Primordial Soup Based Origin of Life

[Heissonear]

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.

 

[Heissonear]

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?

 

[CarlosTomy]

Currently we do know about most of the compounds life forms are made of. So?

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!

You want to explain how RNA & DNA originated on earth? The physio-chemical-environmental conditions and processes?

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.

Info HERE

There's even reason to believe that "information polymers" may not have started with RNA (HERE)

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:

Organic 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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

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, and neither do I think has anyone in our entire history.

Theories of mice being spontaneously generated by rag piles in the days of old notwithstanding.

So upon what scientific basis do you or anyone proclaim that inorganic matter became organic? Don't get me wrong, with the application of enough energy, anything is possible. But isn't that what in essence we are searching for. What the source of this energy truly is?

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

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.

 

[CarlosTomy]

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.

No idea what you are going on about here. Energy is very important in chemistry.

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.

Huh? Evolution exists because we have life forms that can reproduce imperfectly and we have a selection mechanism (survival).

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.

And you won't because that isn't how evolution works. A creature doesn't change from one type to another by itself.

I also have personally never observed inorganic matter spontaneously become organic

Careful how you use those words: organic material is not longer limited to "life" (biochemistry).

But are you saying that you've never seen a Si atom become a C atom? And that means...what exactly?

So upon what scientific basis do you or anyone proclaim that inorganic matter became organic?

You are using the terms loosely and I'm not entirely certain I understand what you are asking. Are you asking if it would be possible that non-living material becomes living material?

I'd have to say "Yeah"....why not? There are plenty of organic compounds that arise from non-life processes all over the place. There is nothing magical about the chemistry of organic compounds (not to say there isn't a uniqueness to the C atom's ability to form a variety of compounds), but they all use regular chemical rules.

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.

I don't believe anyone is shying away from energy. As I pointed out earlier with my posting of the Gibbs Equation energy helps us understand why various chemical reactions occur.

 

[Theodor1]

The change between M and N (or A and B) is micro-evolution.

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.

 

[Heissonear]

Goldschmidt2013: Themes This is a link to a Keynote presentation on the origin of life could have started on Mars.

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.

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. And that's not a joke.

A Keynote speaker at this years Goldschmidt Conference on geochemistry addressed this, as linked in the first line above.

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?

Then the unlikely chemistry begins: the sequencing of specific molecules and their condensation reactions must precisely occur in series, with many thermodynamically unfavorable catalytic-required reactions. No one comes close to uunderstanding how RNA & DNA could ever through natural processes be assembled.

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!

 

[CabVet]

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.

It's not photoshopped.

 

[CabVet]

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.

Oh, now I see what you mean too. For something like that to work you would need lots of open niches and very little competition, something like what it was back in the Cambrian. Let me explain it more clearly. Today, the earth is so full of organisms well adapted to every single niche that anything "new" would have to be much much better than everything else already here to outcompete and survive, and that's very unlikely to happen.

Back in the Cambrian there were a lot of open niches, so evolution was free to "experiment" (for the lack of a better word). In other words, the evolution of something as radical as a new body plan requires a lot of open niches, something that we don't have today (or even 400 million years ago). So, those one generation changes might be happening today, but they don't get fixed because they are outcompeted by everything else out there.

 

[CarlosTomy]

You are not recognizing the primary problem - complexity beyond any possible random or self organisation.

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.).

This is about the biological-biochemical origin of RNA & DNA and not a listing of chemical compounds and reactions.

And RNA and DNA are chemical compounds.

The environmental and thermodynamics alone has lead many biochemists to think extraterrestrial formation conditions could have been more favorable over formation conditions on earth.

So? There is still no indication that such requires an Intelligent Designer.

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?

But this is simply arguing from incredulity of the probabilities. That still doesn't mean it cannot happen without an intelligent designer.

The level of trust Naturalists have that this event occurred is beyond common speculation.

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?

They have zero evidence

You mean other than the known chemical reactions which CAN result in many of these products?

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!

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.

 

[Heissonear]

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?

 

[CarlosTomy]

You and fellow Naturalists are the kings of understanding physical existence.

Why thank you!

But scrap the Spiritual Realm.

OK. I'm fine with that.

Naturalists are the ones who know the least about the Spiritual World and its dynamics.

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.

You have been effected by the Spiritual powers all your life and have been blind to it. Why?

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.

 

[Heissonear]

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"

In combination with: "Call to Me, and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know"

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.

 

[CarlosTomy]

Spiritual dynamics are similar to a relationship with God, most people hear about them but do not expeirence them.

I spent about 30 years trying to contact God. I did my part....can't make excuses for Him.

Jeremiah 29:13 states: "you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart"

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.

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.

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?

 

[Heissonear]

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?

Carlos,

I feel for you. I was but a Naturalist, a physical person in a physical realm and realized finally that I was basing my view of existence on faith. I was told Evolution and other parts of Naturalism was "reality" without controversy or faith, but through living along with academically learning Naturalism I learned the "faith" other Naturalists had to have to say what they did and even now say.

In openness I knew best to "give God a try". Being wrong in what I based life and existence on was a burden. If God was and I missed Him would not be the way to walk this life to myself or others.

To say the least He made Himself obvious to me. It was the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He appeared in His Shekiah Glory. The Bible became alive, with Scripture after Scripture being written on my spiritual heart.

But after this conversion by going to church and learning Christianity in this present world I seen and learned many alarming and saddening things. They centered primarily around "churches" and "denominations". I knew many with hurt and pain who struggled in these settings.

So on one side I seen the misuse of nature by Naturalists that brought darkness towards God and things above and beyond this physical life. And on there otherside what should be light and salvation l seen a different but similar darkness, which limited people from truely knowing Him and His dynamic realm in our midst.

What else can I say? He is. He will always be. The struggle to find Him in this life is great - on both sides. Very great of a struggle. But He is and to miss Him is the error in this world, everywhere we go.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

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?

 

[Heissonear]

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?

Window dressing the issue is not answering the fundamental questions.

Look back at earlier content and answer them, as a geologist. Give us insight to prior posted questions. Now is your time to step up, the stage is yours.

 

[Loudmouth]

No you are not. Your time as a Naturalist to speak up about the origin of life on earth is now.

Already spoke about it.

Why do we have to know where life came from in order to understand how life diversified once it did appear? Please explain.

 

[Loudmouth]

In the case I cited, it happened in less than 10 generations,

In bacteria, you can introduce a selective pressure that takes just one generation. There are mutations in other species that probably took thousands of generations to reach fixation.

That's rather typical of your flippant attitude I'm afraid.

It is rather flippant to assume that selection always fixes genes in the same number of generations.

FYI, I am still curious what kind of data that you think would constitute evidence that life occurred purely on "accident".

Life would appear as very simple life early on in the geologic record and then diversify over billions of years.