Origin Of Life On Earth: Simple Fusion To Jump-start Evolution

Origin Of Life On Earth: Simple Fusion To Jump-start Evolution

With the aid of a straightforward experiment, researchers have provided some clues to one of biology's most complex questions: how ancient organic molecules came together to form the basis of life.

The researchers note that this spontaneous fusing, or ligation, would a simple way for RNA to overcome initial barriers to growth and reach a biologically important size; at around 100 bases long, RNA molecules can begin to fold into functional, 3D shapes.

Where did the initial RNA nucleotides (A, C, U and G) come from?

Why isn't the earth just swarming with these molecules waiting to find a 70 degree acidic environment?

(hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen)

Hydrogen cyanide + Ammonia

If the earth was swarming with such material you'd think most of it would've formed organic (possibly living) material by now, wouldn't you?

In what quantities and under what conditions must hydrogen cyanide and ammonia be mixed in order to get adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil? How common are RNA nucleotides outside of a virus or living cell?

If it were possible for RNA to form under natural conditions in the past, why can it not form under natural conditions in the present? Why do we not have a continuous formation of living things without living precursors?

In what quantities and under what conditions must hydrogen cyanide and ammonia be mixed in order to get adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil? How common are RNA nucleotides outside of a virus or living cell?

If it were possible for RNA to form under natural conditions in the past, why can it not form under natural conditions in the present? Why do we not have a continuous formation of living things without living precursors?

Because those conditions no longer exist.

The "natural conditions" of Earth now are extremely different from those three and a half billion years ago.

Hell and you think I'd know that? :dunno:

I am merely illustrating the types of questions that a scientist who has not already made up his mind about the issue of origins should be asking about the information in this article.

Quote:

and who says we don't?

I am merely illustrating the types of questions that a scientist who has not already made up his mind about the issue of origins should be asking about the information in this article.

But aside from Darwinism I was always taught that living things do not come from non-living matter.

As far as anybody knows abiogenesis has never worked any time it has been tested, but Darwinists insist that it used to work in the past.

Well, I am not a scientist, however i am well-read in the subject. However i find it curious for someone who has a bachelor's degree in biology to not know how nucleotides formed.

Have you had a formal education on abiogenesis?

And how do you propose we find out? We supposed to put microscopes around deep ocean vents and wait for something to happen? You can't dismiss a well established science because of something that may or may not occur.

Also I must note that abiogensis is not Darwinism.

And the miller experiments?

Nucleotides can be formed in vitro and in vivo. Living things can assemble smaller, simpler molecules into nucleotides but this would require the first nucleotides to be formed to be formed when living things were already in existence- biogenesis. In vitro formation may not be possible in nature without the input of an intelligent and controlling force; forming nucleotide molecules are reactive and thus have to have other molecules attached to them to keep them stable until the nucleotide synthesis is complete. Without the protecting molecules a nucleotide in progress would react with other chemicals and thus either be broken apart or turned into something other than a nucleotide.

You mean other than covering it in 12th grade AP biology and again in the course I took on evolutionary biology in college?

You cannot base a well-established science on mere speculation either. Until you can document how abiogenesis could have happened, you cannot assume that it has ever happened, but this is exactly what Darwinists do.

No process ever observed in nature or conducted in the lab has ever turned non-living matter into a living cell.

Then why is the abiogenesis origin of life always discussed in connection with Darwinism in standard biology textbooks, test-prep manuals and college courses on evolutionary biology?

The only time the origin of life is disconnected from Darwinism is when the alternative is for Darwinists to admit that abiogenesis is impossible.

By intelligent and controlling force I'm assuming you're talking about god.

And unless by "in vivo" you mean within only organisms with intelligence and a direct control of the process, then your argument is shot to pieces isn't it?

So I take that as a NO.

Mechanism of Synthesis of Adenine from Hydrogen Cyanide under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions

yet.

Darwin did not propose abiogenesis.

Even if abiogenesis was proven to be 100% absolutely false then that still wouldn't disprove evolution. It just means the origin of life occurred from some other unknown phenomena.

Again as stated above, even if abiogenesis was proven wrong that wouldn't disprove evolution. Regardless research has proven that abiogenesis is possible. All of the necessary components for life exist as inanimate material on earth and in stars, the question here is how did they form together.

No I'm quite certain it did work.

So? This means nothing. What the experiments established is that it is possible, whether or not researchers found the exact conditions is missing the point altogether.

Well your first mistake is taking any information from creationist sites as if it contain any factual information.

You know this how? Were you or anyone else around 3.5 billion years ago to document what conditions existed at the time?

Nucleotides can be formed in vitro and in vivo. Living things can assemble smaller, simpler molecules into nucleotides but this would require the first nucleotides to be formed to be formed when living things were already in existence- biogenesis. In vitro formation may not be possible in nature without the input of an intelligent and controlling force; forming nucleotide molecules are reactive and thus have to have other molecules attached to them to keep them stable until the nucleotide synthesis is complete. Without the protecting molecules a nucleotide in progress would react with other chemicals and thus either be broken apart or turned into something other than a nucleotide.

You mean other than covering it in 12th grade AP biology and again in the course I took on evolutionary biology in college?

You cannot base a well-established science on mere speculation either. Until you can document how abiogenesis could have happened, you cannot assume that it has ever happened, but this is exactly what Darwinists do. No process ever observed in nature or conducted in the lab has ever turned non-living matter into a living cell.

Then why is the abiogenesis origin of life always discussed in connection with Darwinism in standard biology textbooks, test-prep manuals and college courses on evolutionary biology? The only time the origin of life is disconnected from Darwinsm is when the alternative is for Darwinists to admit that abiogenesis is impossible.

Miller?Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under possible primitive earth conditions? Meaning scientists simply created conditions under which the synthesis of adenine is possible and then called them primitive earth conditions since nobody was around to document what these conditions actually were.

Furthermore, the synthesis of adenine is not the formation of a living cell. It is not the origin of life.

Anatomically modern humans have supposedly been examining nature for some 10,000 years and we have looked from the moon to the deepest ocean and nobody has yet to observe the abiogenesis origin of living things.

You take it on faith that abiogenesis is possible and that it has happened in the past, but yet you Darwinists say creationism is religion rather than science.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But abiogenesis is what Darwinists generally assume and generally teach.

And what scientists say is always 100% complete and true?

Not necessarily since humans can form nucleotides in the lab.

Living things do not have conscious control over the in vivo formation of nucleotides. This is done due to their genetic programming, but it took an intelligent and controlling force to set up this genetic programming.

Under possible primitive earth conditions? Meaning scientists simply created conditions under which the synthesis of adenine is possible and then called them primitive earth conditions since nobody was around to document what these conditions actually were.

Furthermore, the synthesis of adenine is not the formation of a living cell. It is not the origin of life.

Anatomically modern humans have supposedly been examining nature for some 10,000 years and we have looked from the moon to the deepest ocean and nobody has yet to observe the abiogenesis origin of living things.

You take it on faith that abiogenesis is possible and that it has happened in the past, but yet you Darwinists say creationism is religion rather than science.

Define propose.

But abiogenesis is what Darwinists generally assume and generally teach.

monkey to man Darwinian scenario would be necessary to explain the diversity of life. Taking away abiogenesis opens the door for God and this destroys the worldview that Darwinism is based on.

Why?

Whether or not the creation of organic molecules is possible is not the issue.

Whether or not the creation of such molecules in a pre-biotic environment is the issue and until you can document this pre-biotic environment and duplicate it in the lab you cannot prove anything about the origin of life.

And what scientists say is always 100% complete and true?

[Earth's early atmosphere contained no oxygen.

Research.

Am I debating with a child? This argument strikes me as very juvenile.

Am I debating with a moron?