Pick up a biology textbook and read it. You aren't paying me enough to give you remedial science instruction.
You won't see replies, the appearance of DNA is a mystery.
Upvote
0
Pick up a biology textbook and read it. You aren't paying me enough to give you remedial science instruction.
To be fair there is really nothing astoundingly unique about biological compounds. They are chemicals pure and simple.
The fact of the matter is that ORGANIC chemistry is a rich chemistry because of the SIZE and CHARGE of the C atom. It has the ability to bond reasonably strongly with itself and form a wide variety of compounds using a few elements.
You are arguing from a weak position of "incredulity of the probabilities". In point of fact these compounds are in no way "impossible" to form and they are OBVIOUSLY able to survive on earth since...they have done so.
If there is some requirement of supernatural agency to this point then it is incumbent upon you to show how there is NO NATURAL way these things could have survived.
The point of chemistry is that we understand a great deal about the compounds.
In the biochem books I have on my shelf here I never read that. Which scientists made such a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE CLAIM? And did they know any chemistry?
Does this have anything to do with the origin of life?
Currently we do know about most of the compounds life forms are made of. So?
You want to explain how RNA & DNA originated on earth? The physio-chemical-environmental conditions and processes?
To be fair there is really nothing astoundingly unique about biological compounds. They are chemicals pure and simple.
The fact of the matter is that ORGANIC chemistry is a rich chemistry because of the SIZE and CHARGE of the C atom. It has the ability to bond reasonably strongly with itself and form a wide variety of compounds using a few elements.
You said that macro-evolutionary changes happen in single generations. I said that the existence of transitional fossils prove you wrong because they have intermediate characteristics. Here:
The change between A and N is macro-evolution and took millions of years. The change between M and N (or A and B) is micro-evolution.
That's the problem, the charge of the atom that science ignores in every theory of the cosmos or evolution. Chemistry is "rich" as you put it because there exists enough energy to complete the binding process. But outside of chemistry or atomic theory, energy and charge become words never mentioned.
One would think if evolution did exist, the most likely agent would be what binds the very genetic and atomic structure together and makes chemistry possible to begin with.
But I have yet to see one single creature, be it cat, dog, bacteria or virus, evolve into anything more complex, or anything other than what it already was.
I also have personally never observed inorganic matter spontaneously become organic
So upon what scientific basis do you or anyone proclaim that inorganic matter became organic?
So why does everyone shy away when the discussion of this very energy that controls the atomic structure comes into play? How does one divorce energy from the equation when science proclaims energy is everything? E=mc^2.
Looks like Photoshopped photos. Clearly an honest comparison shows a lot more difference between the species. Some good examples can be found on boneclones dot com.The change between M and N (or A and B) is micro-evolution.
And their chemistry is fully explicable via regular chemical reactions, no supernatural or "design" necessary to explain them.
So why would the ORIGINS of these things require and intelligence to come about?
I'm not saying that these things are NOT complex, nor am I saying that the origins of them are not complex. But complexity does NOT mean that only intelligence can form it!
Some time in the 1980's scientists realized that RNA can do some important things like storing genetic information and cause reactions that can copy itself.
So the goal is to understand the formation of the nucleic acids.
Since Miller-Urey scientists have learned more about the early conditions and refined the experiments and have been successful at formulating many complex biochemically relevant compounds using conditions thought most appropriate to the early earth
But if you think about using your geochemistry you can see a great deal of comparative concepts.
How does a crystal know to grow in the same habit that the seed crystal is in? It does so because of basic chemical coordination. In a sense it passes along the information to the succeeding generations of crystalline layers.
Why does PERTHITE form? Because at higher temperatures Na and K can fit in the same feldspar crystalline lattice but as it cools they exsolve, the Na cannot fit where the K does. The crystal is defining the "information" via its lattice. There is no "design" necessary to form this "plaid" like structure:
tOrganic chemistry is very different from inorganic but the idea of transmitting information via chemical coordination isn't really that different. It's a difference in the complexity of the system, perhaps, but no less striking.
And surely you wouldn't require an "intelligence" to have created this:
This stuff (Fluorite) forms spontaneously in nature.
Looks like Photoshopped photos. Clearly an honest comparison shows a lot more difference between the species. Some good examples can be found on boneclones dot com.
Ah, I see.
I was thinking more about Hox gene changes where say the organism grows another pair of legs. I'd have to guess that such an individual might become a proverbial 'Eve' of a new six legged organism that gives birth to more six legged organisms. To me that could be construed as a form of macroevolution in a single generation. I see your point however.
You are not recognizing the primary problem - complexity beyond any possible random or self organisation.
This is about the biological-biochemical origin of RNA & DNA and not a listing of chemical compounds and reactions.
The environmental and thermodynamics alone has lead many biochemists to think extraterrestrial formation conditions could have been more favorable over formation conditions on earth.
Additionally, you mentioned the Miller-Urey experiment of crudely forming select amino acids. The "soup" components for just amino acids, vesicles, and phospholipids in the appropriate concentrations defy any common localized geological compositions, like hydrogen gas, methane, ammonia, lack of oxygen, presence of reduced phosphorous, carbon monoxide, limits on calcium, magnesium, iron, and silica concentrations, buffeted pH during most condensation reactions. Then once precursors are present what keeps them from dilution, thermal, salinity, and pH degradation or negative reactions with themselves or "contaminates", like sulfides and oxides and even inorganic surface active or ion contaminated particles?
The level of trust Naturalists have that this event occurred is beyond common speculation.
They have zero evidence
but megatons of trust. This is why I question their acute resistance to the possibility of the Spiritual World existing. Their openness appears towards the physical realm only, even life originating on Mars!
Actually I am recognizing the primary problem. This complexity of which you speak is NOT beyond these bounds (and I must point out that chemistry isn't really "random", while there are stochastic drivers to reactions, it would be technically improper to consider it purely random since there are rules and "biases" that drive reactions, etc.).
And RNA and DNA are chemical compounds.
So? There is still no indication that such requires an Intelligent Designer.
But this is simply arguing from incredulity of the probabilities. That still doesn't mean it cannot happen without an intelligent designer.
Actually it is not. Think about it from a non-supernatural/non-theistic view (which is what ID comes assymptotically close to doing).
You want these probabilities to be so low as to eliminate the very possibility of the chemistry working.
But given that the chemicals are all following the exact same chemistry seen all across nature (without any intelligent designer necessary to run it) and given that no reactions are occuring that cannot occur (even with a catalyst, and remember, catalysts exist throughout nature, some inorganic, some organice) then one has all the pieces parts necessary to explain life's origins if not yet the exact step-by-step process.
If I come across a chemical product that is a natural complex molecule; do I assume that the ONLY way there is to have arrived at this was through an intelligent agent? Or am I allowed to first assume that common reactions could have formed it?
You mean other than the known chemical reactions which CAN result in many of these products?
Of course it does! By definition. The physical realm is the only thing we can all agree exists and we all experience it roughly the same.
The "Spiritual Realm" is experienced differently by all observers and arrives at gods in plenty many of whom are mutually exclusive of other gods meaning that these two gods cannot co-exist, yet in the MINDS OF THE COLLECTIVE OF BELIEVERS they do.
It is as if we have a physical realm in which a single force acts to repel things according to some observers and attract things to others and yet a third group of observers fails to see any force at all.
The spiritual realm is not testable or useful there. The physical realm, while imperfectly known is still at least TESTABLE.
You and fellow Naturalists are the kings of understanding physical existence.
But scrap the Spiritual Realm.
Naturalists are the ones who know the least about the Spiritual World and its dynamics.
You have been effected by the Spiritual powers all your life and have been blind to it. Why?
Ahem...might I point out that many of us started out with religious beliefs and convictions and I have spent my fair share of time trying "figure out" these "dynamics" of which you speak.
Interestingly enough, even though I spent years and decades in introspection and reading and studying the "dynamics" started to look an AWFUL lot like people's "imagination".
I'm not saying that they are, just that these "dynamics" seem to fit every person according to what their imagination is. And that is when I start to ask myself whether there really IS any "dynamic" to understand.
Blind to it? That's awfully presumptuous of you! You make it seem as if my decades of striving to "understand God" were somehow "wrong"!
I simply came to a point where my "understanding" differs markedly from YOURS.
You'll note in this thread that YOU start off rolling out technical things and telling me I need to learn more geology. When I present counterarguments you seem to go running to these claims about "spiritual" stuff.
Were you scared by the technical push-back?
But please do me the favor of at least showing some degree of respect for my efforts in these so-called "Spiritual" understandings.
Thank you.
Spiritual dynamics are similar to a relationship with God, most people hear about them but do not expeirence them.
Jeremiah 29:13 states: "you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart"
It all starts with finding Him. The events to follow are amazing. They are to be firsthand experienced, not what others say which is second-hand information.
I spent about 30 years trying to contact God. I did my part....can't make excuses for Him.
Believe me... I did. But since I arrived at the "wrong" result I'm sure many Christians will be happy to remind me how I did it wrong.
If I could pass along even a FRACTION of the pain I felt in my efforts to you you would collapse under the weight of it.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. It may be that way for YOU but not for everyone. Certainly not for me.
And that's the whole point about "spiritual dynamics"....every observer experiencing something different. What good are they in explaining reality then?
The questions in the OP are simple. Do Evolutionists have evidence of how life started on earth?
This is why we study places like Deep Sea Hydrothermal vents.
And geochemically, we can look for markers of life in the rock record. Some markers are unique to specific groups and compounds. Meaning we can trace the biomarker to a specific group. Then we can look at the rocks themselves to determine seawater chemistry at the time of formation.
But you are supposed to be a geochemist who has credentials from...(I have no idea where since you just say you have them)...some magical university and should already know this.
So, what point do you think you are making here?
No you are not. Your time as a Naturalist to speak up about the origin of life on earth is now.
In the case I cited, it happened in less than 10 generations,
That's rather typical of your flippant attitude I'm afraid.
FYI, I am still curious what kind of data that you think would constitute evidence that life occurred purely on "accident".