The Genetic Code

[Kylie]

Oh my bad, I assumed everyone knows how to use a search engine.

Problems with Chemical Origins of Life Theories - etmcmull
Why the Miller Urey research argues against abiogenesis - creation.com

Have you got any sources from actual scientific sources? The first one, while from a university, still invokes God when it says that there must be some analogy for Miller himself, and the author says that this must be God (the author does not seem to properly understand how science works SOURCE). The second one is a creationist propaganda factory.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They are as possible as abiogenesis.

If you believe fairies are possible and abiogenesis is possible, what are you arguing against?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No, they believe life came from another life, an eternal one.

Really? Genesis 2:7 would disagree with you. It says Man was made from dust, then was brought to life.

 

[renniks]

Really? Genesis 2:7 would disagree with you. It says Man was made from dust, then was brought to life.

By the breath of God. Where did the life force come from? Not the dust.

"and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

 

[renniks]

If you believe fairies are possible and abiogenesis is possible, what are you arguing against?

Either being probable...as in, they are so improbable, they obviously didn't happen.

 

[renniks]

What evidence is there that shows abiogenesis is impossible?

Again that's backwards. That's not how true science works. You don't have to prove a negative. That's like saying what evidence do you have that there's not an alternative universe with another you? None. What evidence do you have that there is?

 

[renniks]

See, the thing is: What happens when/if some kind of self-replicating protocell-looking 'thing' shows up in a remote analysis lab sample lab on say, Europa, Mars, a comet, or an asteroid?

What happens if you find a pink unicorn on Mars? Nice fantasy you have there, it has nothing to do with reality, though.

 

[ottawak]

Again that's backwards. That's not how true science works. You don't have to prove a negative. That's like saying what evidence do you have that there's not an alternative universe with another you? None. What evidence do you have that there is?

Your claim that abiogenesis can't have happened is bootless without an alternative explanation which you haven't got.

 

[renniks]

Your claim that abiogenesis can't have happened is bootless without an alternative explanation which you haven't got.

Of course I do. A designer planted life on earth. Life from life is literally all we have observed...to suppose life happens without a preceding life is purely a stab in the dark.

 

[renniks]

We have abundant samples of life (which exist).
There are no samples of pink unicorns, or their bits.
The existence of pink unicorns, therefore is unjustified and not plausible.
We are now talking about much more simple peptides reacting within autocatalytic sets.
The problem you are referring to, has been solved in the lab (and in theory) by way of an observed phenomenon of autocatalysis in organic chemistry.

Kenji Ikehara
Evolutionary Steps in the Emergence of Life Deduced from the Bottom-Up Approach and GADV Hypothesis (Top-Down Approach) 2016 Mar; 6
(1) nucleotides have not been produced from simple inorganic compounds through prebiotic means and have not been detected in any meteorites, although a small quantity of nucleobases can be obtained.
(2) It is quite difficult or most likely impossible to synthesize nucleotides and RNA through prebiotic means.
(3) It must also be impossible to self-replicate RNA with catalytic activity on the same RNA molecule.
(4) It would be impossible to explain the formation process of genetic information according to the RNA world hypothesis, because the information is comprised of triplet codon sequence, which would never be stochastically produced by joining of mononucleotides one by one.
(5) The formation process of the first genetic code cannot be explained by the hypothesis either, because a genetic code composed of around 60 codons must be prepared to synthesize proteins from the beginning.
(6) It is also impossible to transfer catalytic activity from a folded RNA ribozyme to a protein with a tertiary structure.

 

[ottawak]

Of course I do. A designer planted life on earth. Life from life is literally all we have observed...to suppose life happens without a preceding life is purely a stab in the dark.

OK, I think it was God, not a designer, but that applies to abiogenesis just as well as it applies to whatever process you have in mind but haven't told us about yet.

 

[Hans Blaster]

By the breath of God. Where did the life force come from? Not the dust.

"and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

There is no "life force". Life is just electromagnetism expressed through chemistry.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

By the breath of God. Where did the life force come from? Not the dust.

"and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

What does that mean? You are claiming that a pile of inanimate dust can be animated (which isn't "life from life", by the way), but a different grouping of other chemicals cannot be animated. Can you justify that claim in any way, or is it just a case of special pleading?

 

[renniks]

There is no "life force". Life is just electromagnetism expressed through chemistry.

What a narrow-minded view of life.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What a narrow-minded view of life.

It's supported by evidence.

 

[SelfSim]

Kenji Ikehara
Evolutionary Steps in the Emergence of Life Deduced from the Bottom-Up Approach and GADV Hypothesis (Top-Down Approach) 2016 Mar; 6
(1) nucleotides have not been produced from simple inorganic compounds through prebiotic means and have not been detected in any meteorites, although a small quantity of nucleobases can be obtained.
(2) It is quite difficult or most likely impossible to synthesize nucleotides and RNA through prebiotic means.
(3) It must also be impossible to self-replicate RNA with catalytic activity on the same RNA molecule.
(4) It would be impossible to explain the formation process of genetic information according to the RNA world hypothesis, because the information is comprised of triplet codon sequence, which would never be stochastically produced by joining of mononucleotides one by one.
(5) The formation process of the first genetic code cannot be explained by the hypothesis either, because a genetic code composed of around 60 codons must be prepared to synthesize proteins from the beginning.
(6) It is also impossible to transfer catalytic activity from a folded RNA ribozyme to a protein with a tertiary structure.

Good post for demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of the topic being addressed in the paper your cite. Your post merely highlights the folly of Google searches, followed by an unthinking text search for disclosed, already known baseline hypothesis shortcomings, as your preferred (deceptive) debate tactic.

If you'd bothered to read the conclusion however, (and understand it), you'd realise that the author is aligning with the points I've been making about the pre-biologically significant, peptide-catalysts-first OOL hypothesis:

The probable evolutionary steps from the formation of the Earth to the emergence of life, which were deduced from the results obtained with the two approaches, are as follows:
(1) The primitive atmosphere composed of CO2, H2, H2O, N2, CH4, NH3, etc. was formed.
(2) Simple amino acids, such as glycine [G], alanine [A], aspartic acid [D], and valine [V], were physically and chemically synthesized and accumulated on the primitive Earth.
(3) Peptide catalysts, such as Gly-Gly, Gly-Asp, and [GADV]-peptides, were produced.
(4) The [GADV]-protein world was formed by pseudo-replication with [GADV]-peptides/proteins.
(5) Nucleotides and oligonucleotides (RNA) were synthesized and accumulated in the protein world.
(6) GNC primeval genetic code encoding [GADV]-amino acids was established.
(7) Single-stranded (GNC)n gene(s) and successively double-stranded (GNC)n gene(s) were formed.
(8) Finally, the first life emerged on the primitive Earth.

My post #266, which I've continually been referencing, shows more recent findings, (Feb 2022), which experimentally proves that the condensation of carbon atoms on the surface of cold solid particles (cosmic dust) ultimately leads to polymerization, to produce peptides of different lengths, skipping the amino formation in protein synthesis stage.

 

[Kylie]

By the breath of God. Where did the life force come from? Not the dust.

"and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

So life comes with breath?

Someone should tell all those "life begins at conception" people opposing abortion rights...

Don't reply to this. It will take the thread off topic and I don't want that.

 

[Kylie]

Again that's backwards. That's not how true science works. You don't have to prove a negative. That's like saying what evidence do you have that there's not an alternative universe with another you? None. What evidence do you have that there is?

This is quite wrong.

"Proof by contradiction" is used quite often. Assume something is true, then follow where it leads until you find something that contradicts with reality. Then you know that the initial assumption could not be true.

So here, let's start out with the assumption that abiogenesis is true. If it is actually false, then there should be something that stems from the assumption that it's true that is contradictory. Can you show me this contradiction?

 

[Mountainmike]

There is no "life force". Life is just electromagnetism expressed through chemistry.

An opinion. You are welcome to hold it. Given present limited menu science can only conclude that from the existing model.


But science has no real framework to understand consciousness.

And Plenty of evidence says otherwise.

How did an unconscious patient without cortex activity describe a meeting with a clinician and visitors about her in another part of a building , even describing the clinicians tie and a mark made by dropping food on the tie that morning? That got greyson intrersted in analysis of such experience leading to his papers and fascinating book.

There is far more evidence for out of body consciousness than (say) sexaquarks. That’s not to say sexaquarks don’t exist. There is just no evidence they do ( that I am aware of).

 

[renniks]

So life comes with breath?

Someone should tell all those "life begins at conception" people opposing abortion rights...

Don't reply to this. It will take the thread off topic and I don't want that.

Then you shouldn't have posted it. And that's a silly argument. God's breath bringing man to life doesn't equal life beginning when a baby starts to breathe. God originally started life here and created the laws that would allow his creation to reproduce life with every conception.