You may interpret it to mean this, but Darwin does not mention a cell... much less the first cell...anywhere.
"having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one"
Now, that is a very broad statement, isn't it? It means
any living organism, doesn't it? It could be complete multicellular organisms or also single celled organisms or both. As I said, evolution is separate from the origin of life. Darwin says that God could zap the first living organisms -- multicellular or single celled -- into existence and evolution happens afterward.
Quibbling over whether Darwin specifically says "cell" misses just how broad the statement is.
Genetics officially killed TOE when it could not be reconciled with the facts of genetics, and so the Synthesis was called.
Where did you get the idea that Mendelian genetics killed evolution? Instead, it strongly supported evolution.
Historically, evolution doesn't work under the theory of inheritance popular in Darwin's day -- blended characteristics. Such a theory of inheritance has favorable new traits "blended out" as the individual breeds with members of the population with the old traits. However, in Mendelian genetics, the new trait is kept! In fact, the mathematics of population genetics show precisely how the new favorable trait becomes more frequent from generation to generation until it replaces entirely the old trait.
On that day, on the east coast somewhere (I can't remember where) when these guys got together, spear-headed by Mayr I believe, these prominent biologists came up with what you now call the modern synthesis and put together their formula for success. TOE died,
You have gotten hold of some really, really outrageous false witness. Have you ever read a textbook on evolutionary biology? I strongly suggest Douglas Futuyma's
Evolution.
In the meantime, here are some reliable sources on the Modern Synthesis:
The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution
Modern evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Starting "The Modern Synthesis": Theodosius Dobzhansky
PLEASE read these.
Even if we grant that God just made one, original, first cell...the facts of nature dictate militantly against life ever getting off the ground.
Considering that you can make living cells from non-living chemicals in your kitchen, I would say that 1) someone lied to you about the "facts", 2) you are unaware of what the facts are, or 3) you are engaging in your own false witnes.
I have christian friends that believed in evolution too, until I showed them the facts of nature aside from the illegitimate and unwarranted assumptions that evolutionists teach as fact when they are not facts, they are only assumptions.
Considering your already poor track record of "facts" about the Modern Synthesis and the abiogenesis research, I bet your "facts" don't stand up.
The more mysteries of biology that are discovered, the more TOE recedes into the darkness of ignorant blind faith, not a fact-based faith.
Do you know what PubMed is? It is an electronic search engine for the Library of Medicine. Do a google search on "Pubmed" and then go to the site. Enter "evolution" as your search term. Then start reading the abstracts of
scientific article of facts all supporting evolution. It will take you awhile since there are nearly half of million of them!
It is not about atheism vs theism, it is about the FACTS taught as facts,
What I said was that when abiogenesis is introduced as part of evolution, THEN it is about the theism vs atheism fight. Because, as you have tacitly admitted, abiogenesis is not part of evolution.
It is not, and with enough factual evidence shown to you, I am confident that you will renounce it also.
Be my guest. Start a new thread entitled "facts that disprove evolution". If you haven't looked up my profile, perhaps I should tell you that I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry. So what you call "factual evidence" may not be as "factual" as you think.
First, if I didn't engage my brain and ask some very basic questions, I would also believe these articles...but I do.
As I said, I needed to get the articles from a library. So please prove to me that you have read the articles.
Second, these experiments are conducted in environments and with optically purified "nutrients" that are not possible in nature. Therefore, this discussion (the Harbinger) fails.
Actually, that is not the case. The protocells form just the same and behave the same when you use a racemic mixture of amino acids and also amino acids present abiotically but not presently used in directed protein synthesis in modern organisms:
Saunders MA and Rohlfing DL, Inclusion of nonproteinous amino acids in thermally prepared models for prebiotic protein. Biosystems 6. 81-92, 1974.
Protocells also form in a wide variety of simulate environments that occur in nature:
Snyder WD and Fox, SW. A model for the origin of stable protocells in a primitive alkaline ocean. BioSystems 7: 222-229, 1975.
Rohlfing, DL. Thermal polyamino acids: synthesis at less than 100°C. Science 193: 68-70, 1976.
Syren RM, Sanjur A, Fox SW Proteinoid microspheres more stable in hot than in cold water. Biosystems 1985;17(4):275-80 (protocells at hydrothermal vents)
Yanagawa, H. and K. Kobayashi. 1992. An experimental approach to chemical evolution in submarine hydrothermal. systems. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 22: 147-159.
McAlhaney WW, Rohlfing DL. Formation of proteinoid microspheres under simulated prebiotic atmospheres and individual gases. Biosystems 1976 Jul;8(2):45-50
Fouche-CE Jr; Rohlfing-DL Thermal polymerization of amino acids under various atmospheres or at low pressures. Biosystems. 1976 Jul; 8(2): 57-65
Remember, I said the Harbinger article was as place to
start. I never said it was all that has been done in the field.
Third, Fox has been discredited now for years, I am very surprised that you even bring him up...unless you are not up-to-speed on the latest science on the subject.
Actually, no he hasn't been discredited. Instead, the research effort shifted to how directed protein synthesis arose. What they want is a
modern cell, not a first cell.
Forth, another problem, unless it has been solved recently without my hearing about it, is the fact that amino acids originate from some form of life that already existed. Therefore, you cannot have amino acids in a world of non-living creatures...
That was solved a long time ago. There are LOTS of ways to get amino acids abiotically. The original Miller-Urey experiment did so. More recently it has been shown that amino acids will form via lightning in a variety of atmospheres:
1. Kawamoto K, Akaboshi H. Study on the chemical evolution of low molecular weight compounds in a highly oxidized atmosphere using electical discharges. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 12: 133-141, 1982.
2.
Primordial Soup's On: Scientists Repeat Evolution's Most Famous Experiment: Scientific American
3.
abiotic "The claim was never that life had been made, but only that the necessary molecules for life could form spontaneously. Since Wöhler synthesised urea in 1828, this was becoming an inevitable conclusion - the molecular nature of life was more and more widely accepted and applied. Now there was no need to think that organic molecules had to come from organic systems. Later experiments use a more realistic atmosphere, replacing methane with carbon monoxide or dioxide (CO or CO2), or ammonia with molecular nitrogen (N2), with similar results.
But amino acids are also made abiotically at hydrothermal vents:
3. J. P. Amend, E. L. Shock , Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in Hydrothermal Ecosystems, Science 281: 1659 - 1662 ,11 Sep 1998.
4. Marshall, W. H. 1994. Hydrothermal synthesis of amino acids. Goechimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58: 2099-2106.
And they are made on comets and other bodies in space:
2. MP Bernstein, SA Sandford, LF Allamandola, Life's far-flung raw materials. Scientific American 281: 42-49, July 1999. Astrochemists show that complex carbon compound, including amino acids, are present in interstellar clouds.
Where did the first amino acids come from (all of them that are required for a living cell)?
That is given above in this post.
When you do more research on the matter, you will find out that none of these "proteins" are recognized AS proteins we know today.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
We have cataloged over 10,000 full proteins at PIR which can be easily accessed in the protein research database...and not one of them appear in any "protocell" experiment.
Actually, you don't know that since, as far as I know, none of the protocell experiments ever did an amino acid sequence! So, you just told a big whopper!
A random polypeptide is NOT a protein.
LOL! Sure it is. Polypeptides are proteins. Proteins are polypeptides. Proteins are polymers of amino acids. Polypeptides are polymers of amino acids. When biochemists use the terms, "polypeptide" usually refers to a protein that is less than 10,000 MW. But not always.
The difference between the two is specificity...and a random polypeptide has none.
You really need to read a basic biochemistry text. I think Lehninger's
Biochemistry is still on the market. Now, it turns out that abiotic peptides are
not random. That was in the Harbinger article. Did you miss that?
Proteins, despite your article and your claim, do not form cells...not even protocells. You do understand that the cell membrane is constructed out of phospholipid molecules?
Even in modern cells, 60-70% of the cell membrane are proteins. Did you not know that? So yes, you can have a cell whose entire membrane is protein.
Phospholipids are only created from processes within the cell...so without an already viable, living cell, you do not have the lipids which construct a cell.
Actually, again you are incorrect about the source of phospholipids.
.
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/1116/16origin.htm
"However various experiments using the Miller-Urey apparatus, and different mixtures of gasses, have produced all 20 amino acids, ATP, some sugars, lipids and purine and pyrimidine bases of RNA and DNA."
Once you have lipids, there is enough inorganic phosphate around to phosphorylate them.
and none of these specific proteins are EVER mentioned in papers claiming protocell genesis (why...because they are never the right ones necessary for life).
Since none of the papers did amino acid sequences, of course they didn't mention specific proteins. Again you have told a whopper Don't you believe in the 9th Commandment?
However, the proteins forming the cell membrane in protocells are "right enough" to act as gatekeepers. They
must do so because protocells have the same action potential as modern nerve cells!
Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1984;10:301-7 Excitable artificial cells of proteinoid. Przybylski AT, Fox SW.
5. SW Fox, PR Bahn, K Dose, K Arada, L Hsu, Y Isima, J Jungck, J Kendrick, G Krampitz, JC Lacey, Jr., K Matsuno, P Mesius, M Middlebrook, T Nakashima, A Pappelis, A Pol, DL Rohfing, A Vegotsky, TV Waehneldt, H Wax, B Yu, Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell: it was also a protoneuron. J. Biological Physics, 20: 17-36, 1994.
In order to have an action potential, there must be different concentrations of ions on either side of the membrane. The only way to get that is proteins that are "gatekeepers" for the ions.
