Ah! Exams are finally just about finished up!
I still won't be able to post extremely frequently, but I do hope to get on here a little more. Are you there, SLPx?
When you go to "naturalistic framework", Chase, you are leaving science and entering philosophy. There is a philosophy called philosophical naturalism. That philosophy (also known as atheism) does require a "naturalistic" origin of life. But since philosophical naturalism isn't evolution, and evolution doesn't require philosophical naturalism, you are mixing apples and oranges.
I don't believe that philosophical naturalism is the same thing as atheism, although I could be wrong on that point. However, what I'm suggesting is that perhaps we all interpret scientific evidence on the basis of our philosophy--so perhaps this is a philosophical question. I would interpret one thing as being a significant blow to evolution, while you might interpret that same thing to mean that evolution is, after all,
possible. Maybe these apples and oranges form a symbiotic relationship.
About Darwin; what one man believes does not shape truth. I believe that theism (at least biblical) and evolution are quite contradicting.
Yes, and now you see why. You can't have evolution until you have life. However it comes into being. Thru Darwin's "Creator breathed" or Fox's protocells.
So what do you believe? Will
you invoke a god of the gaps?
This is not a big deal. Once you have life, as Darwin stated, then biological evolution explains the diversity of life on the planet.
I'm not questioning right now if evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet--I'm asking if it can naturalistically explain the first crucial step of abiogenesis without invoking a god.
Chase, I will heed the plea and treat you as a 13 year old. There are two debates going on here. One debate is between scientific theories: creationism and evolution. But there is always the underlying debate of theism vs atheism. It is terribly easy to confuse the two, especially because the extremists on both sides want to confuse the two. You must resist that confusion.
Even though abiogenesis appears to be true, that does not signal victory for atheism and defeat for theism. Putting God into the gaps of knowledge -- such as trying to say that science can't make life -- is no good for God. Because as soon as that gap is filled, there is less room for God.
It was not my plea that I be treated as a 13 year (it's 14) old. And I do believe that both debates are interwoven. Creation 'science' evidence might be used to 'prove' a god's existence, and evolutionary scientific evidence might be used to prove a deity does not, in fact, exist--or at least is not neccessary for life, and thus of no concern to humanity. And, I'm not putting God into any gaps.
Gibb's free energy. Whether a reaction is spontaneous depends on whether free energy is negative (spontaneous) or positive. However, any reaction can be made to occur as long as enough energy is pumped into the system. Gibb's free energy equation is DeltaG (change in free energy) = DeltaH (change in enthaply) - TDeltaS where T = temperature in Kelvin and DeltaS is change in entropy. Increase T enough, and -TDeltaS is going to be larger than a positive DeltaH.
Right, but the law of mass action states that the "Addition of a component on one side of a reversible system drives the reaction in the direction that uses up that compound [Purves
et al., p. 30]." So, in the ocean, there's obviously a
lot more water, which would in turn drive the reaction to
use it up, thus pulling amino acids back apart, even if they'd been stuck together before. And as you increase temperature, it generally gets worse, or am I wrong? I know there's a couple scenarios, but I'm not too clear on any of them.
Remember the claims, Chase. ALWAYS remember the claims. Your claim was that proteins could not form in water. This paper refutes that claim. I never said that it was the answer to all of abiogenesis, only that it refuted that specific claim.
All right, then let's look at
my claim: "there's the problem of getting the amino acids to polymerize (come together) and
stay that way." Did
I claim that proteins "could not form in water"? No, I simply claimed it was a problem--especially to get them to stay bonded.
You said: "Removing water in a aqueous solution happens in several chemical reactions. It's not a problem. Specific papers that discuss protein formation in water are..." This seems to me to indicate that you thought this paper explained protein synthesis, simply. When I said "So, this experiment certainly hasn't explained everything.", I obviously meant everything about
protein synthesis, as that statement directly followed a quote about the article. I certainly didn't mean to say "the answer to all of abiogenesis", in your words--I thought that would be apparent. I'll try to be more clear in the future.
You also have to be critical of his criticisms. Now, have you seen anything in the paper that says the reaction will stop at tripeptides and not be able to make longer proteins as Miller alledges? I didn't. Tripeptides is what they observed in their limited 4 day observation. But what if they had kept the experiment going 30, 60, 90, 180, 360 days or longer? Hydrothermal vents don't shut down after 4 days. Miller has a personal opinion, but I can't see any data to hang it on. I also see personal gain for him to say what he did. After all, isn't cool temp formation of proteins his theory?
These are indeed good points. I've always found Miller to be the unbiased type, but I suppose I should be more critical of him. I thought that he did consider exactly what the paper spoke about--CO from hydrothermal system--though. I will have to read some more. If the experiment had gone on longer, I'm not sure what would happen. Useless polypeptides might be formed. In dry salty condition, will protein just keep on forming? Won't the heat or UV destroy them? (I'm assuming that this is taking place on land, as it is a dry area as indicated in the paper. Are we talking about CO from hydrothermal vents in the sea, or more volcanic outgassing?)
homochirality<SUP> </SUP>of the amino acids or of their peptides is not essential. Homochirality<SUP> </SUP>becomes increasingly important with increasing chain lengths of<SUP> </SUP>the peptides."
You have to read all of it before you start taking short clips out. Those clips have to accurately represent the whole, not just what you want to see. Anything else is deluding yourself and committing false witness.
But I never questioned whether L- and D- forms could
bond if they're oppositely handed. I'm questioning the ability of the protein to fold correctly, etc. Of course I know they can bond together--if they couldn't this whole problem would be solved. My only point was that, as the length of a polypeptide increases, so does the importance of homochirality. This would imply the preceding sentence, which states that homochirality is not essential for polypeptides with only a couple of monomers. That is assumed by the sentence I quoted--I don't think I misrepresented at all.
Because it is part of the system. Also remember that there are competing theories. Some scientists hypothesize that RNA came first and acted as both template and enzyme. Proteins came later. Other scientists look to proteins first and have them catalyze the synthesis of RNA/DNA.
Precisely. Rufus said that:
"I don't know why you included abiotic protein synethesis in your post, since current hypotheses about the origin of life do not consider proteins as the first step. You only include RNA World, which is now considered to have preceded the Protein-DNA world, as almost an after thought to the mainsection of your post. If you really what to address abiogenesis, you should focus your effort there. Concentrating on proteins is a major flaw and/or deception in creationist/idist writers."
That is what I was addressing.
No. The part about stabilizing an alpha helix is possibly correct (I'll look it up) but DNA isn't amino acids. In this case the chiral molecule is the D-sugar ribose. The bases aren't chiral. The reason glycine is used in collagen is precisely because the R group is small, giving a very tight helix to the collagen. But since it is neither D nor L, that would refute Sarfati's claim, wouldn't it?
He knows DNA isn't amino acids, and that the bases aren't chiral
He's referring to sugars when he speaks about DNA. As for glycine, isn't the R-group simply a H atom?
That part about the side chains "sticking out randomly" is garbage. Remember, chemically the two isomers are identical. There is a different orientation in space, but it is not "random" in the sense Sarfati is using it -- everywhere. The hydrophobic and hydrophilic (water hating and water loving) interactions between R groups would still cause a non-random 3D folding. And that would still mean that some amino acid R groups would be in position to form active sites so the protein could act as an enzyme.
But don't proteins simply cease to fold if some of the amino acids aren't in positions that allow it? And a folded protein can undergo denaturation if salt concentrations, pH level, or temperature is increased. Likewise, my textbook says that "Amino acids with large R groups that distort the coil or otherwsie prevent the formation of the necessary hydrogen bonds will keep the a helix from forming (p. 38-39).
I must go now. Thank you for being so patient with me.
Sincerely,
Chase W. Nelson
