• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Primodial Soup

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Big Jase, Dec 23, 2003.

  1. gladiatrix

    gladiatrix Card-carrying EAC member

    +348
    Atheist
    Abiogenesis continued........
    PART 2--Good Theories make Predictions

    he Oparin-Haldane hypothesis (the "chemistry" of prebiotic Earth) , proposed by Oparin and Haldane in 1920 and extensively modified in the 1980s, also made the following predictions:

    BASED on the geological evidence documenting the early earth environment, IF the organism referred to as the Universal or Common Ancestor had the following characteristics
    • it would have been anaerobic
    • t would have been hyperthermophilic and halophilic
    • it would have been a chemolithoautotroph, obtaining both energy and carbon from inorganic sources, using H2 or reduced sulfur compounds as electron donors and CO2 or oxidized sulfur as electron acceptors to provide energy and fixing CO2 as their carbon source.
    THEN organisms possessing the above characteristics would be found in environments (this planet or other extraterrestrial environments like a early earth--Europa?) similiar to that of early biotic Earth.

    Has this prediction been verified (thus verifying the chemical spontaneous generation scenario????--->YES, by discovery of organisms inhabiting "extreme" environments HERE, NOW, on EARTH!!!-->Modern Chemolithoautotrophs


    MODERN CHEMOLITHOAUTOTROPHS
    These organisms are called "extremophiles" and here are more sites that describe some of them:

    Other Extreme Earth Life
    "Extremophilic" Archaea/Eubacteria
    Barotolerant(pressure resistant)organisms in deep sea enviroments (NOTE:75% of all ocean waters are deeper than 1000 meters)

    Barotolerant Bacteria Isolated from the Mariana Trench (11,000 meters!) pdf


    The existence of these organisms is seen as further evidence for the validity of abiogenesis.

    Other Useful Sites:

    Quetzal===>Abiogenesis-Or Better Living Through Chemistry (Summary of different hypotheses from EvC Forum)

    Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist/IDist Probabilities

    Lies, #$%@!! Lies, and Statistics, and the Probability of Abiogenesis

    THE ORIGIN OF LIFE: ABIOTIC SYNTHESIS OF ORGANIC MOLECULES (simple explanations of the chemistry)

    THE ORIGIN OF LIFE: ABIOTIC SYNTHESIS OF ORGANIC MOLECULES

    ORIGIN OF LIFE (powerpoint)

    Test-Tube RNA

    Reflections on a Warm Little Pond
     
  2. PhantomLlama

    PhantomLlama Prism Ranger

    +52
    Atheist
    Jesus doesn't have to be a myth. I think he is a historical figure, I just think that some of the stuff written about him is untrue or inflated.

    And the approach is vital. When I see a nice, polite, kind christian I warm towards christianity and think 'It's given him peace and made him a good person, maybe there is something to it'. When a christian like you comes alng you undo all that work.

    So god doesn't want me in heaven I guess. Not that I'd want to share heaven with a being that hardens my heart against conversion and then punishes me for not converting. I'll be perfectly happy in hell, thanks.

     
  3. gladiatrix

    gladiatrix Card-carrying EAC member

    +348
    Atheist
    Abiogenesis continued........
    PART 3--Abiogenesis, an Inorganic Solution???

    With respect to the current hiding place for the theist God-of-Gaps... There is another possibility for the beginning molecule, an inorganic one...



    Revolutionary New Theory For Origins Of Life On Earth


    The idea that life could have arisen in an inorganic form is not new. For those who don't know about it here is a synopsis of an older one that is very interesting, but was discarded for lack of supportive evidence....

    The Clay Crystal Hypothesis
    Scottish chemist Graham Cairns-Smith proposed a simpler idea less dependent on the atmosphere. References for his work can be found HERE.

    Graham Cairns-Smith suggested that perhaps the first living things on Earth were not based on carbon and proposed that first life might have been a sort of clay crystal formed in the mud and made out of silicon dioxide crystals. His idea was based on the following:
    • Mineral crystals have the ability to grow by simply adding on to an existing crystal.
    • If a growing crystal breaks apart, the fragments of that crystal can continue to grow on their own. In a sense, this is self-replication, and it is a process that is essential for life.
    • Certain kinds of clays called kaolinite have the interesting property of growing in thin layers.

    Cairns-Smith proposed the following scenario:
    • The clay crystals began growing by adding layers to themselves, like adding pages to a book.
    • The growing crystals competed with each other for resources as they grew.
    • Some crystals would break apart, wash downstream or blow away "infect" new area where they would continue their growth and later fragmentation.
    • In the early Earth , the world would be populated by communities of competing clay“beings”.
    • Eventually, these clay creations would begin to incorporate carbon-based molecules into their living apparatus.
    • One way to do this would be the synthesis of DNA or RNA to augment clay-based genes. In time there would be a transition period where carbon based genetic material (DNA or RNA) would become a suitable alternative to clay-based genes. Cairns-Smith reasons that the clay idea provides a preparatory path for the ultimate synthesis of DNA or RNA, but doesn't not present a complete idea on how DNA came from clay.
    • The advance to carbon-based life would be complete. DNA would have been created, and the march of organic life could begin.
    • ADVANTAGE 1-->it makes no assumptions about the composition of Earth’s early atmosphere which is a major problem with other earth-based life hypotheses.
    • ADVANTAGE 2-->It also is founded on the simplest of crystal properties, that they have the ability to grow and “reproduce”, by fragmentation. This property is a true nature of crystals, and can be easily demonstrated.

    This idea is discussed under replicators at this site:

    Interesting Ideas in Evolution

    Another useful site:
    The Precambrian Era
     
  4. napajohn

    napajohn Senior Member

    895
    +0
    Non-Denom
    problems:
    as stated by Phillip Johnson was

    "Gerald Joyce, a biochemist who studies test-tube models of the RNA
    world at Scripps, says: "It's just beautiful work, people literally gasp
    when he talks about it." But he adds: "I wouldn't say it shows life
    started with peptides." The problem, says Joyce, is that while every
    piece of RNA can serve as a template, the type of protein templating
    that Ghadiri observes may be a rare phenomenon unlikely to arise
    without a chemist's nurturing. Ghadiri disagrees. "I don't believe I'm
    that lucky. How could I have picked the one peptide in a million that
    can replicate?"

    "Note that although Ghadiri claims that he wasn't "that lucky"
    to have "picked the one peptide in a million that can replicate", it
    is clear that he selected a molecule that could be split exactly
    into two "identical halves" an then they did just that. They
    then gave it a "solution of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments" from
    which it could readily build copies of itself"

    "There is another problem with such protein replication: it is too
    exact. If no errors occur, then there can be no natural selection
    and hence no evolution, for example, in the case of an artifical
    protein"

    ""They [MTE] only
    replicate in highly artificial, unnatural conditions, and even more
    importantly, they reproduce too accurately. Without mutations, the
    molecules cannot evolve in the Darwinian sense."

     
  5. Big Jase

    Big Jase Just A Dude "Big Jase"

    58
    +1
    Christian
    what i mean is... we know that a species evolves inside its own species like... dogs there is 100's of different types of dogs... we know that the evolved inside there own species.... but we don't beleve in human evolving from a different species...uno what i mean..we didn't come from monkeys....

    cheers...
     
  6. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +64
    Other Religion
    Then how do you explain endogenous retroviral insertions shared between human and chimp genomes if they didn't share a common ancestor?

    And how do you explain this sequence of fossil hominid skulls?
     
  7. Bushido216

    Bushido216 Well-Known Member

    +186
    Catholic
    Engaged
    US-Democrat
    It's generally accepted, actually, that Jesus lived and preached.

    The question is whether or not he is the Messiah or if he was just the best preacher under the sun.
     
  8. Bushido216

    Bushido216 Well-Known Member

    +186
    Catholic
    Engaged
    US-Democrat
    But there is no reason why humans and apes couldn't share a common ancestor, give what we know of natural selection's methods.
     
  9. Data

    Data Veteran

    +46
    Atheist
    Then when do you call a breed a new species?

    You realise that if a chiwawa and a great dane were found in the wild, they would be classed as different species? The only reason they are the 'same species' is because we bred them that way, and they aren't found in the wild. Differences in species can be very small compared to the differences we see in breeds of dogs.
     
  10. Karl - Liberal Backslider

    Karl - Liberal Backslider Senior Veteran

    +275
    Anglican
    Married
    UK-Labour
    Data, please, if the evolutionist side starts using "specie" as the singular of species I can't berate the creationist side for doing so. Give me back my phasor! ;)

    Back to the topic in hand...

    Big Jase quoth:

    Where to start? Scientific errors first methinks. The Big Bang is nothing to do with evolution, any more than the Norman Invasion is part of the study of Tudor foreign policy.

    On to the more general falsehoods - Christians the world over do accept the Big Bang, molecular precursors to life and so on. It is only a vocal minority, mostly based in the US, who actually insist on a literal interpretation of a clearly mythological ancient text as if it were a scientific document.
     
  11. Data

    Data Veteran

    +46
    Atheist
    Ack!
     
  12. fungle

    fungle Active Member

    689
    +9
    specii ?
     
  13. Data

    Data Veteran

    +46
    Atheist
    Both singular and plural are 'species', I think.

    Eh, I knew 'specie' looked horribly wrong.
     
  14. Bushido216

    Bushido216 Well-Known Member

    +186
    Catholic
    Engaged
    US-Democrat
    I like specii though.
     
  15. gladiatrix

    gladiatrix Card-carrying EAC member

    +348
    Atheist
    Nice cut and paste, but do you even understand what you have posted? I think not. Phillip Johnson is posting his opinion which seems to be that because peptides can be self-replicating that there is no possibility for selection to occur. This was NOT the point of the experiments, however, so Johnson's opinion is nothing but a strawman===>The point is that the peptide IS self-replicating and there are peptides that are chemical relatives of RNA, the PNAs and TNAs, a point totally ignored by both you and Johnson (how convenient!). Also, the amount of oxygen in the early atmosphere was less than 0.1%. Which is it that I suspect that you think the oxygen content was 20% like it is now. This is just plain wrong.

    For years, IDists/creationists have crowed that since DNA/RNA molecules today require proteins for replication that it was impossible for life as we know it today to have arisen spontaneously in a pre-biotic world (the "chicken", genetic inheritance, would have to come before the "egg", the proteins encoded by the genetic inheritance) . These experiments show that peptides can self-replication (no need for genes in cells to encode them FIRST). This can lead to self-replication/self-splicing with RNA molecules that don't require the use of proteins to replicate or for modification via intermediates (PNAs/TNAs?). An example of an RNA does not require proteins for self-modification is ribozyme discoverd by Cech (another bit of evidence by both you and Johnson). The RNA world may simply have arisen via intermediate molecules that bridged the "gap" between a self-replicating peptide/protein world and the type of life we have today (DNA/RNA "world")

    From HERE

    Comparison of RNA to peptide analogs that may have served as a bridge to the RNA/DNA genetic world today...
    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    In addition, there are proteins today encoded by DNA,lucaspa has also pointed out:
    This is where your/Johnson's "God-of-Gaps" ("but you can't explain last biochemical detail!") currently is hiding, in the gap between self-replicating peptides and RNA(not for long, be afraid be very afraid!)

    Incidentally, I notice that you didn't go anywhere near the evidence provided by the production of protocells which can be produced with very simple chemistry and perform many of the same functions that today's cells do. Here it is again, since you ignored it the first time:

    Life out of magma: a new theory for the origin of life, by Lucido, G.Nuovo Cimento Della Societa Italiana di Fisica D - Condensed matter, Atomic, Molecular and Chemical Physics, Fluids, Plasmas, Biophysics 20(12): 2575-2591; December, 1998
    For the ability of abiogenic proteinoids to self-organize into protocells the reference by Sidney W. Fox:
    The evolutionary significance of phase-separated microsystems. Orig Life. 1976 Jan;7(1):49-68. For more on the potential of Fox's proteinoid microspheres go to my previous post to Ikester'

    Of course, this idea requires "vesicular aggregates". But you can form vesicles on rock surfaces, which then enter the "soup"

    Origin of life. II. From prebiotic replicators to protocells, by Turian, G.Archives des Sciences 52(2): 101-109; August, 1999
    But can you get interesting chemistry in the microvesicles?

    Production of RNA by a Polymerase Protein Encapsulated within Phospholipid-Vesicles, by Chakrabarti, A.C., Breaker, R.R., Joyce, G.F., Deamer, D.W.Journal of Molecular Evolution 39(6): 555-559; 1994
    HERE is a post by lucaspa on the subject of both protocells and TNA

    To get a self-assembling "cell" (protocell) from non-living chemicals, go to the following sites, especially the second one:

    http://www.siu.edu/~protocell
    http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html


    BTW, you can cook these up in your kitchen....Lucaspa has a recipe! ( I see from doing a seach that you somehow managed to ignore the evidence he presented to you as well). Be aware that protocells form at 700 degrees centigrade at hydrothermal vents. Oceans can't get above 100 degrees C, so the oceans themselves serve a the first "kitchens" for life to arise via non-living chemistry quite nicely.

    If you argue that without DNA there can be no transmission of hereditary traits to "offspring" protocells from "parent" protocells, then you would be wrong. This is because the cytoplasm and protocell membrane (all composed of proteins) is divided so that the "offspring" protocells get the same proteins that the "parent" protocells had (when these "divide"). This is a form of inheritance albeit not the one based on DNA/RNA that cells have today. The point is that replication/inheritance is quite possible, based on non-living chemistry.


    In short, it's only a matter of time before we figure the process out...then where will your/Johnson's God-of-Gaps be then?
    .
     
  16. napajohn

    napajohn Senior Member

    895
    +0
    Non-Denom
    whoa Gladiatrix..slow down..I wasn't planning on giving a detailed response so close to Christmas..
    I will respond to this time permitting..but you make some incredible leaps here...
    Regarding my claim that prelife was 1 % oxygen is not supported by studies found by Clemmey and Badham "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence." Geology, v.10, 1982, p.141.

    supported by Zeschke, G., Transportation of Uraninite in the Indus River, Pakistan: Trans. Geol. Soc. South Africa, v.63, p.87.

    and Grandstaff, D.E., A Kenetic Study of the Dissolution of Uraninite: Economic Geology, v.71, 1976, pp.1493-1506.
    and
    Dimroth, E., and Kimberley, M.M., Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium and Iron: Canadian Journal Earth Science, v.13,1976, pp.1161-l185.
    these authors contradict the belief that we had an "anoxic" environment...
    read it for yourself...

    Its often found from these articles that the basis for the lack of oxygen in prebiotic conditions stem not from geological evidence but the desire to validate the conditions needed to simulate their darwinian suppositions.
     
  17. napajohn

    napajohn Senior Member

    895
    +0
    Non-Denom
    LOL Gladiatrix..did you even read your source?:

    here are some quotes I got out of it and this is from YOUR link:

    "TNA does not occur naturally today. Scientists have to create it in the lab in order to study it. Since we can't go back in time to witness the evolution of nucleic acids, we will never be able to prove whether natural TNA made an appearance on Earth. Indeed, says Eschenmoser, "talking about TNA as a a possible ancestor of RNA is actually premature."

    "Since the direct evidence has disappeared, it will require an inventive chemist to construct a persuasive scenario," says Dr. Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. "The important issue is whether or not it is possible to make TNA using potentially prebiotic chemistry. That remains to be seen."

    "But where did RNA come from? To date, no one has been able to form RNA under in the laboratory under conditions that mimic those believed to have existed on primitive Earth. Some scientists also question whether nucleic acids with a backbone of ribose, or any other sugar molecule, would be stable enough to survive the harsh conditions of early Earth."

    i focus on such words as "premature","inventive chemist to construct a persuasive argument","no one has been able to form RNA", "stable enough to survive"...
    Geez Gladiatrix sounds like Science is denying evolution as a fact..(actually fantasy and imagination would be a better choice)..Remember your side is claiming fact..yet these people of which you are using as source are at best in a stage of extreme cautionary hope..hope that somehow something out there can prove that life may have evolved as speculated by evolution..if anything its showing me that maybe evolution is not really the Fact that
    proponents claim and reputable scientists are leading the way to validate the holes of this so called theory.
     
  18. PreacherJoe

    PreacherJoe New Member

    59
    +4
    Christian
    I do not personally know any Christians who believe in the soup story. Of course anyone can call theirself a Christian but it takes faith to believe all of the bible is true.
     
  19. Bushido216

    Bushido216 Well-Known Member

    +186
    Catholic
    Engaged
    US-Democrat
    It takes more faith to believe the Bible is true when clearly Genesis 1:1-8 cannot be taken literally.
     
  20. ObbiQuiet

    ObbiQuiet Eating Heart

    +144
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Yeah, and I believe in General Relativity but I don't believe in gravity.
     
Loading...