see trillions of stars at all mass and metallicity ranges possible for stars, at all points in their life.

That is how it is now, yes.

Those of Sol's mass and metallicity are rare, but not so rare to prevent us from understanding that the Sun is 33% brighter now than it was after it cooled from its protostellar collapse.

Pure dreams, as I said! It was made after man was. What you are basing everything on here is pure uncut belief, and assumptions! You assume the sun is a result of the big bang. You assume that the universe was always in the present physical only state. You can't prove it, and have NO science to back that up. So, stop right there. All the rest on top of this is a house of cards, and useless dreaming.

Likewise, we can get a good estimate on the slowing of Earth's rotation through coral reef data (not trivial - a second every few years has crept up to roughly a third of a day since the time of Christ), and of course the increased geothermal activity that comes with being so much richer in uranium.

That factor is fine. Minimal change since Christ. That is not affecting the far past.

Add to the fact that life is the only known 'natural' process by which massive amounts of oxygen is released (it is the second most electronegative element, after all - it doesn't remain free in an atmosphere for long)... What is the logical leap in that?

So, what exactly are you saying? That our atmosphere came from life?

Sure. Scientists aren't certain whether or not Earth's original atmosphere was reducing or neutral (I think the evidence is leaning towards neutral, but the problem is the oldest, truly prebiotic soils no longer exist on Earth) - but so what?

So what???? 'They really have not a clue what it was really lkie, but, what the hec, so what?' Are you kidding?

If, eventually, a natural, plausible path to RNA/DNA is discovered, and it requires one atmosphere or another, that's just evidence that Earth's atmosphere was

Anyone hear this guy??? That is absurd. 'Oh, we have no proof whatsoever that evolution has to be traced back to a rock crack, or no clue what the atmosphere was actually really like. But if we make a frankenbacteria, then we will model our part of the universe after what atmospher they prefer.'

Religion, in all it's glory, uncovered, and proud of it! AntiGod religion.

so ordered originally (a bit weak compared to the evidence for the age of the Earth, of course, especially considering - after all this searching, there may be multiple paths).

Since there is no evidence for an old earth at all, it is based solely on assumptions the past was the same, and you admit that this stuff is weaker than that, you are welcome to your religion. No thanks, I have my own beliefs.

If I see a mathematical problem, and someone presents a working solution to me, why reject it?

Because we have known quantities in math, or we would have no answers.

The working solution has uses. It cures diseases, it provides a basis for new, innovative ways of solving otherwise exceedingly hard problems. Abiogenesis research enriches the human experience.

Playing with cells, and such as applied to diseases may be alright. But you cannot apply it to crack scum.

What does Creationism enrich us with? What value does learning it provide to society?

That there is hope. That God answers prayers. That we are very very important, and significant. Creationism is just a part of Christian, and some other beliefs. And just look at a roster of charities sometime! Are Christians represented? Yes, to a large extent. What about what you and your limited material only vision and instruments an't see? That is what we deal in. Can you see happiness, fulfillment, and changed lives??? No. Can you see healings, and miracles? No. Can you see the afterlife that is forever and ever, where those Christians teach of Jesus will go??? No.
How dare you think your science can dream of holding a candle to us????
Science gave some good things, but also nuclear weopns, and cluster bombs, and chemical, and bio weapons! It gave us abortions, of which there are now something like 46 million a year. It gave us cars, that kill more than wars. It gave us toxins, and all kinds of things.

Doesn't mean it's not worth looking. See, there apparently were a lot of bases floating around in the prebiotic soup.

No, prove there was this evo spawning from a rock crack. Don't just preach it as if it was real.

"Why RNA/DNA?" is an important question, because a large number of other, apparently solutions seem to have been plausible.

But they're not ruling Earth right now.

Prove that they 'ruled earth'!! What nonsense.

So the exact process of selection may be meaningless to you, but it means a lot to those who wish to know the downfalls of the current alternative biochemistries.

If by selection, you mean how evolving now works, that is not related to claiming that we came from a soup.

 

[Xeriar]

Of course it it, because there was no such process, they just assume that, beccuase it has been assumed the evolution means no creation. (Or whatever, but it is just imagination)

Less so than genesis.

We see gold is yellow. Some will say God painted it that way. Science has given us understanding that relativistic contraction of the atom has redshifted its absorption spectrum, making it appear yellow.

That basic understanding seems trivial, but it allows us to better understand the chemistry for all atoms big enough for lanthanide contraction.

Likewise, understanding how natural processes could have brought about life of Earth would help us with, say, terraforming Mars, or if we find remnants of life there.

Setting foot on a created body relatively close, is not in the same ballpark as proving that the created body was not created.

The proof ever lies with the claimant. We see, now, other protoplanetary discs out in the cosmos - many of them grander and vaster than Sol's was by far. We notice rings getting cleared out - if this isn't how Earth came to be, what physical evidence do you have that Earth was made in some more archaic fashion?

No one questions that science has some grasp on present principles, and laws. Nothing to do with relating life to a wet rock crack orgin at all!

This is a God of the Gaps style reasoning.

"Science doesn't understand it yet, therefore it never will."

What makes you think that?

How are 'known chemical abundances' for the imagined primordial soup, or whatever is fashionable to call it, determined? Hopefully more than 'Gee, kife needed no oxygen to self appear for millions of years, so that was how it was'!

Some of it is simply unknowable, because it leaves no chemical trace - neutral atmospheric components like carbon dioxide which are energetically expensive to work with, for example. Others - like oxygen, leave a more telltale imprint via the oxides they leave behind.

There was no such thing. Tinkering with creation, to get something that resembles abiogenesis imagination, is
an abomination.

What makes it abomination?

But you are talking words that are clouds without rain here. It is claimed that a common ancestor lifeform existed. You are a false accuser of the saints.

You're claiming to be a saint? The common ancestor lifeform - the theory of common descent - is rooted in well established fact, namely shared genes but also other factors. We are speaking of abiogenesis which is something else entirely.

Regarding the evidence to that, I'm sure this and related discussions have been linked so many times the boards are sick of it.

It was noting that there is no evidence that links us to rock crack life.

Simply that the pond is unviable, as the required materials are too dilute until it has evaporated some.

What is it that you think this proves, exactly????

That it's a simple transformation compared to the other steps involved.

Pointing out that Luca is no more evidenced than sci fi is simple fact, not invective. Apparently, you have some trouble realizing that there is nothing at all to the claims you are aiding and abbeting, and promoting here? In particular, that life did not start out as a creation, but came from some moist rock crack, pond, or wherever you would like to imagine it. If you did prove that, why, yes, go ahead and try to mix up some frankenbacteria, and see if you can play god. Until then, don't cloak your beliefs as science.

If everyone in the world thought like you, we would still be picking the fields by hand, much less coming up with something as silly as the electric transistor to have this conversation involving a few hundred million of them.

Tinkering with creation is no surprise. In fact we can expect horrible monsters soon, in the endtime. I never thought they were natural, God made monsters, they come from wicked man.
But wicked man was not ther creating the universe, and all life. Nothing at all says it was not created. Nothing says we came from germs, viruses, or bacteria, or anything you cook up in a lab.

I wonder if, should science truly find the Fountain of Youth as some say may happen in as soon as twenty years, if people like you will proclaim it and panacea treatments to be 'marks of the Beast'.

More like a not so sharp box cutter.

...The benefits and downsides of science, a not so sharp box cutter? In this case, we are talking about the difference between finding novel cures for diseases, and novel ways of making them.

They better. I assume they always will, as long as they are hell bound to back up the so far baseless claims! Until we stop them, as I assure you, when Jesus comes, we will.

Your claim is fare more baseless than theirs.

In other word, assuming no creation, and if processes of the present were in effect, and laws, they look for ways to make a plausible creation replacement story.

'Assuming no creation'.

Personally, I like the Norse myth better. I just find getting licked into being by a giant cow to be far more amusing. But then, at least the Hindu myths have more reasonable dates.

They admit they can't really address the problem, but hope to address the damage, and prolong life that way. A couple of points there. When I first got saved, I was told that as the end time gets progressing, and knowledge even more increased, we would see things like that. They said cancer would likely be cured, and we may even live for long long times.
So, if there was time for something like this to progess, I would not be surprised. After all, it says in the bible, that men will want to die, in the end here, but won't be able to!

Well, the addressing of the problem via addressing the damage is pretty much the same thing. You can't - and don't want to - stop mutations, for instance, but you do want to make sure that cancerous ones are better controlled, etc.

Pure dreams, as I said! It was made after man was. What you are basing everything on here is pure uncut belief, and assumptions! You assume the sun is a result of the big bang. You assume that the universe was always in the present physical only state. You can't prove it, and have NO science to back that up. So, stop right there. All the rest on top of this is a house of cards, and useless dreaming.

That deserves a different topic, and these posts are getting annoyingly long. If you want, make a new thread about the big bang and/or stellar evolution and I (and probably others) will go over the evidence, of which there is quite a bit.

That factor is fine. Minimal change since Christ. That is not affecting the far past.

Coral reefs from the Devonian do suggest that, at one point, Earth had a 400+ day year. Even if you don't believe the age, the reefs are factual evidence that the Earth was spinning much faster.

So, what exactly are you saying? That our atmosphere came from life?

This is a known fact. Our atmosphere is not chemically stable - iron rusts, copper corrodes, fire burns... so many things oxidize in Earth's atmosphere because oxygen likes to bind with things that aren't itself.

So what???? 'They really have not a clue what it was really lkie, but, what the hec, so what?' Are you kidding?

You are confusing 'no clue' with 'a limited number of possible atmospheres based on a large number of others since ruled out'. This means that any proposed hypothesis has to fit a slowly shrinking set of plausible scenarios.

Anyone hear this guy??? That is absurd. 'Oh, we have no proof whatsoever that evolution has to be traced back to a rock crack, or no clue what the atmosphere was actually really like. But if we make a frankenbacteria, then we will model our part of the universe after what atmospher they prefer.'

Religion, in all it's glory, uncovered, and proud of it! AntiGod religion.

Well, if you call it religion, it is a religion that has delivered on its premise, which is more than can be said for your breed of Christianity.

Since there is no evidence for an old earth at all, it is based solely on assumptions the past was the same, and you admit that this stuff is weaker than that, you are welcome to your religion. No thanks, I have my own beliefs.

That is untrue. Again, start a thread on the issue asking for said evidence, and we can go over isochrons or whatever else tickles your fancy.

Because we have known quantities in math, or we would have no answers.

What is the Universe but an ultracomplex mathematical puzzle?

What you are arguing against uses chemical and statistical equations , in the end.

Playing with cells, and such as applied to diseases may be alright. But you cannot apply it to crack scum.

I find it odd. You twist and expand on my words, inserting things that were not there previously - like this crack business. There's nothing wrong with that -specific instance-, but do you realize you do this? Is it because you read things that aren't there, or are you actively mislabeling your opposition?

That there is hope.

Hope.

Religion offers hope, yes. Lead a good life, and bear your suffering well, and you will be granted a greater position in the life after. No, we can't show you any proof, you just have to have faith. Faith that food will be on your table. Faith that you will have a warm place to sleep. Faith that your illness will just go away. Faith that you will be able to cope with the loss of that limb. Faith that your friend's spasms are simply the possession of a demon...

Science offers a way. Put in some effort, and you can make your life, and those of others, better. Science makes it plausible - here today, if everyone did work together, to build Heaven on Earth. Few doubt that, if cooperation were possible. A century ago it would be impossible - but now...?

Science feeds billions. Science warms billions. Science has cured countless diseases, and is toiling at the root causes of disease itself. Science lets us reattach, and in limited cases even replace lost limbs. Science explains your friend's epilepsy, and can mitigate the results.

That God answers prayers.

You have hope that God will answer your prayers. If you have a lethal bacterial infection, and could only choose one or the other, which would you? Penicillin and antibiotics or prayer from a like number of friends and family as would otherwise be involved in curing you?

That we are very very important, and significant.

Right, the Earth is God's footstool, significant? Compared with the potential of being the only sentient life in the Galaxy?

See, where you see insignificance, I see potential. We have the ability to outgrow our humble origins, and earn our place amongst the stars. That is by far grander than simply being given a 'you're special' badge.

Creationism is just a part of Christian, and some other beliefs. And just look at a roster of charities sometime! Are Christians represented? Yes, to a large extent.

Yes, christians in America are generous. So?

What about what you and your limited material only vision and instruments an't see? That is what we deal in. Can you see happiness, fulfillment, and changed lives???

I've advised two women who were considering abortion because their boyfriends demanded it of them. I highly doubt I made that much of a difference in their decisions, but that's two lives that might not have been. My nontheism does not preclude me from caring.

When a doctor saves a life, or a researcher cures a disease, or a bone is mended, or some other triumph of progress is made, lives are changed.

No.

Prove it.

Can you see healings, and miracles?

My grandfather went through several heart attacks before he passed away. His perseverance, and his doctors' skill, were his healings. When he died, he was ready, and he died no sooner than when he was ready to pass on.

The only faith healings I've seen are quacks giving people false, limited hope, working for their own fame or fortune at the expense of a gullible people.

Miracles? What's more impressive, some vague mumbo-jumbo that might have been, or the ability to, on little notice, journey a thousand miles in a day?

Or the contraptions before me - roughly fifty billion transistors, little gates all moving in tandem, each one working tirelessly and flawlessly, for months on end.

Or the Smallpox Eradication Program. Science declared war on the most horrible, grotesque disease in human history and won.

Religion has nothing to compare to that.

No.

Nice try.

Can you see the afterlife that is forever and ever, where those Christians teach of Jesus will go???

You rant about evidence on one hand, then pull this. Why should I ever believe such a thing? Perhaps I should post that elsewhere. It's a valid question.

No.
How dare you think your science can dream of holding a candle to us????

Indeed. It doesn't hold a candle to religion. Religion holds the candle. Science first held the limelight, then the arc light, then the atomic bomb, then fusion and the power of the stars themselves.

Science sans religion is boring. Religion without science is atrocious.

Science gave some good things, but also nuclear weopns, and cluster bombs, and chemical, and bio weapons!

Above, you said it was a dull razor blade instead of a double-edged sword. Which is it?

It gave us abortions, of which there are now something like 46 million a year.

Abortion and infanticide reach back to the paleolithic. They are no more science than fire is.

It gave us cars, that kill more than wars. It gave us toxins, and all kinds of things.

We consider cars worth it, obviously, else we wouldn't be using them. Even still, the American Civil War still has a comparable death toll.

Blargh, post too long :-/ Snipped some less important parts.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And I could glue a toothpick on my eye, and claim I decended from a stick man, I suppose. Cut the games here, and the claims, and deal in reality, and hard evidence.

This seems a strange thing to say.

Is there "hard evidence" of special, God-driven creation?

-t

 

[Dr.GH]

The best single book currently in print on Origin of Life (OOL) is Iris Fry, 2000 "The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview" Rutgers University Press.

There have been some more recent books, but none better. This is too bad because there has been a flood of new research since 2000 that needs a unified presentation.

Robert Hazen's recent book is to focused on his own work
(good work, but hardly the only important work). Creationists Fazale Rana, and Hugh Ross had a recent book out, 2004 "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off" that is just terrible. It is basically incompetent; there is a gross misrepresentation of the current science, basic bibliographic references are grossly flawed, their so-called "model" lack differentiation from scientific research or is false. Really poor. I had to use color coded "post it notes" to keep track of the different categories of errors; fact, logic and scholarship (I used orange, yellow, and green).