Where did the first cell come from?

[NGC 6712]

The probability about the proteins I heard from John Lennox, the Oxford mathematician. I'm not sure what else he has to say about biology but he always reminds his audience that he is not a biologist. He just knows that we can always describe the universe with something concrete which is math to him. The fact that we can do science on the assumption of a rational universe must mean something. I don't know if you want to take his word for it but that's what I heard from him.

Lennox should know better - I know in his zeal he wants to debate against abiogenesis but he would do better leaving this aspect of it alone. Molecular biologists just fall over laughing when presented with silly calculations like this one and the more famous one by Fred Hoyle. I asked Hoyle about this once and he didn't want to address the topic - of course he was getting on in years by then and his obsession with Panspermia I really do think clouded his mind - same with Steady State Theory as well.

What Hoyle and Lennox both did was to fail to understand the concept of sequence space versus the total sample space - very surprising because neither one is an idiot. But their lack of biochemical knowledge let's them down - which in itself is surprising because the concepts here are simple ones. Therefore I put it down to wanting something so bad they ignore the facts. Sad.

 

[Tucansam93]

Lennox should know better - I know in his zeal he wants to debate against abiogenesis but he would do better leaving this aspect of it alone. Molecular biologists just fall over laughing when presented with silly calculations like this one and the more famous one by Fred Hoyle. I asked Hoyle about this once and he didn't want to address the topic - of course he was getting on in years by then and his obsession with Panspermia I really do think clouded his mind - same with Steady State Theory as well.

What Hoyle and Lennox both did was to fail to understand the concept of sequence space versus the total sample space - very surprising because neither one is an idiot. But their lack of biochemical knowledge let's them down - which in itself is surprising because the concepts here are simple ones. Therefore I put it down to wanting something so bad they ignore the facts. Sad.

Aside from Lennox's mathematical assertions about biology, what do you think of his views on the rational intelligibility of the universe and our assumption that we can do all sciences on that basis? Does that mean anything? I'm just wondering because I know he is not a biologist but the question of God's existence is not only in biology. I know I may be straying away from the topic of this thread but you listed yourself as a Christian and I'm just wondering what you think about his mathematical views for the existence of God, since that is what he's good at.

 

[NGC 6712]

Aside from Lennox's mathematical assertions about biology, what do you think of his views on the rational intelligibility of the universe and our assumption that we can do all sciences on that basis? Does that mean anything? I'm just wondering because I know he is not a biologist but the question of God's existence is not only in biology. I know I may be straying away from the topic of this thread but you listed yourself as a Christian and I'm just wondering what you think about his mathematical views for the existence of God, since that is what he's good at.

To be honest I am not really familiar with his pop philosophy - I'll do some reading in the next day or so and I'll reply.

 

[Smidlee]

Juvi wrote:



I think Juvi is right - here is a system that is commercially available for protein synthesis, and there are more available at other companies.

The Next Generation of Cell-free Protein Synthesis, NEB


Papias

OK so they took the nano-machines (ribosomes) out of the cell.

 

[Smidlee]

Aside from Lennox's mathematical assertions about biology, what do you think of his views on the rational intelligibility of the universe and our assumption that we can do all sciences on that basis? Does that mean anything? I'm just wondering because I know he is not a biologist but the question of God's existence is not only in biology. I know I may be straying away from the topic of this thread but you listed yourself as a Christian and I'm just wondering what you think about his mathematical views for the existence of God, since that is what he's good at.

Biology obviously has nothing to do with abiogenesis since DUH! life hasn't started yet. Abiogenesis has to deal with pure chemistry. ECG: The Origin of Life

 

[NGC 6712]

Biology obviously has nothing to do with abiogenesis since DUH! life hasn't started yet. Abiogenesis has to deal with pure chemistry. ECG: The Origin of Life

There is a video on that ECG website that is an absolute treasure trove of made up bullcrap. (Actually I am sure they all are). The one about the Earth being designed for life. What a load of hogwash.

 

[juvenissun]

OK so they took the nano-machines (ribosomes) out of the cell.

Excuse me, what do you mean by that? Do you mean they destroyed cells to get protein and DNA and modify them instead of building them?

 

[Papias]

T wrote:

I'm not sure what else he has to say about biology but he always reminds his audience that he is not a biologist. ............I don't know if you want to take his word for it but that's what I heard from him.

I sure don't want to take his word for it when even a non-biologist like me can see that he doesn't know what he's talking about in biochemistry. Actually, I do have some chemistry background, and so it's even easier to see that. If he reminds his audience that he's not a biologist (doesn't have a background in the relevant chemistry), then he should have the integrity to not make his "odds of a cell" claim.

He just knows that we can always describe the universe with something concrete which is math to him. The fact that we can do science on the assumption of a rational universe must mean something.

Sure. And in those areas that are relevant, all well and good. I think there are lots of good arguments for the existance of God, including the rationality of the universe. I just hate to see them sullied by bogus stuff like his "odds of a cell". It's like using "jesus appearing on a tortilla" as proof that Jesus exists, and spends his time making his face in burn patterns on food. It doesn't help our credibility.

********************************

Smidlee wrote:

OK so they took the nano-machines (ribosomes) out of the cell.

Sure. All of any technology starts with the natural world. One could argue that a car wasn't "made" by people - after all, all we did was refine the iron atoms that were already in the ground, and then stuck them together to make the car. By that, we can't "make" anything (no, get your own dirt....).

It's all a sliding scale. How many different process need to be done to something before it is "man made"? I guess we can each answer that ourselves.

Juvi-

They extracted ribosomes from cells, kept them in containers until needed, and then used them to react amino acids with DNA templates to make proteins.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Sure. All of any technology starts with the natural world. One could argue that a car wasn't "made" by people - after all, all we did was refine the iron atoms that were already in the ground, and then stuck them together to make the car. By that, we can't "make" anything (no, get your own dirt....).

It's all a sliding scale. How many different process need to be done to something before it is "man made"? I guess we can each answer that ourselves.

Juvi-

They extracted ribosomes from cells, kept them in containers until needed, and then used them to react amino acids with DNA templates to make proteins.

Papias

So, back to the fundamental question. We still can NOT make a protein from basic material {O, N, H and C}. Is that right?

Go one step further back, I guess we do can make amino acid from the scratch material. Right? (I assume if we put amino acid together in a right way, we would get a protein)

 

[Papias]

I don't know off hand what different ways to make different proteins work. I'd guess that simple proteins can be made without using ribosomes, while more complex proteins need ribosomes. The vast majority of chemical processes are complex - we very rarely take the consitituent elements and just add them together to make the material. Even basic stuff like HSi3Cl6, we don't just add H, Si, and Cl, and expect it to work. There are plenty of steps and intermediates.

So like any chemical process, I don't expect it to be simple.

For a more detailed answer, ask a biochemist. I'm not a biochemist.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

You would need ribosomes to get synthetic DNA to produce proteins (via RNA) but I would imagine the proteins themselves could be synthesised too but it would be a lot more fiddly than using DNA and ribosomes. I did a quick google for synthetic ribosome and they have made them too.

 

[Theofane]

There is a video on that ECG website that is an absolute treasure trove of made up bullcrap. (Actually I am sure they all are). The one about the Earth being designed for life. What a load of hogwash.

Didn't God create Earth for the Garden and the Garden for the man?

 

[Smidlee]

You would need ribosomes to get synthetic DNA to produce proteins (via RNA) but I would imagine the proteins themselves could be synthesised too but it would be a lot more fiddly than using DNA and ribosomes. I did a quick google for synthetic ribosome and they have made them too.

"The next step, researchers said, is to create a ribosome that will be completely synthetic, without the use of bacterial RNA and other protein additives.

Scientists Create First Synthetic Ribosome | News | The Harvard Crimson

 

[NGC 6712]

Didn't God create Earth for the Garden and the Garden for the man?

No.

But I am referring to some nonsense video that tries to argue everything is somehow special and that if things were slightly changed then life would not be possible on Earth. That is a lie.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know off hand what different ways to make different proteins work. I'd guess that simple proteins can be made without using ribosomes, while more complex proteins need ribosomes. The vast majority of chemical processes are complex - we very rarely take the consitituent elements and just add them together to make the material. Even basic stuff like HSi3Cl6, we don't just add H, Si, and Cl, and expect it to work. There are plenty of steps and intermediates.

So like any chemical process, I don't expect it to be simple.

For a more detailed answer, ask a biochemist. I'm not a biochemist.

Papias

I do not need to know the details either. My purpose is to find out if we can make a cell from scratch. Then I sensed that we can not make DNA yet, then I sensed that we can not make all proteins needed.

So, does the current situation give a hint on the origin of a cell? Even we had some amino acids come from comets, does that give anybody any confidence of abiogenesis? How would one feel if scientist detected a trace of life back to 3+ billion years ago? Is one billion years long enough for the abiogenesis to make a cell?

 

[juvenissun]

You would need ribosomes to get synthetic DNA to produce proteins (via RNA) but I would imagine the proteins themselves could be synthesised too but it would be a lot more fiddly than using DNA and ribosomes. I did a quick google for synthetic ribosome and they have made them too.

One lesson I learned from this thread is to ask: What is it made from? Recycling of life components is not the same as making life components.

 

[juvenissun]

No.

But I am referring to some nonsense video that tries to argue everything is somehow special and that if things were slightly changed then life would not be possible on Earth. That is a lie.

How about increase the thickness of continent a few percent? Do you know the consequence? Do you know where is the boundary of orbit so that the earth would not become another Venus?

Do not say something is a lie if you do not understand it. All the "lies" you have heard of are summaries given some scientists. People who do not know can not make up such lies.

 

[NGC 6712]

Do you know where is the boundary of orbit so that the earth would not become another Venus?

Yes.

Do not say something is a lie if you do not understand it. All the "lies" you have heard of are summaries given some scientists. People who do not know can not make up such lies.

I have never heard researchers in the field make these claims. It's always after market creationist spin merchants lying for effect.

 

[Assyrian]

One lesson I learned from this thread is to ask: What is it made from? Recycling of life components is not the same as making life components.

What do you think it is they cannot make? They can make DNA and RNA. It is probably a lot simpler to use bits readily available from bacteria. The difficulty would be to synthesise very large molecules in a cell like ribosomes which they can clearly do. It isn't like there is some vital spark of life in organic molecules that you cannot make from inorganic, that was overturned in 1828 when Wöhler synthesed urea "without thereby needing to have kidneys, or anyhow, an animal, be it human or dog".

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Do you know where is the boundary of orbit so that the earth would not become another Venus?

Yes.

That is new. Where is it?