If evolution is true

pitabread · Oct 6, 2021

inquiring mind said:
So, you've discovered the origin of DNA???

I didn't say *I* discovered the origin of DNA. Rather, I said we can synthesize DNA (e.g. build it from chemicals).

We don't appear to need divine power to make DNA or DNA-like structures.

dlamberth · Oct 6, 2021

inquiring mind said:
You make fun of Divine power and all you have is a 'chemical reaction'???

When I look at life forms, I'm kind of thinking that both are in play here. Though I suspect that there may be some quibbling over what the "Divine Power" part is and how it's manifested into this physical world.

inquiring mind · Oct 7, 2021

dlamberth said:
When I look at life forms, I'm kind of thinking that both are in play here. Though I suspect that there may be some quibbling over what the "Divine Power" part is and how it's manifested into this physical world.

Certainly, I agree that both are in play. For me, the question boils down to: “What are the odds (leaving my religious belief out of it) of chemical reactions from scratch, and on their own, resulting in the complex person you are today (not to mention all the other life forms)?” Simple as that. For me personally, the odds against that are far greater than the likelihood of divine intervention, even without evidence for those who won’t let themselves see it. And, even if it is not to you the odds are of such magnitude that, well, why would you discount divine intervention as even a possibility. Scientific study and advancements are a great thing; I only get ‘crossways’ with those who let it become a barrier to God.

tas8831 · Oct 7, 2021

inquiring mind said:
You make fun of Divine power and all you have is a 'chemical reaction'???

You employ the fallacy of begging the question and you actually think you've made a good gotcha? Amazing...
Pity that this 'Divine power' just sits on its butt while the world burns...

tas8831 · Oct 7, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Sorry, I see you asked this again... missed it. I don't know, that's the way Divine power works.

Talk about blind faith... Sad.

tas8831 · Oct 7, 2021

Surely, the resident apologist (@inquiring mind) with no science background will dismiss this as 'googling', but perhaps he should try some 'googling' instead of trying to argue using platitudes and fallacies and mere child-like dismissals of that which he cannot comprehend - if you need help with the relevant science terms, don't be ashamed to ask (be ashamed to try to argue against it all with mere dismissals or referrals to tribal deities):

Unified reaction pathways for the prebiotic formation of RNA and DNA nucleobases†
Yassin Aweis Jeilani,*a Phoenix N. Williams,a Sofia Waltona and Minh Tho Nguyen*b

Abstract
The reaction pathways for the prebiotic formation of nucleobases are complex and lead to the formation of a mixture of products. In the past 50 years, there has been a concerted effort for identifying a unified mechanism for the abiotic origin of the biomolecules but with little success. In the present theoretical study, we identified two prominent precursors for the building up of RNA and DNA nucleobases under prebiotic conditions: (a) 1,2-diaminomaleonitrile (DAMN), which is a tetramer of hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and (b) formamide, a hydrolysis product of HCN; it is important to emphasize that HCN is the source of both precursors. We find that free radical pathways are potentially appropriate to account for the origin of nucleobases from HCN. The current study unites the formamide pathways with the DAMN pathways. The mechanisms for the formation of the RNA and DNA nucleobases (uracil, adenine, purine, cytosine) were studied by quantum chemical computations using density functional theory at the B3LYP/6-311G(d,p) level. All the routes involved proceed with relatively low energy barriers (within the error margin of DFT methods). We showed that the radical mechanisms for the formation of nucleobases could be unified through common precursors. The results demonstrated that 4-aminoimidazole-5-carbonitrile (AICN), which is a known precursor for nucleobases, is a product of DAMN. The overall mechanisms are internally consistent with the abiotic formation of the nucleobases, namely (a) under a meteoritic impact scenario on the early Earth's surface that generated high internal energy, and/or (b) in the (gas phase) interstellar regions without the presence of catalysts.

Generation of RNA Molecules by a Base-Catalysed Click-Like Reaction
Dr. Giovanna Costanzo,Prof. Raffaele Saladino,Dr. Giorgia Botta,Dr. Alessandra Giorgi,Dr. Anita Scipioni,Dr. Samanta Pino,Prof. Ernesto Di Mauro,
First published: 30 March 2012

Abstract
Spontaneous polymerization of 3′,5′-cyclic GMP occurs in water, in formamide, in dimethylformamide, and (in water) in the presence of a Brønsted base such as 1,8-diazabicycloundec-7-ene. The reaction is thermodynamically favoured and selectively yields 3′,5′-bonded ribopolymers.

Abstract
The problem of the abiotic origin of RNA from prebiotically plausible compounds remains unsolved. As a potential partial solution, we report the spontaneous polymerization of 3′,5′-cyclic GMP in water, in formamide, in dimethylformamide, and (in water) in the presence of a Brønsted base such as 1,8-diazabicycloundec-7-ene. The reaction is untemplated, does not require enzymatic activities, is thermodynamically favoured and selectively yields 3′,5′-bonded ribopolymers containing as many as 25 nucleotides. We propose a reaction pathway on the basis of 1) the measured stacking of the 3′,5′-cyclic monomers, 2) the activation by Brønsted bases, 3) the determination (by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry, by 31P NMR, and by specific ribonucleases) of the molecular species produced. The reaction pathway has several of the attributes of a click-like reaction.

Abiotic synthesis of purine and pyrimidine ribonucleosides in aqueous microdroplets
Inho Nam, Hong Gil Nam, and Richard N. Zare

See all authors and affiliations

PNAS January 2, 2018 115 (1) 36-40; first published December 18, 2017; Abiotic synthesis of purine and pyrimidine ribonucleosides in aqueous microdroplets
Significance
Discovery of an improved prebiotic method for the synthesis of ribonucleosides provides support to theories that posit a central role for RNA in the origin of life. It has been assumed that ribonucleosides arose through an abiotic process in which ribose and nucleobases became conjoined, but the direct condensation of nucleobases with ribose to give ribonucleosides in bulk solution is thermodynamically uphill. We show a general synthetic path for ribonucleosides, both purine and pyrimidine bases, using an abiotic salvage pathway in a microdroplet environment with divalent magnesium ion (Mg2+) as a catalyst. Purine and pyrimidine ribonucleosides are formed simultaneously under the same conditions, which suggests a possible scenario for the spontaneous production of random ribonucleosides necessary to generate various types of primitive RNA.

Abstract
Aqueous microdroplets (<1.3 µm in diameter on average) containing 15 mM D-ribose, 15 mM phosphoric acid, and 5 mM of a nucleobase (uracil, adenine, cytosine, or hypoxanthine) are electrosprayed from a capillary at +5 kV into a mass spectrometer at room temperature and 1 atm pressure with 3 mM divalent magnesium ion (Mg2+) as a catalyst. Mass spectra show the formation of ribonucleosides that comprise a four-letter alphabet of RNA with a yield of 2.5% of uridine (U), 2.5% of adenosine (A), 0.7% of cytidine (C), and 1.7% of inosine (I) during the flight time of ∼50 µs. In the case of uridine, no catalyst is required. An aqueous solution containing guanine cannot be generated under the same conditions given the extreme insolubility of guanine in water. However, inosine can base pair with cytidine and thus substitute for guanosine. Thus, a full set of ribonucleosides to generate the purine–pyrimidine base pairs A-U and I-C are spontaneously generated in aqueous microdroplets under similar mild conditions.

Synthesis of pyrimidines and triazines in ice: implications for the prebiotic chemistry of nucleobases.

Abstract
Herein, we report the efficient synthesis of RNA bases and functionalized s-triazines from 0.1 M urea solutions in water after subjection to freeze-thaw cycles for three weeks. The icy solution was under a reductive, methane-based atmosphere, which was subjected to spark discharges as an energy source for the first 72 h of the experiment. Analysis of the products indicates the synthesis of the s-triazines cyanuric acid, ammeline, ammelide, and melamine, the pyrimidines cytosine, uracil, and 2,4-diaminopyrimidine, and the purine adenine. An experiment performed as a control at room temperature, with the urea solution in the liquid phase and with the same atmosphere and energy source, led to the synthesis of hydantoins and insoluble tholin, but there was no evidence of the synthesis of pyrimidines or triazines. The synthesis of pyrimidines from urea is possible under a methane/nitrogen atmosphere only at low temperature, in the solid phase. The generation of both pyrimidines and triazines in comparable yields from urea, together with a possible role for triazines as alternative nucleobases, opens new perspectives on the prebiotic chemistry of informational polymers.

Just a sampling of the 2,850 returns I got when using Google Scholar, searching for 'abiotic generation of nucleobases'. Let's say half of them are irrelevant or redundant. That leaves 1400 research papers on abiotic synthesis of nucleobases. It took me far longer to copy paste the abstracts that it did to do the search - something you could do rather than smugly asserting we have no idea how these things came to be without Yahweh magic - for Whom's very existence there exists no evidence whatsoever (I do not consider hillbillies seeing Jesus' face on burnt toast proof, sorry).

And then there are the spontaneous generation of nucleotides... in space:

Abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides in conditions of space flight of the biosputnik “BION-11”

Abstract
The space satellite's surface can be looked at as a model of the small bodies in the Solar system, such as comets, carbonaceous chondrites and interplanetary dust particles which are rich in complex organic compounds. It is important to test how far the process of chemical evolution could develop on the surface of these bodies. The solid films from mixtures of adenosine, deoxyadenosine, cytidine or thymidine and NaH2PO4 were exposed to open space condition in flight experiment on board of “BION—11” satellite. (The time of flight was 14 days, temperature changed from −30 up to +100°C). The abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides has been observed. The summary yields were: for adenosine—5.8%, for deoxyadenosine—2.3%, for cytidine—4.7% and for thymidine —2.0%. Our experiment indicates that nucleotides could be synthesized in an early stage of the Solar system evolution and safely transported to the Earth by comets, asteroids and dust particles.

While even the most disingenuous, desperate, dishonest hack of a creationist knows that abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution, at least we can point to people actually trying to understand things. Whence the evidence or research for 'dust to Adam' God magic? Which creationist organization is sponsoring or engaging in research on the matter?

Slavish devotion to ancient tales and the deity described therein (but nowhere else) is cute, but not a very substantive or fruitful way for adults in the 21st century to live their lives.

Frank Robert · Oct 7, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Sorry, I see you asked this again... missed it. I don't know, that's the way Divine power works.

How about the divine power creating the natural process that we observe instead of fiddling with time and biology billions of times a day to deceive us.

inquiring mind · Oct 7, 2021

Frank Robert said:
How about the divine power creating the natural process that we observe instead of fiddling with time and biology billions of times a day to deceive us.

And you speak of deception. What you suggest may very well be true, but I can see your response to a creationist saying that now... ohhh the natural process we advocate beginning to end is correct, and we still see no evidence of God???

dlamberth · Oct 7, 2021

tas8831 said:
Amazing...
Pity that this 'Divine power' just sits on its butt while the world burns...

My understanding of Divine Power is that it is not in the form of a Greek/Roman pagan god. Those gods sit apart from life doing just what your suggesting.

tas8831 · Oct 7, 2021

dlamberth said:
My understanding of Divine Power is that it is not in the form of a Greek/Roman pagan god. Those gods sit apart from life doing just what your suggesting.

Ok... But other than the number of deities, I see no difference.

dlamberth · Oct 7, 2021

tas8831 said:
Ok... But other than the number of deities, I see no difference.

Divine power in the form often presented here, I agree. There are other way's of understanding Divine Power that look a lot different.

dlamberth · Oct 7, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Certainly, I agree that both are in play. For me, the question boils down to: “What are the odds (leaving my religious belief out of it) of chemical reactions from scratch, and on their own, resulting in the complex person you are today (not to mention all the other life forms)?” Simple as that. For me personally, the odds against that are far greater than the likelihood of divine intervention, even without evidence for those who won’t let themselves see it. And, even if it is not to you the odds are of such magnitude that, well, why would you discount divine intervention as even a possibility. Scientific study and advancements are a great thing; I only get ‘crossways’ with those who let it become a barrier to God.

I'm of the school where the physical aspect evolved over time. I have no problem with understanding the 5 billion years for that to happen. The Divine on the other hand, as I experience it, comes into existence when our soul enters the physical body. Thus we are of two forces that come together as One and make us whole. There's the Divine through our Soul and there's the Earth through the body.

pitabread · Oct 7, 2021

inquiring mind said:
For me personally, the odds against that are far greater than the likelihood of divine intervention, even without evidence for those who won’t let themselves see it.

How are you calculating those odds?

inquiring mind · Oct 7, 2021

pitabread said:
How are you calculating those odds?

I don’t… I read and use common sense. Undoubtedly, common sense means nothing to you, but a quick search provided some regurgitated food for thought concerning such probability:

ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Maybe you can give us an original thought on it, one way or the other… I can’t, the opening statement just made sense to me. From the title it sounds as though they may believe DNA came from space. Oh well, another argument I guess.

essentialsaltes · Oct 7, 2021

inquiring mind said:
ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Maybe you can give us an original thought on it, one way or the other…

Nothing original from me. Since this creationist argument is not original either.

The junkyard tornado, also known as Hoyle's Fallacy, is an argument used to deride the probability of abiogenesis as comparable to "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747."[1][2][3] It was used originally by English astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915–2001), who applied statistical analysis to the origin of life, but similar observations predate Hoyle and have been found all the way back to Darwin's time,[1] and indeed to Cicero in classical times.[4] While Hoyle himself was an atheist, the argument has since become a mainstay of creationist and intelligent design criticisms of evolution.

This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists. From the modern evolutionary standpoint, while the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbably remote, evolution proceeds in many smaller stages, each driven by natural selection rather than by chance, over a long period of time.

pitabread · Oct 7, 2021

inquiring mind said:
I don’t… I read and use common sense. Undoubtedly, common sense means nothing to you, but a quick search provided some regurgitated food for thought concerning such probability:

Common sense to me means, "don't think about it". Which is fine for situations when one has to make quick decisions with limited information (e.g. gut instinct).

It's not so useful for things where one can take their time to come to a conclusion. It just suggests that one doesn't wish to think about it.

ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Maybe you can give us an original thought on it, one way or the other… I can’t, the opening statement just made sense to me. From the title it sounds as though they may believe DNA came from space. Oh well, another argument I guess.

They're talking specifically about life not forming randomly (or more specifically talking about enzymes forming randomly). And that's the key word, "random".

Fortunately biochemistry isn't purely random and origin-of-life research focuses on specific scenarios by which life could have arisen via a chemical process.

tas8831 · Oct 8, 2021

inquiring mind said:
... and we still see no evidence of God???

That part is true.

Still waiting for the YEC research on Yahweh.

tas8831 · Oct 8, 2021

inquiring mind said:
I don’t… I read and use common sense.

No - you ignore and dismiss.

Undoubtedly, common sense means nothing to you, but a quick search provided some regurgitated food for thought concerning such probability:

You and your 'googling'....

ON MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY: "Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Ah - 2 non-biologist panspermia advocates using post hoc probability calculations for a pre-specified molecule.

The same hacks that signed on to Lee Spetner's (creationist non-biologist) laughable attempt to "prove" that 2 (of the 8 known at the time) Archaeopteryx fossils were fake. So great was their "research" that their amazing paper ended up being published in a... 3rd tier British photography magazine.

But you go with what your YEC handlers provide to you, and you keep using that "inquiring mind" and your fabled "common sense" - the common sense that leads you to believe without question that one of several ancient middle eastern tribal deities is the TROOO deity despite there being no actual evidence for its existence and worse -

leads you, despite YEARS going at this, that anybody actually claims that all of life's molecules just sprang forth at once due to "a random trial."

Apparently, strawman fallacies are 'common sense' to the non-scientist religionist.

Maybe you can give us an original thought on it, one way or the other… I can’t, the opening statement just made sense to me. From the title it sounds as though they may believe DNA came from space. Oh well, another argument I guess.

Your "arguments" need some work. Presenting nonsense from hacks is par for the YEC's course, of course. But it is tiring to see folks that fall for such nonsense due to their own slave-like devotion to their favorite deity tales pretend to be in possession of 'common sense.'

Frank Robert · Oct 8, 2021

inquiring mind said:
And you speak of deception. What you suggest may very well be true, but I can see your response to a creationist saying that now... ohhh the natural process we advocate beginning to end is correct, and we still see no evidence of God???

That would be an expected response from an atheist but there would be no disagreement about it being natural.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Oct 8, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Except that we have seen no evidence to suggest that time has been different in Earth's history than it has been to now.

The idea that time varies over time is really an incoherent idea - what would it vary in comparison to? If you claimed it ran slower or faster in the past, what difference would it make & how could you tell?

If evolution is true

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency