whoknows Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 I am a scientist myself. Trying to figure out what's hypothesis and what's theory. I feel any plausible theory has to be substantiated by obervations. My questions regard observations on protein. Maybe somebody can be of help. For now I don't have an answer to any of the questions I want to ask. Here we go. Where in the non-living nature can we observe: Protein synthesis? Protein? Protein consisting of laevorotary amino acids only? Biologically functioning protein? Amino acids/peptides in quantities sufficient to build protein? Places containing laevorotary amino acids/peptides only? The availability of all amino acids necessary for life? Where in the non-living nature can we dump amino acids/peptides and show their synthesis to protein? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 I am a scientist myself. Trying to figure out what's hypothesis and what's theory. I feel any plausible theory has to be substantiated by obervations. My questions regard observations on protein. Maybe somebody can be of help. For now I don't have an answer to any of the questions I want to ask. Here we go. Where in the non-living nature can we observe: Protein synthesis? Protein? Protein consisting of laevorotary amino acids only? Biologically functioning protein? Amino acids/peptides in quantities sufficient to build protein? Places containing laevorotary amino acids/peptides only? The availability of all amino acids necessary for life? Where in the non-living nature can we dump amino acids/peptides and show their synthesis to protein? Are you asking about chemical evolution? http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/lattimer/AST248/lecture_13.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity_Boy Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) I am a scientist myself. Trying to figure out what's hypothesis and what's theory. [/size] I feel any plausible theory has to be substantiated by obervations. My questions regard observations on protein.[/size] [/size] Maybe somebody can be of help. For now I don't have an answer to any of the questions I want to ask.[/size] Here we go.[/size] [/size] Where in the non-living nature can we observe:[/size] Protein synthesis?[/size] Protein?[/size] Protein consisting of laevorotary amino acids only?[/size] Biologically functioning protein?[/size] Amino acids/peptides in quantities sufficient to build protein?[/size] Places containing laevorotary amino acids/peptides only?[/size] The availability of all amino acids necessary for life?[/size] [/size] Where in the non-living nature can we dump amino acids/peptides and show their synthesis to protein?[/size] So if I understand correctly, you're asking for examples of Abiogenesis in today's world. That is, the beginning of organic single celled organisms from inert and non.organic matter. I cannot think of a single example. And you're of course asking a hugely popular challenged question among those who doubt Atheist Science and it Abiogenesis hypothesis. Not even a theory, is it? Might not be a hypothesis, either! And why don't we see examples of Abiogenesis today? Why should life have began only once, billions of years ago? Who not today? The apologists for Abiogenesis claim we don't see it any more because the Earth's environmental....More specifically, atmospheric....Conditions are not as conducive to it occurring as they were some 3 bya. Miller Urey over 50 years ago did little to support the credibility of Abiogenesis. They did manage to get done amino acids to form in sealed vials pelted with heat and electricity, but that's all. And since then there has been some serious doubt as to how accurately they even replicated those early Earth conditions. Sorry..I know I'm not answering your question. I wanted to weigh in ad a fellow disbeliever in Abiogenesis...If in fact that's what you are. I am a tentative adherent to the Panspermia school. Which I know causes more questions down the line, but easily solved the Abiogenesis question for this planet. But since I have always believed the Universe is teeming with intelligence, and we are but one of millions of civilizations, those added questions trouble me not, and are easily answered. Thanks. Are you asking about chemical evolution? http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/lattimer/AST248/lecture_13.pdf I could not see how the hypothetical chemical equations and reactions in that link show how rNA is formed. Thus, I could not detect sufficient methodology for Abiogenesis. Sorry, maybe it's me. If so, could you point out to me where...at what step...In the equation where rNA is proposed to formulate? Or, hell, DNA? I just used the former nucleic acid molecule since I know that's the current favorite speculation among Abiogenesis believers. Thanks. I could see nothing formed behind the amino acid level. Which is still a long way from organic life. Edited March 24, 2017 by Velocity_Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) Sorry..I know I'm not answering your question. I wanted to weigh in ad a fellow disbeliever in Abiogenesis...If in fact that's what you are. I am a tentative adherent to the Panspermia school. Which I know causes more questions down the line, but easily solved the Abiogenesis question for this planet. But since I have always believed the Universe is teeming with intelligence, and we are but one of millions of civilizations, those added questions trouble me not, and are easily answered. Thanks. I could not see how the hypothetical chemical equations and reactions in that link show how rNA is formed. Thus, I could not detect sufficient methodology for Abiogenesis. Sorry, maybe it's me. If so, could you point out to me where...at what step...In the equation where rNA is proposed to formulate? Thanks. Even if you are from the panspermia school, you still need abiogenesis to start the panspermia... you can't get away from it. In panspermia, did life just magically spontaneously appear, somehow leave another planet, traverse the near-absolute-zero cosmos, then land on Earth? Choose the simplest of the likely, competing scenarios first; abiogenesis on Earth. Space is too cold and vast for much to happen relative to a nice, hot hydrothermal vent spewing out cocktails of compounds and creating a highly kinetic environment. Edited to add. Edited March 25, 2017 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoknows Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 Are you asking about chemical evolution? http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/lattimer/AST248/lecture_13.pdf Yes, indeed I did a fair amount of research. Studied full text articles of abiotic amino acid/peptide synthesis. The ones I read (including the first Miller study from 1953) were not able to answer the questions. I have to watch my quotes. Since I am new here, I am only allowed to post 3 times until Sunday. So I am have to squeeze in as much text as possible @Velocity_Boy, Agreed, I did not expect an answer to (at least) most of the questions. And doubt if we can call the biogenesis story a theory. Theory should be based on at least some observation. It is said that protein in the prebiotic world would have been built from assumed large amounts of available amino acids. If my last 4 questions can be answered, there might have be a theoretical basis for that single assumption. We can theorize that functional laevorotary protein could have been assembled if we observed the basic requirements in nature à aka the last 4 questions I ask. @StringJunky, Agreed, to me it is irrelevant where abiogenesis started. Here or on another planet. Regarding the hydrothermal vent theory: Again, I would ask for the observation: Where on earth can we find a hydrothermal vent spewing out cocktails of organic compounds? The same goes for the “drying lagoon” scenario and the “volcanic environment” scenario. They have been assumptions among scientists for decades. A study on the Von Damm vent field does not provide any evidence for the availability of precursors for protein or fatty acid vesicles (organic compounds/amino acids/carboxylic acids). The opposite is true: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/25/7668.full.pdf?with-ds=yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 So if I understand correctly, you're asking for examples of Abiogenesis in today's world. That is, the beginning of organic single celled organisms from inert and non.organic matter. I cannot think of a single example. And you're of course asking a hugely popular challenged question among those who doubt Atheist Science and it Abiogenesis hypothesis. Not even a theory, is it? Might not be a hypothesis, either! And why don't we see examples of Abiogenesis today? Why should life have began only once, billions of years ago? Who not today? The apologists for Abiogenesis claim we don't see it any more because the Earth's environmental....More specifically, atmospheric....Conditions are not as conducive to it occurring as they were some 3 bya. Miller Urey over 50 years ago did little to support the credibility of Abiogenesis. They did manage to get done amino acids to form in sealed vials pelted with heat and electricity, but that's all. And since then there has been some serious doubt as to how accurately they even replicated those early Earth conditions. Sorry..I know I'm not answering your question. I wanted to weigh in ad a fellow disbeliever in Abiogenesis...If in fact that's what you are. I am a tentative adherent to the Panspermia school. Which I know causes more questions down the line, but easily solved the Abiogenesis question for this planet. But since I have always believed the Universe is teeming with intelligence, and we are but one of millions of civilizations, those added questions trouble me not, and are easily answered. Thanks. I could not see how the hypothetical chemical equations and reactions in that link show how rNA is formed. Thus, I could not detect sufficient methodology for Abiogenesis. Sorry, maybe it's me. If so, could you point out to me where...at what step...In the equation where rNA is proposed to formulate? Or, hell, DNA? I just used the former nucleic acid molecule since I know that's the current favorite speculation among Abiogenesis believers. Thanks. I could see nothing formed behind the amino acid level. Which is still a long way from organic life. Your lack of ability to see how it could have happened has no bearing on whether or not it happened. Abiogenesis is not a belief, real science backs up much of it, the study goes on and I can direct you to a great deal of evidence but it is significant whether or not you can see it... In fact several possible pathways to biology have been proposed and many of them have considerable evidence to back them up. So much in fact that there may well be several paths and or a synergy of various avenues to biology. The problem is that many people think that it should be easy, if life came about from prebiotic chemistry, to simply pour chemicals in a test tube and dump out bacteria. Modern life forms such as bacteria are quite complex, far too complex to simply be whipped up in a test tube. Also any complex organics that are produced now are quickly consumed by bacteria way before they have any chance of becoming complex enough to replicate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoknows Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 Your lack of ability to see how it could have happened has no bearing on whether or not it happened. Abiogenesis is not a belief, real science backs up much of it, the study goes on and I can direct you to a great deal of evidence but it is significant whether or not you can see it... Can science explain abiogenic synthesis of protein, complex carbohydrates, DNA/RNA, functional protein, enzymes or any other complex molecule? Or any part of the cell? Let alone a complete cell. Abiogenesis goes against everything we currently observe in non-living nature: -The supposed abundant availability of organic precursors for complex molecules. -The total lack of all relevant complex molecules necessary for life. -The way these could be put into a functional system. -The most important one --> life originating from non-life. Simple fact: it is unobserved and cannot be replicated with experimental setups. Which is by definition contrary to the scientific method. The questions I ask are only few. And they only concern some that could be answered for protein synthesis. Similar questions could be asked for every other complex molecule and for pretty much every part of a cell/organism. The questions reflect requirements necessary for biologically functional protein to be synthesized. Every requirement reflects a statistically small change of it happenning. Try to multiply these tiny numbers. And include those regarding every other requirement. What would the odds be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Can science explain abiogenic synthesis of protein, complex carbohydrates, DNA/RNA, functional protein, enzymes or any other complex molecule? Or any part of the cell? Let alone a complete cell.[/size] [/size] Abiogenesis goes against everything we currently observe in non-living nature:[/size] -The supposed abundant availability of organic precursors for complex molecules.[/size] -The total lack of all relevant complex molecules necessary for life.[/size] -The way these could be put into a functional system.[/size] -The most important one --> life originating from non-life. Simple fact: it is unobserved and cannot be replicated with experimental setups. Which is by definition contrary to the scientific method.[/size] [/size] You are trying to set up a strawman, the assertions you make are either totally false or have no relevancy to abiogenesis. "Can science explain abiogenic synthesis of protein, complex carbohydrates, DNA/RNA, functional protein, enzymes or any other complex molecule? Or any part of the cell? Let alone a complete cell." This is totally misleading, these things are not necessarily part of abiogenesis. You are trying to suggest that whole cells and systems must pop into existence for abiogenesis to occur. It is totally dishonest to suggest this, creationists know it, but they have to assert it for their arguments to work. The questions I ask are only few. The questions you ask are disingenuous and do nothing but set up a strawman for you to knock down... and And they only concern some that could be answered for protein synthesis. Similar questions could be asked for every other complex molecule and for pretty much every part of a cell/organism. The questions reflect requirements necessary for biologically functional protein to be synthesized. Every requirement reflects a statistically small change of it happening. Try to multiply these tiny numbers. And include those regarding every other requirement. What would the odds be? yet another dishonest ploy, the odds are obviously 1/1, random chance has no place in chemistry, chemistry is deterministic not random. The organic molecules come about naturally, in fact interstellar space is full of these chemicals, meteorites containing the chemicals rain down on earth every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Aside from the obvious flaws I would like to add that early one most likely enzymatic peptides and ribozymes existed, rather than complex proteins. D- or L- isomers are not really relevant to the discussion (why would it?). Only because organisms only use one isomer as the major building block (though both exist in metabolic pathways) has no bearing on early biomolecules. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoknows Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 You are trying to set up a strawman, the assertions you make are either totally false or have no relevancy to abiogenesis. This is totally misleading, these things are not necessarily part of abiogenesis. You are trying to suggest that whole cells and systems must pop into existence for abiogenesis to occur. It is totally dishonest to suggest this, creationists know it, but they have to assert it for their arguments to work. The questions you ask are disingenuous and do nothing but set up a strawman for you to knock down... yet another dishonest ploy, the odds are obviously 1/1, random chance has no place in chemistry, chemistry is deterministic not random. The organic molecules come about naturally, in fact interstellar space is full of these chemicals, meteorites containing the chemicals rain down on earth every day. Strawman arguments? Really? This all depends on assumption. Were you there? Do you know of any life forms without protein in them? Let's ignore the moment we think protein entered early Earth. They were synthesized at some stage. That means they need explanation. The same goes for the other factors I mentioned (like the DNA, carbohydrates). At some stage they were all present at the same time. What are the odds using a mixture of simple (in)organic compounds as the building blocks? "Knock down" and all these terms. There is no know down. There is only unanswered questions. We observe synthesis of biologically functional protein in cellular life. This is the fact. We don't observe anything close to that outside cellular life. If we assume biologically functional protein came together from a "prebiotic soup" of simple molecules, we must calculate the odds that the assumptions we have could be the causal factor. Including odds for availability of precursor molecules, energy, environment. This requires observing what we see regarding protein in non-cellular life today. That's where science can help. I think none of the things I asked has ever been observed in non-cellular nature. Am I wrong? Exactly, Chemistry is deterministic. That's my whole point. It is exactly this observation that seems to exclude the possiblity that biologically functional protein could ever be synthesized from a mixture of chemicals. And what does the chemistry/science say? -Protein synthesis from a mixture of simple organic compounds? This one is dismissed. We cannot get past small amounts of rather short-chain peptides. -Do we observe only laevorotary amino acids in prebiotic experiments or in non-cellular life. No. Always racemic. -I think we don't need to get into protein folding. Definitely zero observation. Chemistry is deterministic. Environmental requirements to possibly create protein from simple molecules can be determined. And odds can be calculated from what we see in nature. The odds for any single one of the 3 points I mention now are immensely small. Then what would the odds be for them ever to come together using the current prebiotic life explanation? Remember, this would only give us one single unstable protein that would be decomposed the second time we looked at it. Meteorites provide us tiny amounts of simple precursors for protein. Not protein! The observation of a brick does not explain the synthesis of a house from lightning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 ... The odds for any single one of the 3 points I mention now are immensely small. Then what would the odds be for them ever to come together using the current prebiotic life explanation? Remember, this would only give us one single unstable protein that would be decomposed the second time we looked at it. Meteorites provide us tiny amounts of simple precursors for protein. Not protein! The observation of a brick does not explain the synthesis of a house from lightning. I find the 'odds are immensely small' argument lame. Unlikely things, even highly, highly, highly... unlikely things, happen. Chance is as chance does and whether or not we can reproduce (or have yet to reproduce) the deterministic chain of events & conditions that led to life, life exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Abiogenesis goes against everything we currently observe in non-living nature: -The supposed abundant availability of organic precursors for complex molecules. -The total lack of all relevant complex molecules necessary for life. -The way these could be put into a functional system -The most important one --> life originating from non-life. Simple fact: it is unobserved and cannot be replicated with experimental setups. Which is by definition contrary to the scientific method. With this many dishonest statements collected together, I have to assume you are very religious. Sad. -The supposed abundant availability of organic precursors for complex molecules. These are observed in many places, including outer space. -The total lack of all relevant complex molecules necessary for life. Ditto. -The way these could be put into a functional system. -The most important one --> life originating from non-life. Simple fact: it is unobserved All that means is that we have a number of hypotheses, rather than a theory. As you are so keen on defending the scientific method, I'm sure you will understand that. - and cannot be replicated with experimental setups. Which is by definition contrary to the scientific method. Or maybe you just don't know how science works. There are many things studied by science which cannot be reproduced. The big bang, star formation, the climate, ... Also, you left a "yet" out that final objection. Which pretty much invalidates it, by itself. p.s. You raised some interesting questions for discussion, but by revealing yourself to be a Creationist (but not admitting to it) there is little point to discussing anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoknows Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 Aside from the obvious flaws I would like to add that early one most likely enzymatic peptides and ribozymes existed, rather than complex proteins. D- or L- isomers are not really relevant to the discussion (why would it?). Only because organisms only use one isomer as the major building block (though both exist in metabolic pathways) has no bearing on early biomolecules. Obvious flaws? Please explain the synthesis of your enzymatic peptides and ribozymes. And from there their evolution to things we actually do observe. Which is the biologically functional protein. What is the relevance of looking at L-isomers? How about: this is what we oberve? Where do we observe living enzymatic peptides and ribozymes outside life as we know it? It does not matter what ideas you have about first prebiotic life. Was it a single amino acid first? Then attached to a second? And slowly it became a protein? Does the moment life entered the molecule/cell change chemistry? No! Therefore, the requirement stays the same: At one moment a biologically functional protein existed made from laevorotary amino acids. At that single moment all things I described needed to be available. (And the protein would have to be kept stable.) I try to explain what I observe. I observe what we see in nature. What I observe cannot be explained by organic chemistry or by what we currently observe in nature. Moreoever, it goes against what we observe in organic chemistry and in nature. For simple molecules do not generate 1) biologically active 2) protein from 3) L-isomer amino acids. None of the 3 parts. Let alone the product of all 3. So the observation is: cannot. Even if you explain how a an enzymatic peptide could come to be. It is irrelevant for it is not what we observe. Hence you must then explain the steps to get a biologically functional protein from an enzymatic peptide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 (edited) Strawman arguments? Really? This all depends on assumption. Were you there? Do you know of any life forms without protein in them? Let's ignore the moment we think protein entered early Earth. They were synthesized at some stage. That means they need explanation. The same goes for the other factors I mentioned (like the DNA, carbohydrates). At some stage they were all present at the same time. What are the odds using a mixture of simple (in)organic compounds as the building blocks? "Knock down" and all these terms. There is no know down. There is only unanswered questions. We observe synthesis of biologically functional protein in cellular life. This is the fact. We don't observe anything close to that outside cellular life. If we assume biologically functional protein came together from a "prebiotic soup" of simple molecules, we must calculate the odds that the assumptions we have could be the causal factor. Including odds for availability of precursor molecules, energy, environment. This requires observing what we see regarding protein in non-cellular life today. That's where science can help. I think none of the things I asked has ever been observed in non-cellular nature. Am I wrong? Exactly, Chemistry is deterministic. That's my whole point. It is exactly this observation that seems to exclude the possiblity that biologically functional protein could ever be synthesized from a mixture of chemicals. And what does the chemistry/science say? -Protein synthesis from a mixture of simple organic compounds? This one is dismissed. We cannot get past small amounts of rather short-chain peptides. -Do we observe only laevorotary amino acids in prebiotic experiments or in non-cellular life. No. Always racemic. -I think we don't need to get into protein folding. Definitely zero observation. Chemistry is deterministic. Environmental requirements to possibly create protein from simple molecules can be determined. And odds can be calculated from what we see in nature. The odds for any single one of the 3 points I mention now are immensely small. Then what would the odds be for them ever to come together using the current prebiotic life explanation? Remember, this would only give us one single unstable protein that would be decomposed the second time we looked at it. Meteorites provide us tiny amounts of simple precursors for protein. Not protein! The observation of a brick does not explain the synthesis of a house from lightning. I see no reason to discuss this with a Ken Ham fan boy... Ken Ham is a dishonest steaming pile of monkey shit, thanks for wasting my time.. Edited March 26, 2017 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoknows Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 With this many dishonest statements collected together, I have to assume you are very religious. Sad. -The supposed abundant availability of organic precursors for complex molecules. These are observed in many places, including outer space. -The total lack of all relevant complex molecules necessary for life. Ditto. -The way these could be put into a functional system. -The most important one --> life originating from non-life. Simple fact: it is unobserved All that means is that we have a number of hypotheses, rather than a theory. As you are so keen on defending the scientific method, I'm sure you will understand that. - and cannot be replicated with experimental setups. Which is by definition contrary to the scientific method. Or maybe you just don't know how science works. There are many things studied by science which cannot be reproduced. The big bang, star formation, the climate, ... Also, you left a "yet" out that final objection. Which pretty much invalidates it, by itself. p.s. You raised some interesting questions for discussion, but by revealing yourself to be a Creationist (but not admitting to it) there is little point to discussing anything. Why do you feel the need to degrade me? Have you answered any of my question? No. You are making a few statements in this post. Please show me the evicence: -Where are the many places on earth where we can find amino acids in molar concentrations sufficient to synthesize protein? -Where in non-cellular-life nature can we find protein? And you do know how science works? Please explain environmental needs for protein synthesis in prebiotic/early life. Has anybody been able to anwer any of my questions, sofar. No. Are your attempts to degrade me the only reply you have? Is it so hard for you to see that you don't have a clue what you are talking about? I am only showing the enormous gaps there are in a small part of the abiogenesis hypothesis. I see no reason to discuss this with a Ken Ham fan boy... Ken Ham is a dishonest steaming pile of monkey shit, thanks for wasting my time.. Thank you for proving my point. There is no knowledgeability. If you knew you were right and worked from a scientific idea, you could have easily pointed me to scientific studies showing me wrong. 9,500 posts and this is how you react when faced with the fact that you cannot answer any single one of the questions in my opening post. Acting like a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Why do you feel the need to degrade me? Have you answered any of my question? No. You are making a few statements in this post. Please show me the evicence: -Where are the many places on earth where we can find amino acids in molar concentrations sufficient to synthesize protein? -Where in non-cellular-life nature can we find protein? And you do know how science works? Please explain environmental needs for protein synthesis in prebiotic/early life. Has anybody been able to anwer any of my questions, sofar. No. Are your attempts to degrade me the only reply you have? Is it so hard for you to see that you don't have a clue what you are talking about? I am only showing the enormous gaps there are in a small part of the abiogenesis hypothesis. Thank you for proving my point. There is no knowledgeability. If you knew you were right and worked from a scientific idea, you could have easily pointed me to scientific studies showing me wrong. 9,500 posts and this is how you react when faced with the fact that you cannot answer any single one of the questions in my opening post. Acting like a child. If you hadn't asked loaded questions made up by Ken Ham and his ilk we could have shown you the answers. But you and your kind cannot approach the problem honestly, I cannot provide evidence for dishonest questions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoknows Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 If you hadn't asked loaded questions made up by Ken Ham and his ilk we could have shown you the answers. But you and your kind cannot approach the problem honestly, I cannot provide evidence for dishonest questions... Do you really find any of the questions in my opening post "dishonest"? And "you would have shown me the answers........" You don't fool me. You can ignore me if you want. But take the time to try to answer any of the "dishonest" questions in my opening post. Do it for yourself. Be honest and see how many you can answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Why do you feel the need to degrade me? Are you ashamed of being a Creationist, then? Have you answered any of my question? No. As I said, there is no point. -Where are the many places on earth where we can find amino acids in molar concentrations sufficient to synthesize protein? -Where in non-cellular-life nature can we find protein? I didn't make either of those claims. So more dishonest Creationist tactics. Well done. And you do know how science works? Yes. I am only showing the enormous gaps there are in a small part of the abiogenesis hypothesis. You haven't mentioned any abiogenesis hypotheses, apart from Cretinist caricatures and straw man arguments. And gaps does not mean "wrong". Do you really find any of the questions in my opening post "dishonest"? The whole "I'm just asking" trick that people like you use is pretty dishonest. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Do you really find any of the questions in my opening post "dishonest"? And "you would have shown me the answers........" You don't fool me. You can ignore me if you want. But take the time to try to answer any of the "dishonest" questions in my opening post. Do it for yourself. Be honest and see how many you can answer. If the conversation had continued you would just have said "Well I have this book" Were you there, damn.. just damn... where you there? Was anyone there? How do you know... oh you have a book.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity_Boy Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Your lack of ability to see how it could have happened has no bearing on whether or not it happened. Abiogenesis is not a belief, real science backs up much of it, the study goes on and I can direct you to a great deal of evidence but it is significant whether or not you can see it... In fact several possible pathways to biology have been proposed and many of them have considerable evidence to back them up. So much in fact that there may well be several paths and or a synergy of various avenues to biology. The problem is that many people think that it should be easy, if life came about from prebiotic chemistry, to simply pour chemicals in a test tube and dump out bacteria. Modern life forms such as bacteria are quite complex, far too complex to simply be whipped up in a test tube. Also any complex organics that are produced now are quickly consumed by bacteria way before they have any chance of becoming complex enough to replicate. Oh, I have the ability to imagine all sorts of scenarios for Abiogenesis, thank you. Just as the atheist biologists who still have no theory on it. It's all speculation. As I said before. Nice try on accusing me of committing a logical fallacy of argument from incredulity, though. But it doesn't work, does it? Only works when you have a viable theory. You do not. You have not even a hypothesis for Abiogenesis. And....Sigh..I explained all this before to you in my OP. Which he nothing in it you can refute, btw. Another, btw for ya....I am not a creationist. I just am honest about what my science dies not yet know. Unlike some here, who are kneejerk argumentative attackers on anything slightly approaching a notion of ID. Sound familiar? LOL Even if you are from the panspermia school, you still need abiogenesis to start the panspermia... you can't get away from it. In panspermia, did life just magically spontaneously appear, somehow leave another planet, traverse the near-absolute-zero cosmos, then land on Earth? Choose the simplest of the likely, competing scenarios first; abiogenesis on Earth. Space is too cold and vast for much to happen relative to a nice, hot hydrothermal vent spewing out cocktails of compounds and creating a highly kinetic environment. Edited to add. Not quite. My personal notion of Panspermia entails deliberate and not accidental seeding of organic microbes on Earth. Sure, this still means the seeders had to begin life somehow somewhere and sometime, but I admitted that there are still questions. But my idea solves our OP question of Abiogenesis here on the third rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Obvious flaws? Please explain the synthesis of your enzymatic peptides and ribozymes. And from there their evolution to things we actually do observe. Which is the biologically functional protein. What is the relevance of looking at L-isomers? How about: this is what we oberve? Where do we observe living enzymatic peptides and ribozymes outside life as we know it? It does not matter what ideas you have about first prebiotic life. Was it a single amino acid first? Then attached to a second? And slowly it became a protein? Does the moment life entered the molecule/cell change chemistry? No! Therefore, the requirement stays the same: At one moment a biologically functional protein existed made from laevorotary amino acids. At that single moment all things I described needed to be available. (And the protein would have to be kept stable.) I try to explain what I observe. I observe what we see in nature. What I observe cannot be explained by organic chemistry or by what we currently observe in nature. Moreoever, it goes against what we observe in organic chemistry and in nature. For simple molecules do not generate 1) biologically active 2) protein from 3) L-isomer amino acids. None of the 3 parts. Let alone the product of all 3. So the observation is: cannot. Even if you explain how a an enzymatic peptide could come to be. It is irrelevant for it is not what we observe. Hence you must then explain the steps to get a biologically functional protein from an enzymatic peptide. A few pointers, simple peptides have found to have enzymatic reactions (less effective than large proteins but still) the same goes for RNA. There are various publications that speculate how relatively simple chemistry could lead to replicating molecules (such as e.g. Huber et al. 2003 Science). In that regard I have to ask, do you know the difference between peptide and proteins? And that enzymatic reactions are not exclusive to the latter? Other models include the formation of a peptide nucleic acids (see e.g. Nielsen 2007 Chem Biodivers) Do you understand that having a dominance of one isomer over another is just because of selective processes (potentially before the first protocells were formed) and therefore is unlikely to be relevant at the earliest stages where both forms are likely to exist? You seem to be under the impression that only one form can lead to life, but that is clearly not the case. Or in other words, if in early stages there were both isomers, what would have precluded the development of replicating systems? Sure, we do not not with certainty how it happened, but I do not see a model that postulates that it must have started exclusively with one or the others. If you have evidence, feel free to present it. And no, I do not need to present a complete model of all steps that may or may not have happened. Rather I would like to see that you propose something that has more explanatory power than we currently have. At least that would be educational. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) . Not quite. My personal notion of Panspermia entails deliberate and not accidental seeding of organic microbes on Earth.Sure, this still means the seeders had to begin life somehow somewhere and sometime, but I admitted that there are still questions. But my idea solves our OP question of Abiogenesis here on the third rock. OK., let's say "How did life begin in the universe?" However you cook it and wherever, chemical synthesis over a vast expanse of time created what what we are today and life elsewhere. The subject of that primordial synthesis is called 'Abiogenesis'. Whether current ideas of the paths of this synthesis are right or wrong is irrelevant. It does not invalidate the subject. When talking about origins of life you are talking about abiogenesis; that is what it means, it is a discipline, not a theory, just as biology is the science of living systems, or physics is the science of the behaviour of matter. Abiogenesis is a particular category of scientific investigation. Edited March 27, 2017 by StringJunky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity_Boy Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 By your definition of Abiogenesis then could not an apologist for astrology say the same thing? That just because current science has no proof that it's valid does not matter?That it's still a discipline? Not a theory? And so it's not invalidated? And is science decided to look deeper into astrology then it too would be a particular category of scientific investigation? I believe the notion of Abiogenesis here on earth with no extra stellar seeding is as credible and as scientifically proven as is astrology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 By your definition of Abiogenesis then could not an apologist for astrology say the same thing? That just because current science has no proof that it's valid does not matter?That it's still a discipline? Not a theory? And so it's not invalidated? And is science decided to look deeper into astrology then it too would be a particular category of scientific investigation? I believe the notion of Abiogenesis here on earth with no extra stellar seeding is as credible and as scientifically proven as is astrology. What's so special 'out there' that's not here? All the necessary chemical elements are here. Let me ask you: Is life made from a process involving chemical synthesis and if not, what? If you agree that it is made by chemical synthesis then it's called abiogenesis, abiogenesis ˌeɪbʌɪə(ʊ)ˈdʒɛnɪsɪs/Submit noun the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. I've just noticed, You seem to think abiogenesis is specifically about it beginning on Earth. i think scientists only mention Earth because that's all they know; it could apply to anywhere in the universe where life is found. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Oh, I have the ability to imagine all sorts of scenarios for Abiogenesis, thank you. Just as the atheist biologists who still have no theory on it. It's all speculation. The things you imagine might be speculation, but there are multiple scientific hypotheses for nearly all parts of the processes that may be involved. These are not "speculation"; in the sense that they are based on known physics, chemistry, biochemistry, conditions in the early Earth, etc. I just am honest about what my science dies not yet know. "Don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific answer. Not knowing every single step in the process, or not knowing for certain exactly which hypothesis could be correct, does not mean that we know nothing. Nor does it mean that abiogenesis is impossible. Sure, this still means the seeders had to begin life somehow somewhere and sometime, but I admitted that there are still questions. It has exactly the same questions that any other version of the origin of life has. So according to you, it is completely unsupported. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now