-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Genetic Code
- Thread starter oSitez
- Start date
Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,580
- 16,286
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
You've provided no such reference to an experiment that showed that experiments destroy the chemicals of life in the 60s or otherwise.
I followed the chain of replies backward until you weren't in them anymore. Not once have you quoted anything like "The XXX experiment in 196X showed that those conditions would have destroyed amino acids/nucleotides/whatever." Not once have you made such a post.
So if you claim there is scientific evidence about destroying the chemicals of life under the proposed OOL conditions --- PROVIDE THE REFERENCE.
Upvote
0
renniks
Well-Known Member
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
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,580
- 16,286
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
And I thought everyone knew that "Creaton.com" is a religious propaganda site, not a science information site.
(And as I said before Miller-Urey was in 1952 and is *not* a problem for chemical origins of pre-biotic molecules.)
Upvote
0
These issues have been resolved and superseded by modelling and also resolved in demonstrated experiments, as per the link I provided (which you've clearly ignored).
As follows:
5) Peptides found in Space:
A pathway to peptides in space through the condensation of atomic carbon, (Nature Astronomy, Feb 2022):
Organic molecules are widely present in the dense interstellar medium, and many have been synthesized in the laboratory on Earth under the conditions typical for an interstellar environment. Until now, however, only relatively small molecules of biological interest have been demonstrated to form experimentally under typical space conditions. Here we prove experimentally that the condensation of carbon atoms on the surface of cold solid particles (cosmic dust) leads to the formation of isomeric polyglycine monomers (aminoketene molecules). Following encounters between aminoketene molecules, they polymerize to produce peptides of different lengths. The chemistry involves three of the most abundant species (CO, C and NH3) present in star-forming molecular clouds, and proceeds via a novel pathway that skips the stage of amino acid formation in protein synthesis. The process is efficient, even at low temperatures, without irradiation or the presence of water. The delivery of biopolymers formed by this chemistry to rocky planets in the habitable zone might be an important element in the origins of life.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Taking a slight step backwards in time, (in terms of bio-chemistry research), there is a class of chemically quite simple organic reactions (see: Belousov–Zhabotinsky and Briggs–Rauscher reactions), which are capable of demonstrating complex behaviours, even oscillating behaviours which can go on indefinitely under certain conditions feasible in natural environment. These reactions were forerunner-contributors to modern-day autocatalysis research and thinking. They display both chaotic and ordered behaviours and those same characteristics are also evident in our own present-day biochemistry.
Miller Urey is 'ancient history' in terms of precursor molecular evolution research. I urge you to move on and get updated with modern research.
Upvote
0
Citation please.
I don't think anyone believes it, no matter how much you want to chant that mantra.
Creationists seem to think human life came from dust - which is odd since dust isn't living, but life only comes from life. And here's the kicker - the necessary chemicals for our bodies aren't really found in dust. So we have 2 sets of people - one group thinks life came from a pool of necessary chemicals following the laws of chemistry, the other believes life came from an incomplete set of chemicals completely ignoring the laws of chemistry. Yet you think the 2nd group is the more reasonable one
Upvote
0
Again, you obviously didn't even read the link information I provided. Autocatalysis is real, and has been physically demonstrated both in precursor bio-theory and experimentally, therefore your above claim (by way of an inferred, irrelevant 'fairy' analogy) of: 'We don't know they aren't possible', is just blatantly false .. (there's no other word for it, there).
Abiogenesis via autocatalysis, is with certainty: 'possible'. There's no use in denying it in the face of this objective evidence. The quest now, is to see if instances of it occur elsewhere in other natural settings.
There's no use in denying it's existence.
Upvote
0
renniks
Well-Known Member
Pink unicorns are possible too. Just because we haven't found them yet don't mean they don't exist.
Enzymes are required to produce ATP but ATP is needed to produce enzymes. DNA is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Proteins can be made only by a cell, but a cell can be made only with proteins… and so on…you can't get there from here.
Upvote
0
I seem to recall there was a 'smote' involved there too(?)
So we can't assume the life didn't come about by way of the 'smote' itself.
How does that somehow result in 'life coming from life', when the 'smote' itself has never been excluded?
Upvote
0
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.renniks said:
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.
Upvote
0
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?
(Remember, its now known that the mainstream abiogenesis hypotheses are physically possible/plausible, with already known physical organic prebiotic-chemistry/deterministic chaos behaviours).
These abiogenesis hypotheses will then be able to be tested out.
One may not accept that such samples will be found, but that's just another belief/opinion (on top of the pile of all the rest of them). It doesn't matter how long it takes for such samples to show up (in time), or difficult is will be to test them, either. Science doesn't care about that.
The above is not feasible with 'pink unicorns' (or smotes) already believed to behave inconsistently with known physical laws. Such 'things are not objectively testable, whereas well defined, predicted pre-biotic chemistry behaviours, are.
The comparison analogy is just totally false .. for all these reasons.
(Remember, its now known that the mainstream abiogenesis hypotheses are physically possible/plausible, with already known physical organic prebiotic-chemistry/deterministic chaos behaviours).
These abiogenesis hypotheses will then be able to be tested out.
One may not accept that such samples will be found, but that's just another belief/opinion (on top of the pile of all the rest of them). It doesn't matter how long it takes for such samples to show up (in time), or difficult is will be to test them, either. Science doesn't care about that.
The above is not feasible with 'pink unicorns' (or smotes) already believed to behave inconsistently with known physical laws. Such 'things are not objectively testable, whereas well defined, predicted pre-biotic chemistry behaviours, are.
The comparison analogy is just totally false .. for all these reasons.
Upvote
0
Oh .. and the genetic code is currently Earth-life specific although, different codes are feasible under known physical principles/laws. Template based replication can take different 'possible' formats, which in principle, may or may exhibit high fidelity replication from one generation to the next.
We don't know yet .. but what we do know (by demonstration and physical theory), is that all of this is feasible without 'supernatural' intelligences (whatever that term is believed to mean).
We don't know yet .. but what we do know (by demonstration and physical theory), is that all of this is feasible without 'supernatural' intelligences (whatever that term is believed to mean).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
