How life began????

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
The entire "free will" issue is tangential and an argument getter whenever a topic strays from its original title.

For some reason yesterday I posted about something relevant to this thread and somehow I was actually posting on "Sun Worship". OH well, I need to check my titles when posting.

ANYway- Id commented there that 3 of the 20 critical RNA amino acids (compiled via "polymerization") appear in the spectra of gases around stars and various gas clusters in our own galaxy. These spectra are seen in IR and UV light and , importantly,have to make one think about how bogus is the Creationists assertion about the "impossibility" of molecular self assembly. If youve got enough Hydrogen and secondary elements like O2, N2 and C the "Chemistry set " of the Universe is entirely possible. The ease of production of a cyclohexane ring is at the core of everything . Once a cyclohexan is formed , a jump to the RNA world then a RNA and Protein world, then An RNA,Protein,DNA world is not a mathematical improbability. APparently it appears to be a sure thing because the areas of amino acids in space are huge .

Even if all amino acids were everywhere in abundance, it is quite a jump to state that they would self assemble, and once assembled be able to survive and thrive instead of becoming chemically degraded.

What would happen if today you took RNA out of a cell and left it in the open environment? Would it thrive or would it degrade?

No it isn't quite a jump, because the actual claim is that within numerous immense oceans over hundreds of millions of years, one single self-replicating molecule finally formed and began making copies of itself. Soon there were numerous copies replicating themeselves. From time to time a mistake would occur during replication, resulting in a change. Some infinitessimal fraction of the changes were improvements. Maybe this whole thing had happened before and simply died out, but finally it succeeded. What is unlikely about that? And if you reply, don't change the subject or add new subjects.

It is quite unlikely.

First, because even evolutionists admit that they had to have the first living organism within the first 500,000,000- 1,000,000,000 years of Earth's history.

If the Earth and Sun are as old as postulated, the young Sun at that point in history would have been much cooler than it is today, and much of Earth's oceans would have been frozen.

So , out of the box you really don't have these multiplied millions and billions of attempts over hundreds of millions of years.

Please give a citation to the fact that the young Earth was too cold for chemical reactions to occur in its oceans.

real life wrote:

Then, as I mentioned to FM, the likely result of having an RNA type molecule in the open environment is that it will rapidly be destroyed.

I asked you not to change the subject. The introduction of new topics into a line or argument is often used as an escape from a losing position.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The entire "free will" issue is tangential and an argument getter whenever a topic strays from its original title.

For some reason yesterday I posted about something relevant to this thread and somehow I was actually posting on "Sun Worship". OH well, I need to check my titles when posting.

ANYway- Id commented there that 3 of the 20 critical RNA amino acids (compiled via "polymerization") appear in the spectra of gases around stars and various gas clusters in our own galaxy. These spectra are seen in IR and UV light and , importantly,have to make one think about how bogus is the Creationists assertion about the "impossibility" of molecular self assembly. If youve got enough Hydrogen and secondary elements like O2, N2 and C the "Chemistry set " of the Universe is entirely possible. The ease of production of a cyclohexane ring is at the core of everything . Once a cyclohexan is formed , a jump to the RNA world then a RNA and Protein world, then An RNA,Protein,DNA world is not a mathematical improbability. APparently it appears to be a sure thing because the areas of amino acids in space are huge .

Good points, I'm going to spend more time learning about the basic sciences and related philosophies and less time recycling theistic sophistry.

0 Replies

Quote:

Even if all amino acids were everywhere in abundance, it is quite a jump to state that they would self assemble,

Your pronouncement sounds like one of authority.The fact that 3 amino acids, already self assembled from as many as 6 different nucleotides, (which are cyclohexane bases) argues your attempted point.

Quote:

and once assembled be able to survive and thrive instead of becoming chemically degraded.

They dont have to "thrive" just exist. The fact that these exist in large "light year wide zones in the heavens" and have been visible for tens of years (at least since weve been able to detect the spectra) That kind of negates your other point

Quote:

First, because even evolutionists admit that they had to have the first living organism within the first 500,000,000- 1,000,000,000 years of Earth's history.

WE DONT HAVE TO HAVE NOTIN. The evidence supports an isotope of carbon in a ratio that is consistant with those occuring in todays life> We found these in Rocks from Greenland and you, my friend are adding that such is an IMPERATIVE TO LIFE. Now youre just playing word games and not following the evidence

Quote:

If the Earth and Sun are as old as postulated, the young Sun at that point in history would have been much cooler than it is today, and much of Earth's oceans would have been frozen.

In Vendean times we have evidence that the earth WAS frozen from cap to floor. However only the surface was frozen. Ice is a really good insulator to the waters beneath, so chemical reactions can go on unencumbered by the ice process.

Quote:

Then, as I mentioned to FM, the likely result of having an RNA type molecule in the open environment is that it will rapidly be destroyed

999 scientists out of 1000 , say that your assertion is incorrect.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Even if all amino acids were everywhere in abundance, it is quite a jump to state that they would self assemble,
Your pronouncement sounds like one of authority.The fact that 3 amino acids, already self assembled from as many as 6 different nucleotides, (which are cyclohexane bases) argues your attempted point.
Quote:
and once assembled be able to survive and thrive instead of becoming chemically degraded.
They dont have to "thrive" just exist. The fact that these exist in large "light year wide zones in the heavens" and have been visible for tens of years (at least since weve been able to detect the spectra) That kind of negates your other point
Quote:
First, because even evolutionists admit that they had to have the first living organism within the first 500,000,000- 1,000,000,000 years of Earth's history.
WE DONT HAVE TO HAVE NOTIN. The evidence supports an isotope of carbon in a ratio that is consistant with those occuring in todays life> We found these in Rocks from Greenland and you, my friend are adding that such is an IMPERATIVE TO LIFE. Now youre just playing word games and not following the evidence
Quote:
If the Earth and Sun are as old as postulated, the young Sun at that point in history would have been much cooler than it is today, and much of Earth's oceans would have been frozen.
In Vendean times we have evidence that the earth WAS frozen from cap to floor. However only the surface was frozen. Ice is a really good insulator to the waters beneath, so chemical reactions can go on unencumbered by the ice process.
Quote:
Then, as I mentioned to FM, the likely result of having an RNA type molecule in the open environment is that it will rapidly be destroyed

999 scientists out of 1000 , say that your assertion is incorrect.

Really? If you took RNA from a cell and left it in the open environment, it would continue to exist and replicate? It would not degrade? 999 scientists would say so? I don't think so.

How much RNA or DNA is left in a dead body after it is left in the open for a period of time? (And that is when it is still protected by cell wall etc for a period of time) It doesn't remain and continue to replicate, even though the requisite chemicals are all around it.

It chemically degrades, does it not?

0 Replies

Quote:

Really? If you took RNA from a cell and left it in the open environment, it would continue to exist and replicate

. Now you are changing the topic. I have consistently talked about the components of RNA in stars spectra. Ive not ever talked about the assembled molecule.
The peptide linkage of the components of The amino acids are quite complex in themselves. BUT NO, you want to change my statement by mischaracterizing my points. Lesse, what kind of fallacious argument is that.? Of course the assembled molecule is going to degrade. However, you miss the entire point of the data.Maybe if I speak more slowly

THE COMPONENTS OF RNA (SEVERAL KEY AMINO ACIDS) ARE FOUND IN THE SPECTRA OF STARS. I FIND THAT COMPELLING AND INTERESTING. You, on the other hand, cant take the next steps (How about some lab testing to see whether the 3 amino acids can be self supporting , or maybe there are protists or prokaryotic cells that only have 3 amino acids in their (albeit simple) genomes.

Science would start searching and testing, sampling and experimenting. Creationists merely go dumpster diving for some quotes to mine or statements to mischaracterize, they then try to make some convoluted argument and then pat themselves upon the back and say "See, I got him"!(or her, cause Barb Forrest really did in the Creationists at Dover).

I submit that the reason that Creationists dont do ANY independent exploration or testing is because they are afraid of what they may discover.

Quote:

If the Earth and Sun are as old as postulated,

You got something better in your quiver to refute it? like some evidence?

I notice that weve forgotten about the "Flood" .You trying to gather up some more quotes from Henry Morris?, Kent (I got no degrees in science) Hovind? or even the scientific chameleon Duane Gish?

0 Replies

It is not a change of topic. It is extremely relevant.

If you want to postulate that RNA can assemble itself, then it is useless unless it can also survive, reproduce and thrive in the open environment.

Clearly, if you take RNA and place it in the open environment it will not do so. It will degrade.

And it would've done the same thing 4 billion years ago. Sorry to bear bad news for you.

And I don't blame you for not talking about the assembled molecule for the obvious reason that it brings the whole argument crashing down around you.

You want to trash creationists for 'not researching', but you yourself admit that the obvious conclusion is 'of course the assembled molecule will degrade.'

0 Replies

Quote:

You want to trash creationists for 'not researching', but you yourself admit that the obvious conclusion is 'of course the assembled molecule will degrade.'

, and as I said numerous times, thatwas never my point . ALl you are doing is trying to assert one point of assembly while diverting the readers attention away from the fact that it is just as Amazing that the components of each of the amino acids are equally astounding. Sor example glycine alone is composed of 12 separate nucleotide molecules all in a protocoil. Imagine the peptization of all three amino acids in a longer coil of 45 separate molecules arranged in the codons.
I undesrtand that you would wish to downplay this evidence but lets assume that weve found a 3 amino acid genome, would you change your mind about Creationism?

Behes argum.ent about irreducible complexity using blood clotting was based upon a complex chain of enzymes, Hed sworn up and down that this was impossible to subdivide. Later research found that blood clotting in marine mammals used 2 less enzymes and horshoe crabs used almost half the number , yet all their bloods clotted

.

Quote:

If you want to postulate that RNA can assemble itself, then it is useless unless it can also survive, reproduce and thrive in the open environment.

Agreed, but remember .RNA and mRNA arent the living cell, they are mere components. We need germ plasm, cell walls and something for respiration. Lots of research is being done in all these areas and God's looking less like a tinkerer and, for scientific people of faith hes more of an "idea guy"

Quote:

And it would've done the same thing 4 billion years ago. Sorry to bear bad news for you.

And I don't blame you for not talking about the assembled molecule for the obvious reason that it brings the whole argument crashing down around you.

How so, Ive only been talking evidence, I havent been postulating a mechanism or posing any "smoking gun". Im open minded , If ever you Creationists come up with something other than nit picking at scientific research, Im sure someone in the sciences would listen. Your argument about this is just as simplistic as your argument about the fossil record.
In your past critiques of the fossil recordYou dont recognize the available fossil "Intermediates". And when someone finds an even closer intermediate by using a procedure that is actually a test of the veracity of the use of the geologic /stratigraphic record(eg tiiktalik was not found in a "blind search", Shubin and Deaschler looked at the world maps of the mid Devonian and stated that, if another intermediate "fishapod" from eusthenopteron was to be found, it would be in the lower mid Devonian). Thats why they chose Ellsmere because its environment was representative of deltaic deposits of the lower mid Devonian. That technique of predicting a find and then finding it, is as close to the vindication of the scientific method in Paleo that we could ever see. Getting back to your denial of the fossil record, where we had a gap and filled it in, you now say weve got 2 gaps. So, inyour mind hard working scientists dont stand a chance or an even shot. Thats ok, because I can see a time hwen students who wish to pursue studies involving paleogenetics, paleontology, evolutionary cladistics and stratigraphy, wont be required to put up with the cry for "equal time" by a baseless discipline A language in search of a subject Data and evidence is slowly making inroads into the closed minds of some religionists
Im curious, what do you have against the views of the origins of life held by such Christian denominations as the Lutherans or the CAtholics?.

0 Replies

If the RNA is a dead end, what good would adding on the cell wall etc do?

It is a simple argument. I admit it openly.

Anyone can understand that if the primary component for building a cell cannot survive outside the cell.....

........then there is no way that after being formed independently, it then survived, replicated, refined itself, became even more complex and then used it's information to assemble the rest of the cell.

It's a dead end.

------------------------------------------------------

I've got nothing personal against theistic evolutionists, as I've said before. I understand why they think as they do, I just don't happen to agree.

They've tried to reconcile their religious beliefs with evolution after being taught that evolution is overwhelmingly evidenced. It is far from that IMHO.

The refrain that I hear from evolutionists every time a dead end like this is referenced is 'well we may not know HOW it happened, but we're SURE it did happen.'

That is a statement of faith, not much more. If evolution cannot be falsified because it is always considered true even in the absence of evidence, then it is not really scientific, but philsophical in origin.

-----------------------------------------------------------

A three amino acid genome? Well, that would be something alright. I guess that would be about as close to conclusive as you could get, and the argument would be over at that point.

Sure, that'll be the day when RL joins us, I can hear theistic evolutionists say. But hey, a fella's got to know when he's whooped. Laughing

0 Replies

Ill deal with you later. I just learned that Timberlandko has died and Im no longer in a mood for this.

0 Replies

I am very sorry to hear it. Please extend my sincere sympathy to his family if you have contact with them. Sad

0 Replies