Protobionts in an RNA world...

[Morimotus]

Recently in my biology 1202 class, the lecture came to protobionts and RNA. Our professor said that b/w this simplest of structures, protobionts possibly filled w/ RNA, and the next step of full fledged cell, there is a huge gap which has gone for the most part unexplained. She says problems include the fact that protobionts are essentially just bubbles of phospholipids... they lack all the surface and transversing proteins real cell membranes have.

During our study group for the first exam, my atheist friend and I were discussing what would go on in this RNA world. Our text explained that protobionts had the ability to carry out a simple form of metabolism, turning glucose (which is added to them in experiments, since glucose doesn't spontaneously form here) into smaller compounds. And the text also showed that simple RNA sequences, up to 40 bases long and acting as enzymes as well as information carriers, were floating around with weak attractions to amino acids.

We concluded this would be a very pointless world, in addition to a very boring world. Protobionts floated in the sea, metabolizing glucose to some smaller compounds, but had nothing else to do with them (no ATP yet, so metabolism is pointless). And the RNA did nothing but float around too (but on clay... somehow they were transferred into protobionts), carrying their amino acids and making primitive proteins (with no guarantee of any usefulness).

Given also that the simplest organisms known are a species of Mycoplasma bacteria with about 500,000 bases, and that it's own DNA has a modified codon system (that is, after running out of codons, it goes all the way back to the start, skips the first base, then starts reading the next sets of 3 bases as new codons). My friend didn't make the connection here of the amount of complexity necessary for such a coding system as this to work. But my thoughts were: imagine how hard this would be to design yourself... with 500,000 bases and getting all the necessary proteins, too.

Mycoplasma is certainly no protobiont with baby RNA strands in it. Somehow the protobiont/RNA bubbles acquired the even more complex machinery (DNA even) to get ATP, ribosomes, other enzymes, etc.

My atheist friend says Christians take too much on faith. I'd have to say we biology students are the ones who take too much on faith, as it pertains to abiotic genesis and evolution. :read:

Any thoughts?

[psychopath]

I agree; the concept of abiogenesis is much less defensible and has much less supposed evidence than biological evolution.

[Stratnerd]

Mycoplasma bacteria with about 500,000 bases
the problem with using Mycoplasma as a model of early evolution is that it is, probably like all other living organisms, the product of billions of years of evolution.

[QED]

Well said, stratnerd. Even given the magnificent gulf between Fox's protocells and the first simple cells we would have called "alive", the difference between them is small compared to the difference between any modern cell and those first "living" cells that were the common ancestor(s).

[Gracchus]

There's lots of new evidence since the Urey-Miller experiment. :yipee: The "God of the Gaps" becomes ever smaller, and more fragmented. :eek: Those whose God depends on Chaldean cosmolgy are become ever more disturbed. :dufus: Thus does the real God disconcert the Bibolaters. :bawl:

[QED]

Who said anything about Urey-Miller? :teeth:

This was about protobionts, kind of a frankenstein stitched together from RNA world and proto-cells.

[Gracchus]

03-12-2003 @ 03:00 AM
QED:

Who said anything about Urey-Miller? :teeth:

This was about protobionts, kind of a frankenstein stitched together from RNA world and proto-cells. :dunce:

I mentioned Urey-Miller as a time/progress reference. The "God of the Gaps" is running out of room.

[Stratnerd]

Well said, stratnerd. Obrigado!

I've often heard the allusion to thermal vents and early life coming from marine biologists... has anyone read any stuff coming out of origin of life labs? Seems like the chemistry involved (e.g., temperature, pressure, etc etc) would be much different from, what I would call, traditional experiments.

[Socrates]

Don't these evolutionists read strong critiques of chemical evolution aka abiogenesis at Origin of Life Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp). This has devastating criticisms of the RNA world, Fox's proteinoid microspheres, hydrothermal origins, and how a first truly self-replicating organism would need to be even more complex than Mycoplasma which is an obligate parasite.

The evolutionist Yockey noted [A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.], and his position has not changed since he wrote:

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’
Chemical evolution is a deduction from materialistic belief, while the creationist criticisms are based on application of well attested principles of chemical science. Morimotus is right :thumb:

[Socrates]

Stratnerd's signature:
How much doth the hideous monkey resemble us! - Ennius ~200 B.C.
Cicero (106–43 BC):
If anybody believes that this is possible, I do not see why he should not think that if an infinite number of examples of the 21 letters of the alphabet, made of gold or what you will, were shaken together and poured out on the ground it would be possible for them to fall so as to spell out, say, the whole text of the Annals of Ennius. In fact I doubt whether chance would permit them to spell out a single verse!
Cicero, De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods), Book 2, sections 87–88.

[Gracchus]

"Socrates": You wrote: "Don't these evolutionists read strong critiques of chemical evolution aka abiogenesis at Origin of Life Questions and Answers. This has devastating criticisms of the RNA world, Fox's proteinoid microspheres, hydrothermal origins, and how a first truly self-replicating organism would need to be even more complex than Mycoplasma which is an obligate parasite."

I followed your link to Answers in Genesis. I found:

"Will scientists create new life forms—and what would it prove?" by , Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati,
B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1122create_life.asp

Dr. Sarfati is described as a Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist presently employed by AiG (Australia)

"His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules."

He is not a biochemist. We are not informed of any research he has done at AiG (Australia).

The article first described a plan to research genetics and partially synthesize a bacterium. But Dr. Sarfati is not a participant in the research.

"The idea is to create a partially man-made single-celled organism which is as simple as possible. The major players are J. Craig Venter and Nobel laureate Hamilton O. Smith, famous for founding Celera Genomics Corp. that deciphered the human genome."

It would appear they would be highly qualified to undertake this line of research.

"Note that they are still miles away from creating life—this is still very theoretical."

Duly noted.

The next subject would seem to be a little puzzling:

"Rights and wrongs? Venter convened a panel of ethicists and religious leaders to discuss whether it was right to try to make a new life form."

So Venter is going to discuss the morality of the project before he starts. It's good PR.

"But debates about morality are futile unless there is an authoritative source for morality."

Debates about morality are futile. I agree. But I do not acknowlege any authoritative source for my morality except me. That is what constitutes free will.

"If we are simply rearranged pond scum as evolution teaches, then morality is just an illusion—just particular motions of electrons in our brain which gave our alleged ape-like ancestors a survival advantage."

This tells me that Dr. Sarfati is to be trusted only so long as he thinks God is going to hold him accountable. He and many other Christians maintain there is morality only so long as there are a carrot and a stick for bribe and threat. They are not good because they themselves love the good. Or perhaps it's only the people who don't believe in God, who need the carrot and the stick? But how are the rules to be enforced until God judges and applies the carrot or the stick?

"Conversely, if we have been created, then our Creator owns us and has the right to make the rules for us."

Aye, there's the rub. We are property, and God can make the rules, but since Christians can scarcely agree two together as to what is the correct doctrine, and the correct interpretation of their holy book, who decides what the rules really are? The answer of course is the "true Christians". (The ones who agree with us.) And if you don't think that is so, you probably should have flunked history. Did you ever hear about the "Hundred Year War"?

Dr. Sarfati goes on to expound on some biblical "principles", which are internal matters to Christianity, and so matters of utter indifference to me.

Then we are treated to:
"There seems to be nothing wrong in itself with creating new non-human life forms, and the advance in knowledge for its own sake would be worthwhile."

So what was the point of the article?

"This knowledge may have some practical uses. Venter and Smith plan to add new functions to it one at a time, e.g. to break down excess carbon dioxide or to produce hydrogen for fuel."

It is really strange how scientifically uncreative "creation scientists" really are. Some of them might find work in advertising, though -- maybe selling copper bracelets?

"We must be cautious of possible dangers"

We? I thought the researchers were Venter and Smith.

To make a long, boring story shorter, Dr. Sarfati allows that this will prove nothing. It will not, he assures us, disprove creationism. Big deal! Despite what creationists assume, scientists, even atheistic scientists, are not trying to disprove the existence of God.

"Socrates" wrote (Remember?): "This has devastating criticisms of the RNA world, Fox's proteinoid microspheres, hydrothermal origins, and how a first truly self-replicating organism would need to be even more complex than Mycoplasma which is an obligate parasite."

I think you read a little more into the article than was actually there, "Socrates."

Then, Socrates, after a 25 year old quote from "Yockey" (Hubert Yockey a physicist who worked for Oppenheimer on the bomb), you deliver your crushing peroration: "Chemical evolution is a deduction from materialistic belief, while the creationist criticisms are based on application of well attested principles of chemical science. Morimotus is right "

The biologists, geneticists, biochemists, many of them Nobel Laureates, are wrong. The otherwise un-identified student, "Morimotus" is right. I must say, Socrates, you have certainly presented an airtight, clear argument. Or was that a plastic bag over your head?

By the way the following is from a letter by Yockey to Gert Korthof, one of the reviewers of his book: "Information theory and molecular biology" Cambridge University Press 1992 ISBN 0 521 35005 0 (second edition is in preparation)

"If you send me your postal address I shall send you the Computers & Chemistry paper. That will explain why the recent data on the genomes of human and other organisms provide a mathematical proof of "Darwinism" beyond a reasonable doubt."

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof5.htm#Yockey 3/12/03



:rofl:

[Socrates]

Another God-hating scientific ignoramus called Gracchus ranted :rant::

"Socrates": You wrote: "Don't these evolutionists read strong critiques of chemical evolution aka abiogenesis at Origin of Life Questions and Answers. This has devastating criticisms of the RNA world, Fox's proteinoid microspheres, hydrothermal origins, and how a first truly self-replicating organism would need to be even more complex than Mycoplasma which is an obligate parasite."

Gracchus:
I followed your link to Answers in Genesis. I found:

"Will scientists create new life forms—and what would it prove?" by , Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati,
B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc...create_life.asp

Dr. Sarfati is described as a Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist presently employed by AiG (Australia)

"His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules."

He is not a biochemist. We are not informed of any research he has done at AiG (Australia).Just check the bio. And a highly qualified chemist like him is just the man to point out the chemical flaws in chemical evolution, which are glossed over by biologists who are more interested in propping up their blind materialistic faith. One day a misotheist might surprise us all and try to refute the actual arguments!

The article first described a plan to research genetics and partially synthesize a bacterium. But Dr. Sarfati is not a participant in the research.So he's in a good position to comment, having no vested interests.
....
"Note that they are still miles away from creating life—this is still very theoretical."
Duly noted.Good for you.
....

"But debates about morality are futile unless there is an authoritative source for morality."

Debates about morality are futile. I agree. But I do not acknowlege any authoritative source for my morality except me. That is what constitutes free will. So why should any of us give a monkey's about any righteous indignation you might express?
"If we are simply rearranged pond scum as evolution teaches, then morality is just an illusion—just particular motions of electrons in our brain which gave our alleged ape-like ancestors a survival advantage."

This tells me that Dr. Sarfati is to be trusted only so long as he thinks God is going to hold him accountable. He and many other Christians maintain there is morality only so long as there are a carrot and a stick for bribe and threat. They are not good because they themselves love the good. Or perhaps it's only the people who don't believe in God, who need the carrot and the stick? But how are the rules to be enforced until God judges and applies the carrot or the stick?Most likely, if he's anything like most Christians, they do what's right because it IS right to do what our Creator and Savior asks of us! But there is absolutely no reason to trust anyone who believes we're just "rearranged pond scum".

"Conversely, if we have been created, then our Creator owns us and has the right to make the rules for us."

Aye, there's the rub. We are property, and God can make the rules,He got something right!... but since Christians can scarcely agree two together as to what is the correct doctrine, and the correct interpretation of their holy book, who decides what the rules really are? The answer of course is the "true Christians". (The ones who agree with us.) There is an objective standard: the propositional revelation of Scripture, interpreted according to the grammatical and historical context. Is the bigot going to offer anything more than elephant hurling?


Dr. Sarfati goes on to expound on some biblical "principles", which are internal matters to Christianity, and so matters of utter indifference to me.Who gives a monkey's? I don't give a monkeys about the dogmatic materialism or methodological naturalism that governs chemical evolutionary research.

To make a long, boring story shorter, Dr. Sarfati allows that this will prove nothing. It will not, he assures us, disprove creationism. Big deal! Despite what creationists assume, scientists, even atheistic scientists, are not trying to disprove the existence of God.Obviously you've never read the bigoted God-hatred spouted by Dawkins, who's much admired in the evolutionary community. :dunce:

"Socrates" wrote (Remember?): "This has devastating criticisms of the RNA world, Fox's proteinoid microspheres, hydrothermal origins, and how a first truly self-replicating organism would need to be even more complex than Mycoplasma which is an obligate parasite."

I think you read a little more into the article than was actually there, "Socrates.":doh: A different article on the Q&A page obviously http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp :doh:

Then, Socrates, after a 25 year old quote from "Yockey" (Hubert Yockey a physicist who worked for Oppenheimer on the bomb), you deliver your crushing peroration: "Chemical evolution is a deduction from materialistic belief, while the creationist criticisms are based on application of well attested principles of chemical science. Morimotus is right "Yockey is an expert in information theory and the origin of life.
The biologists, geneticists, biochemists, many of them Nobel Laureates, are wrong.Well, here I was thinking that science was based on evidence, not authority. We have yet to see even a remotely plausible scenario for life coming from non life.

[Stratnerd]

Origin of Life Questions and Answers. they could also get the same criticisms from materialists without the apologetics. AIG says "look how improbable just believe God did it".
self-replicating organism would need to be even more complex than Mycoplasma which is an obligate parasite. how do you and they know? I've already explained why Mycoplasma is an improper model to use.

The evolutionist Yockey I've seen some of this guy's work... he calculated the Pr of the formation of relatively large proteins - I don't know if this is relevent to anything. Did life or prelife start with these large proteins?
Chemical evolution is a deduction from materialistic belief, here you talk about deduction...
while the creationist criticisms are based on application of well attested principles of chemical science. and here you talk about criticisms.

Criticisms about the origin of life come from all types - not just creationists. But AIG would rathers have you throw your hands up and say "God did it" rather than doing more research. What is the creationist deduction? Like I've said many times - evidence is irrelevent to a creationist!

[Goochdad]

LOL!! A physical chemist and spectroscopist, supposedly qualified to point out the flaws in abiogenesis? Forget about it.

I work with dozens of such PhDs. My company makes spectroscopy equipment which is used by physical chemists, and my boss, my marketing manager, my chief scientist, and many other coworkers are physical chemists.

We've had many discussions on the topic of biochemistry, since that is one market where we'd like to sell more instruments. Pretty much every one of these physical chemists has only a cursory knowledge of biochemistry. Its an entirely different specialty.

Nice try, Socrates, but you'll have to find a better 'expert'.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Gracchus]

03-12-2003 @ 11:55 AM
Socrates:

Another God-hating scientific ignoramus called Gracchus ranted :rant::


Now, where did you get the idea that I hate God? "Scientific ignoramus"? "Ranted"? Your choice of words indicates to me, that the hate is yours, and it is directed at me. I am undismayed. I admit I am not really T. Sempronius Gracchus, but then, you are not Socrates.

Gracchus: I followed your link to Answers in Genesis. I found:

"Will scientists create new life forms—and what would it prove?" by , Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati,
B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.

(et cetera)

He is not a biochemist. We are not informed of any research he has done at AiG (Australia).

Socrates: Just check the bio. And a highly qualified chemist like him is just the man to point out the chemical flaws in chemical evolution, which are glossed over by biologists who are more interested in propping up their blind materialistic faith. One day a misotheist might surprise us all and try to refute the actual arguments!

Ah! I see, anyone who finds your reasoning somewhat less than perfect, (and it is far short of perfect,) hates God and is dishonest to boot. So they aren't atheists, they believe in God but hate Him. I'm glad you clarified that. It is so refreshing to engage a Christian in such civil dialogue.

Gracchus: The article first described a plan to research genetics and partially synthesize a bacterium. But Dr. Sarfati is not a participant in the research.

Socrates: So he's in a good position to comment, having no vested interests.

He works for AiG. He has a vested interest in his rice bowl. His article was rather puny, though. Maybe they should cut his paycheck.

Dr. Sarfati then asked his readers to note that this project was not the synthesis of life.

Which I: Duly noted.

Socrates: Good for you.

Oh dear! I fear I have misled you. By affirming that I had noted an uncontested fact, I was in fact implying a slight sarcasm. I should have known that you were insensitive to the subtleties of rhetoric.

Dr. Sarfati then made a qualified statement about the futility of moral arguments. I then restated it without qualification, based on such arguments that I have witnessed.

Debates about morality are futile. I agree. But I do not acknowlege any authoritative source for my morality except me. That is what constitutes free will.

Socrates: So why should any of us give a monkey's about any righteous indignation you might express?

You are indignant. I am amused.

Gracchus:This tells me that Dr. Sarfati is to be trusted only so long as he thinks God is going to hold him accountable. He and many other Christians maintain there is morality only so long as there are a carrot and a stick for bribe and threat. They are not good because they themselves love the good. Or perhaps it's only the people who don't believe in God who need the carrot and the stick? But they don't believe in the carrot and the stick, so how are the rules to be enforced until God judges and applies the carrot or the stick?

Socrates: Most likely, if he's anything like most Christians, they do what's right because it IS right to do what our Creator and Savior asks of us!

There are some things I would not do even faced with damnation. For instance, if God told me to take a child up on a mountain and kill it, I would tell God where to stick it. But I can't remember that God has ever asked me to do any such, so perhaps God won't hold it too much against me. It is after all, an exercise of my free will, and I will maintain, a proper exercise.

Socrates: But there is absolutely no reason to trust anyone who believes we're just "rearranged pond scum".

But we are to trust those who believe we are just rearranged mud? Well, I will grant you, and Dr. Sarfati, and Genesis, a little poetic license.

Gracchus: Aye, there's the rub. We are property, and God can make the rules,(Socrates interjects: "He got something right!")... but since Christians can scarcely agree even two together on what is the correct Christian doctrine, and the correct interpretation of their holy book, who decides what the rules really are? The answer of course is the "true Christians". (The ones who agree with you.)

Socrates: There is an objective standard: the propositional revelation of Scripture, interpreted according to the grammatical and historical context.

And all Christians are in perfect agreement, right? I think what you're attempting is called begging the question, so you can appeal to authority.

Socrates: Is the bigot going to offer anything more than elephant hurling?

Have you misclassified me as a bigot? My bigotry, if such it is, is not elephant hurling! I am a liberal. My bigotry would be donkey doo-doo.

Gracchus: Dr. Sarfati goes on to expound on some biblical "principles", which are internal matters to Christianity, and so matters of utter indifference to me.

Socrates: Who gives a monkey's? I don't give a monkeys about the dogmatic materialism or methodological naturalism that governs chemical evolutionary research.

Exactly my point. The term is "methodological naturalism" and it is the basis not only "chemical evolutionary research", but all real science. I recall a cartoon I once saw: Two men are standing in front of a blackboard covered with mathematical symbols, the phrase "then a miracle occurs", followed my more symbols. One man says to the other, pointing at the "miracle", "I think you need to be a little more specific here."

The utility of science is that it does not place miracles in evidence. For one thing, if "God did" everything, then "God did it." carrys no useful information. Nor does it suggest further lines of research. But I will take your word that you don't care.

Gracchus: To make a long, boring story shorter, Dr. Sarfati allows that this will prove nothing. It will not, he assures us, disprove creationism. Big deal! Despite what creationists assume, scientists, even atheistic scientists, are not trying to disprove the existence of God.

Socrates: Obviously you've never read the bigoted God-hatred spouted by Dawkins, who's much admired in the evolutionary community.

As a matter of fact (surprise!), I have read some of Dawkins books. It is my understanding he is an atheist, which is irrelevant to his scientific qualifications. I have not read everything he has written, of course, but I have not seen him express any animosity toward God. He strikes me as too intelligent to waste energy hating something that he doesn't even believe exists. You on the other hand seem to construct hateful caricatures of those who disagree with you and then, hurl intemperate invective at your creations.

Gracchus: I think you read a little more into the article than was actually there, "Socrates."

Socrates: A different article on the Q&A page obviously http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

I clicked on the link you posted.

Socrates: Yockey is an expert in information theory and the origin of life.

An expert who says that the human genome project "has proven Darwinism beyond a reasonable doubt." He apparently thinks that abiogenesis has not attained that certainty. But I have not read anything to indicate he is an expert in the field of abiogenesis.

Gracchus: The biologists, geneticists, biochemists, many of them Nobel Laureates, are wrong.

I was trying to state your position as I perceive it. I should be more careful. That is the sort of thing that creationists like to quote out of context to misrepresent a persons position. I think you understood me, but some creationists lack your discernment.

Socrates: Well, here I was thinking that science was based on evidence, not authority.

Still, those who have actually studied a subject may provide illumination for us lesser lights. They should be evaluated. And by the way, weren't you the one touting Dr. Sarfati? And scripture? Are you the only one who can cite authority?


Socrates: We have yet to see even a remotely plausible scenario for life coming from non life.

Perhaps your vision is obstructed?

A humble hint if I may: Less vituperation and more reason would provide you with a better public countenance if you're trying to deceive people. If you really want to be honest, look in the mirror and pluck the beam out of your own eye. You won't have any trouble finding it, it's immense. Removing it however might require a crane and a team of experts.

[Morimotus]

03-12-2003 @ 01:54 AM
Stratnerd:


the problem with using Mycoplasma as a model of early evolution is that it is, probably like all other living organisms, the product of billions of years of evolution.

The problem is that Mycoplasma, tho so "simple" is actually very complex as I've pointed out. There is a huge gap b/w life and protobionts. The point, which you seemed to have missed, is that protocells filled w/ rna have no where to go. Please read it again. And the DNA base count is just one difference... note that mycoplasma is not simply a ball of phospholipids w/ genetic material.

This is also only one of the problems. Has anyone on this board ever discussed UV damage to RNA? Esp. since the early earth is theorised to have had no oxygen.

[Morimotus]

03-12-2003 @ 02:03 AM
QED:

Well said, stratnerd. Even given the magnificent gulf between Fox's protocells and the first simple cells we would have called "alive", the difference between them is small compared to the difference between any modern cell and those first "living" cells that were the common ancestor(s).

What exactly would have been the first "simple" cell? Again, simple metabolism and floating RNA making useless small protein chains are a big jump away from anything that can make this metabolized glucose into something useful for energy.

I've also noticed the rest of my post is ignored, i. e. the fact that there are no nutrients around to metabolize and that while RNA is supposed to have formed in clay, Protobionts form in water. How do you get the two together w/o:

a) RNA sequences hydrolysing - RNA is very susceptible to degradation by base- or enzyme-hydrolysis
b) any useful proteins hydrolysing - this is obvious

And please, no insults from either side (this is just a forewarning to anyone). As a biology student, I'm just looking for the answers.

And to whoever said this, one's field of specialty does not denote he/she is incompetent to opinion on something outside his field. If that were true, then we should all shut up when we criticize professional sports players on TV :) Seriously tho, one's area of specialty has no decisive bearing on the truthfulness of one's argument. It does not mean that a third grader off the street can come and comment on quantum physics, but it does not mean this person is lying or his/her argument is untrue. A simple rule in logic is that you attack an argument, NOT the arguer.

[Morimotus]

Exactly my point. The term is "methodological naturalism" and it is the basis not only "chemical evolutionary research", but all real science. I recall a cartoon I once saw: Two men are standing in front of a blackboard covered with mathematical symbols, the phrase "then a miracle occurs", followed my more symbols. One man says to the other, pointing at the "miracle", "I think you need to be a little more specific here."

The utility of science is that it does not place miracles in evidence. For one thing, if "God did" everything, then "God did it." carrys no useful information. Nor does it suggest further lines of research. But I will take your word that you don't care.


Evolution, as hyped as it is, is but another branch of biology - a weak one at that, for it’s essentially non-empirical: you can’t experiment with it. Only the obvious mechanisms like natural selection and heredity are observable, but these have never produced in any experiment the type of changes necessary to naturally sprout new organelles, new tissues, or new organs. We can make flies mutate like mad, but we still get flies, albeit perhaps with 6 eyes or 3 wings or no legs or somesuch (still either existing or missing information).

We’ve produced MOST of life’s building blocks(Miler/Urey, etc) , but these never congregate to form even a simple cell. They just float in the water, and proteins never stay around b/c they will quickly hydrolyze, and so would RNA. All our study of evolution shows is that species in fact do change over time (no person can dispute this), but not as drastic as is taught. Darwin’s finches and peppered moths show what real evolution is: simply modifications of existing traits.

A true miracle it is that protobionts could change into cells with useful metabolism systems, energy storage, useful functional proteins and enzymes (other than small RNA strands with amino acids). I think something we all need to admit here is that origins science (be it evolution or creation) is simply not that important. It will never result in the type of science that can be experimented with, nor the science that creates new vaccines or describes new plant species or finds out how organelles in cells work. Biology is not dependent on any origins theory. It’s well worth looking into the origin of life, but we must remember that it’s inherently limited because it’s not empirical. In essence... it's NOT "real science", Gracche.

Real science like Genetics actually only tells us nature can select from existing traits; mutations most often than not produce harmful or neutral effects. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a very weak argument for evolution, for evolution needs to produce novel organs like lungs from gills. Much more new genetic information is required. Biochemistry tells us that UV radiation damages genetic material, but evolutionary theory tells us “primitive earth” had no oxygen, thus no ozone - but still somehow DNA and RNA formed?

To say "God did it" only says what the beginning was. It may not lead to research into "how" it was done, like a hypothesis that life was generated out of chemicals would. But it simply makes the area of origins irrelevant to study b/c the question is answered. And origins is made even more irrelevant by the "God' idea than origins already is as it pertains to real observable science... whether rats were created or evolved has no effect on whether they will in the present repeatedly react to a certain carcinogen inhibitor in experiment after experiment.

Evolution/Creation is just an intellectual curiosity to me, and it borders on direct philosophy, b/c both rely so much on faith. We don't know "how" God could have created... so how can we be sure of it if we can't see it or test it? We don't know "how" protobionts could have changed into cells... so how can we be sure of it if we can't test it or see it. Neither idea can ever be tested nor repeated, so its outside the realm of what real science -- physics, astronomy, linguistics, etc. -- is. The past is out of our reach. We use the same "historical" evidence, but I've seen the same evidence interpreted two wholly different ways. But the clincher should be if one of them couldn't begin in the first place, then the other must be true (either life was created (this includes theistic evolution), or life appeared naturally). If it is shown a God does not exist, natural evolution must be true. If it is shown that there is an impass on the natural evolution trail (such as that RNA making useless proteins from not even the 20 amino acids needed, since not all the 20 naturally form in water, plus that RNA can't be in water) then creation (not specifically the Christian one, but a creation nonetheless) must be true. And this by an eternal being w/ no beginning, otherwise you push the problem back to "where did this godlife come from?"<<< another creation/natural argument would begin.

Remember everyone, argue nice here... no ad hominem in any form. (And if I accidently do one, please feel free to virtually slap me :smile: )

[Socrates]

Goochdad:
LOL!! A physical chemist and spectroscopist, supposedly qualified to point out the flaws in abiogenesis? Forget about it.You bet he is. A lot of chemical evolutionary theologising involves aspects of of physical chemistry, e.g. chirality, equilibrium constants, kinetics -- most of these are conveniently glossed over when this materialistic faith is sold to the public as real science. And your refutation is, what?I work with dozens of such PhDs. My company makes spectroscopy equipment which is used by physical chemists, and my boss, my marketing manager, my chief scientist, and many other coworkers are physical chemists.

We've had many discussions on the topic of biochemistry, since that is one market where we'd like to sell more instruments. Pretty much every one of these physical chemists has only a cursory knowledge of biochemistry. Its an entirely different specialty.I dunno what it's like in your country, but in the Antipodes, Ph.D. candidates always have a lot of training in their general field before specialising. So it makes sense that a specialist in spectroscopy would be well versed in much of the chemistry involved in chemical evolution.
Nice try, Socrates, but you'll have to find a better 'expert'.That's rich coming from someone who pontificated on geology, something in which he is not qualified, and used a B.S. physicist as HIS expert!

[Socrates]

Socrates:
Origin of Life Questions and Answers.
they could also get the same criticisms from materialists without the apologetics.Yes, so we're waiting. It's far better to have all the criticisms easily accessible as they are. AIG says "look how improbable just believe God did it". Stratnerd and his fellow misotheists say, "Chemical evolution may be improbable, but it happened anyway. It must have, because we're here, and God couldn't have done it because that would destroy our materialistic faith."

self-replicating organism would need to be even more complex than Mycoplasma which is an obligate parasite.
how do you and they know? I've already explained why Mycoplasma is an improper model to use. And we should listen to a mere undergrad like you rather than Venter who DOES use Mycoplasma as a model. Is this boy denying that Mycoplasma is the simplest known organism and IS an obligate parasite?

The evolutionist Yockey I've seen some of this guy's work... he calculated the Pr of the formation of relatively large proteins - I don't know if this is relevent to anything. Did life or prelife start with these large proteins? Of course it's relevant. Life would need hundreds of proteins to work!

Chemical evolution is a deduction from materialistic belief,

here you talk about deduction...

while the creationist criticisms are based on application of well attested principles of chemical science.
and here you talk about criticisms. Yes. What's wrong with that?

Criticisms about the origin of life come from all types - not just creationists.And I'm waiting for answers. Humph, you can't please these atheists. Stratnerd whinges about the criticisms because materialists make them too, while Goochdad and Gracchus refuse to acknowledge them because they are made by a creationist! But AIG would rathers have you throw your hands up and say "God did it" rather than doing more research.And Stratnerd and the materialists have already made up their minds that chemical evolution happened, and just want more taxpayers' dollars devoted to research to back up their blind faith. What is the creationist deduction? Like I've said many times - evidence is irrelevent to a creationist!And a boy like you could say this many more times, and you'd still be wrong! Rather, evidence is irrelevant to the materialists -- they just have faith that chemical evolution happened somehow, somewhere, some time ago, regardless of whether they have evidence to support it!

[Socrates]

Socrates:
The article first described a plan to research genetics and partially synthesize a bacterium. But Dr. Sarfati is not a participant in the research.

So he's in a good position to comment, having no vested interests.

Gracchus griped:
He works for AiG. He has a vested interest in his rice bowl. As if he depends for his livelihood on this Venter project, you bigot :duh:.His article was rather puny, though. Maybe they should cut his paycheck.Why not suggest it to them? And one day you might try to refute it, even though you mistake concise for "puny". It did just the job it was supposed to, I thought, especially on showing the complexity of even the simplest life. Note that they want to reduce the Mycoplasma to the bare minimum, but there are severe doubts whether anything simpler could survive.

[Lots of boring misochristism from this self-confessed apostate snipped]
Exactly my point. The term is "methodological naturalism" and it is the basis not only "chemical evolutionary research", but all real science.And you also need to learn the distinction between operational and origins science http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism This shows up your deceitful caricature that creationists would invoke miracles in real operational science.

Then Gracchus showed his ignorance again :dufus::

Despite what creationists assume, scientists, even atheistic scientists, are not trying to disprove the existence of God.
I replied:

Obviously you've never read the bigoted God-hatred spouted by Dawkins, who's much admired in the evolutionary community.
Gracchus then limply argued:
As a matter of fact (surprise!), I have read some of Dawkins books. It is my understanding he is an atheist, which is irrelevant to his scientific qualifications.Not only is Gracchus an anti-Chrsitian bigot, he's a hypocrite as well. It's apparently OK to dismiss Dr Sarfati's scientific criticisms of chemical evolution (and Gracchus hasn't even breached the surface tension), but apparently a rabid atheist like Dawkins is the epitome of objectivty when discussing evolution, so essential to his atheistic faith.
I have not read everything he has written, of course, but I have not seen him express any animosity toward God.
Well, you obviously haven't read the parts in The Blind Wathcmaker where he explicitly states that he is trying to make atheism respectable, or his intemperate attacks on Christianity where he even would ban parents from teaching their kids about religion if he had his way :rant:. In fact, he's so vituperative that many other evolutionists distance themselves from him because he gives the materialistic game away so blatantly.
He strikes me as too intelligent to waste energy hating something that he doesn't even believe exists.According to Romans 1:20 ff., no one has any excuse for rejecting God because the evidence for creation is so clear. Rather, people WILFULLY reject the evidence because they love darkness rather than light.
Socrates:
Well, here I was thinking that science was based on evidence, not authority. Gracchus:
Still, those who have actually studied a subject may provide illumination for us lesser lights. They should be evaluated. And by the way, weren't you the one touting Dr. Sarfati? And scripture? Are you the only one who can cite authority?Actually, I cited a web page linking to articles with scientific evidence against chemical evolution. YOU were the one who brought the personality of Dr Sarfati into it! :doh:

[Stratnerd]

M-
The problem is that Mycoplasma, tho so "simple" is actually very complex as I've pointed out. There is a huge gap b/w life and protobionts. The point, which you seemed to have missed
I know Mycoplasma isn't "simple" that's why I said is was inappropriate to use as a model or even as you did, as a comparison.
What exactly would have been the first "simple" cell? who knows? all we can do is build models and test them... but this doesn't mean we should throw our arms up and accept Genesis as True.

[Stratnerd]

Stratnerd and his fellow misotheists say, "Chemical evolution may be improbable, but it happened anyway. It must have, because we're here, and God couldn't have done it because that would destroy our materialistic faith."

I'd be happy to accept a supernatural explanation if there was evidence that it happened. It isn't faith, I don't have any convictions either way and my beliefs are rather "floating". But it's terribly presumptuous of you to assume to know what I think and it does make you look like an ass.

And we should listen to a mere undergrad like you rather than Venter who DOES use Mycoplasma as a model. Is this boy denying that Mycoplasma is the simplest known organism and IS an obligate parasite? Another assumption about me... your batting average is going down mighty Socrates. It is the simplest known organism, but AGAIN, it is far from simple and was probably nothing like what the first organism were.

Of course it's relevant. Life would need hundreds of proteins to work! There might be a difference between what current organisms use and how life started out. Unless one is testing the hypothesis of many large proteins coming together, his work isn't relevent.
Yes. What's wrong with that? mixing apples and oranges

Stratnerd whinges about the criticisms because materialists make them too what are you talking about???? I'm making criticisms myself about my fellow ignoramus misotheists!

And Stratnerd and the materialists have already made up their minds that chemical evolution happened nope, I'd be happy to accept alians or superintelligent bioengineering being(s) including God but it doesn't look like it's the same dude from Genesis.

And a boy like you oh brother - kiss off.
Rather, evidence is irrelevant to the materialists then evolution and all the subsequent hypotheses were just plucked from the air? and if a supernatural being presented itself we would all deny it? you need a reality check.

[Berserker]

Anyone want a professional opinion? Don't expect if from me, I'm still 2 years from graduating. :frown:

Anyways the common fallacy stated by religious factors (notice how neutral and respecting I am in stating my enemies by name, Unlike a certain some one we know.) is that because Abiogenesis is a hypothetical field and its unclear nature some how invalidates Evolution. This is not anymore true then accuracy of Newton’s laws of motion (proven false at photonic speeds) having an effect on psychodynamic theory. Evolution does not have anything to say about Prebiotic molecules nor does how life started effect that fact that it evolves. Personally I feel the best answer for Abiogenesis is to find other examples of the process and its results: Such examples might be found underground on Mars, In the oceans of Europa, In the organic tar seas of Titan and in the dirty ice of comets… who said space travel was useless?!?

[Gracchus]

Morimotus wrote:
What exactly would have been the first "simple" cell? Again, simple metabolism and floating RNA making useless small protein chains are a big jump away from anything that can make this metabolized glucose into something useful for energy.

I think the proposed research by J. Craig Venter and Hamilton O. Smith is part of the investigation that may very well lead to a possible answer to that question. (I apologize for all the qualifications, they interrupt the flow of thought, but seizing on imprecise statements, or sometimes even very precise ones, and presenting them out of context as authority for their own arguments, is a reputed tactic of those who are more interested in winning the plaudits of the "booboisie" than in determining truth.)

I've also noticed the rest of my post is ignored, i. e. the fact that there are no nutrients around to metabolize and that while RNA is supposed to have formed in clay, Protobionts form in water. How do you get the two together w/o:

a) RNA sequences hydrolysing - RNA is very susceptible to degradation by base- or enzyme-hydrolysis
b) any useful proteins hydrolysing - this is obvious


Remember the varied organic products of the Urey-Miller experiment. Such molecules could be the reactants and catalysts for further processes. Ice and clay have both been proposed as catalyzing surfaces. But there may be other possible environments, black smokers or deep hydrothermal cracks with strange and wonderful chemistries. Even in the clouds of drifting interstellar gas and dust, organic molecules have been detected. There is much to be studied, and still much to be learned. Wouldn't it be rich irony if Fred Hoyle got it even partially right, and like Wegener, was finally vindicated. The theory of evolution has led to so many fruitful lines of research that I at least, find it incomprehensible any sane and knowledgeable person would think it is not true.

"Godidit." is a dead end. It neither explains in a comprehensible way, nor does it suggest new lines of research. Maybe God did do it. And maybe he has left us clues to how he did it.

Morimotus wrote:
Evolution, as hyped as it is, is but another branch of biology - a weak one at that, for it’s essentially non-empirical: you can’t experiment with it.

Dang! Two out of two wrong. Evolution is the single unifying concept that underlies all biology, and ties biology to indissolubly (sorry, no pun intended, at least at first) to chemistry and conceptually to psychology. Many creationists seem to sense this rather dimly which is why they include cosmology, physics and geology as "evolution".

Only the obvious mechanisms like natural selection and heredity are observable, but these have never produced in any experiment the type of changes necessary to naturally sprout new organelles, new tissues, or new organs. We can make flies mutate like mad, but we still get flies, albeit perhaps with 6 eyes or 3 wings or no legs or somesuch (still either existing or missing information).

But we have tailored bacteria to produce insulin, and even if you don't concede that as evidence for evolution, it is an almost direct result of evolutionary theory, which suggested lines of research. So, for something that creationists think is not true, it has still proved extremely useful.

We’ve produced MOST of life’s building blocks(Miler/Urey, etc) , but these never congregate to form even a simple cell. They just float in the water, and proteins never stay around b/c they will quickly hydrolyze, and so would RNA. All our study of evolution shows is that species in fact do change over time (no person can dispute this), but not as drastic as is taught. Darwin’s finches and peppered moths show what real evolution is: simply modifications of existing traits.

New traits do appear by point mutations. They have appeared, and this is demonstrated, by multiple alleles. The inversion of a gene, not uncommon when it is copied to the wrong chromosome during meiosis can easily lead a protein to be assembled in inverted order. While of the same chemical composition as the original, may be configured quite differently because it experiences different intra-molecular bonding forces during synthesis.

A true miracle it is that protobionts could change into cells with useful metabolism systems, energy storage, useful functional proteins and enzymes (other than small RNA strands with amino acids).

The discovery of protobionts has opened up exciting new lines of investigation. Now I realize, Morimotus, from the rather puny objections you cannot seem to overcome on your own, and from the resistance you exhibit when possible explanations are offered, that you don't seem to have the temperament for science, though you may in fact become a excellent technician. Science is a creative endeavor, and a free swinging imagination in necessary to generate the questions, hunches and suggestions about how to choose a line of research. It is my understanding that some Ph.D. candidates do follow the line of research suggested by their advisors. Some times this is because they can't com up with an idea of their own, and sometimes because the advisor wants someone else to to do research he doesn't have time to do himself.

I note, however, that you seem to lack the driving curiosity characteristic of a first-rate scientist. Of course such a curiosity is less necessary to a technologist, an engineer and the teacher, but still very desirable.

Before protobionts were discovered, creationists would have maintained it required an even greater miracle. The development of the cell wall was always the big stumbling block for me. By providing a sequestered micro-environment, the protobiont plugged a big hole in the theory of abiogenesis. The god of the gaps got smaller.

A new trait was recently discovered in sheep, and it has been traced to a point mutation. It leads to the faster development of a larger leg of mutton. Unfortunately, it is also tougher and rather tasteless, but it is thought these drawbacks may be ameliorated by tenderizing marinades. I could cite a web page, but a short web search including the key word "gold" or "golden" should turn it up, so I will leave it as an excersize, if you are interested.

[Gracchus]

Morimotus wrote:
I think something we all need to admit here is that origins science (be it evolution or creation) is simply not that important.

I think that I have indicated that scientists do not study evolution to disprove creation. I have noticed that creationists, unable to find evidence for special creation almost always try to attack the theoretical basis of evolution, or the methodological naturalism that underlies science, often conflating it with ontological naturalism. Behe, for instance proposes that irreducible complexity means that God must have intervened a key points in evolution. But his postulated irreducible complexities been refuted by other discoveries or logical objections.

It will never result in the type of science that can be experimented with, nor the science that creates new vaccines or describes new plant species or finds out how organelles in cells work.

If you have been paying attention, you will not that it is subject to experiment,(added 3/13/03: and experiments have been done.) A plausible scenario can become even more plausible by a properly designed experiment. And as I have pointed out, and as you could discover for yourself, if your curiosity were compelling enough, evolutionary theory has opened up new lines of research faster than they can be followed. (Insert advertisement advocating more funding of research, here.)

Biology is not dependent on any origins theory.

Creationism is not dependent on any origins theory. In a few years or decades young earth creationists will follow the flat earthers and geocentrists into the oblivion of crackpot heaven, where they will join Saint Emmanuel Velikovski and Saint Charles Hapgood, and (Dare we hope?) perhaps even Saint John Edwards.

It’s well worth looking into the origin of life, but we must remember that it’s inherently limited because it’s not empirical. In essence... it's NOT "real science", Gracche.

Well it certainly wouldn't be science the way you would do it, Morimotulle.

Real science like Genetics actually only tells us nature can select from existing traits; mutations most often than not produce harmful or neutral effects. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a very weak argument for evolution, for evolution needs to produce novel organs like lungs from gills. Much more new genetic information is required. Biochemistry tells us that UV radiation damages genetic material, but evolutionary theory tells us “primitive earth” had no oxygen, thus no ozone - but still somehow DNA and RNA formed?

Now you see? A simple web search would have turned up the fact that lungs did not develop from gills, but from an increase in the surface area of the esophagus. In stagnant water fish actually gulp air to maintain respiration. A mutation producing an esophageal diverticulum (like an appendix, but in the esophagus.) would make air gulping a more efficient means of respiration. Later, evolution would select for increased surface area, producing a fish that could survive for longer periods in stagnant water, or even periods out of the water. Or the diverticulum could be adapted as a flotation device if those mouth breathing fish managed a permanent return to more highly oxygenated water.

To say "God did it" only says what the beginning was.

It would say what the beginning might have been. I haven't the faintest idea how one could go about demonstrating this is what actually happened.

It may not lead to research into "how" it was done, like a hypothesis that life was generated out of chemicals would.

But if you could demonstrate that "Godidit" evolutionary theory could still demonstrate how He did it.

But it simply makes the area of origins irrelevant to study b/c the question is answered.

To proclaim a question unanswerable is not the same as answering the question.

And origins is made even more irrelevant by the "God' idea than origins already is as it pertains to real observable science... whether rats were created or evolved has no effect on whether they will in the present repeatedly react to a certain carcinogen inhibitor in experiment after experiment.

Well actually it does. But, ignore that for now. You have enough on your plate already, and I am nearly done cooking. While budget constraints might indicate the use of rats in preliminary tests, evolutionary theory would indicate the use of monkeys or chimps in advanced testing of carcinogen inhibitors that that proved promising in rodent studies.

Morimotus wrote: Evolution/Creation is just an intellectual curiosity to me, and it borders on direct philosophy, b/c both rely so much on faith.

If it is "just a curiosity", I would gather your curiosity is pretty feeble. I suspect you are not very motivated to learn. Fair enough. Forget you. For anyone else who might be interested, I will try to address the issues you raise. (added 3/13/04: If you're not all that interested why take the trouble to post in this thread?)

We don't know "how" God could have created... so how can we be sure of it if we can't see it or test it? We don't know "how" protobionts could have changed into cells... so how can we be sure of it if we can't test it or see it. Neither idea can ever be tested nor repeated, so its outside the realm of what real science -- physics, astronomy, linguistics, etc. -- is.

We can't travel back in time to watch God doing it. But a trained and curious mind is a far more perceptive instrument than the Hubble telescope, which does indeed bring us pictures from the deep cosmological past.

The past is out of our reach. We use the same "historical" evidence, but I've seen the same evidence interpreted two wholly different ways.

Christians interpret their holy book in literally thousands of ways. One of them might even be true. That is unlikely, I maintain, but conceivable. I can think of no way to determine which is correct. That is why science does not attempt to deal with purely religious questions. We can determine the validity of some biblical claims. The earth is more than six thousand years old and it is not flat, etc. And the historical sciences, archaeology, palaeontology, etc., can indeed inform us about the past.

But the clincher should be if one of them couldn't begin in the first place, then the other must be true (either life was created (this includes theistic evolution), or life appeared naturally). If it is shown a God does not exist, natural evolution must be true. If it is shown that there is an impass on the natural evolution trail (such as that RNA making useless proteins from not even the 20 amino acids needed, since not all the 20 naturally form in water, plus that RNA can't be in water) then creation (not specifically the Christian one, but a creation nonetheless) must be true. And this by an eternal being w/ no beginning, otherwise you push the problem back to "where did this godlife come from?"<<< another creation/natural argument would begin.

Actually, I would consider it very probable that none of your dichotomies, even if real and exhaustive, will ever be directly proved or disproved. But if in the course of our investigations, we find three or four ways to synthesize life, and several likely scenarios, would it matter much which method of abiogenesis was the original?

Now I have a question for you, Morimotus. You say that RNA cannot exist in water, and that some amino acids can not form in water. You seem to think this prohibits the survival of RNA , amino acids, and proteins. Now my biochemistry is, admittedly, nearly as feeble as your reasoning. Still, it has always been my understanding that life is water based, and organisms are "bags of mostly water" (as it was so succinctly put, in one episode of "Star Trek"). Are not RNA, all amino acids, and all the proteins necessary to support life, produced in "bags of mostly water"?

[Socrates]

Gracchus asked a reasonable question for a change:
Now I have a question for you, Morimotus. You say that RNA cannot exist in water, and that some amino acids can not form in water. You seem to think this prohibits the survival of RNA , amino acids, and proteins. Now my biochemistry is, admittedly, nearly as feeble as your reasoning. Still, it has always been my understanding that life is water based, and organisms are "bags of mostly water" (as it was so succinctly put, in one episode of "Star Trek"). Are not RNA, all amino acids, and all the proteins necessary to support life, produced in "bags of mostly water"?Morimotus was certainly right although it's not quite the way you represent him. Fact is, water favors hydrolysis reactions over condensation reactions. Therefore RNA and even its component building blocks have a thermodynamic TENDENCY to break down in water. further, there is no tendency to form in the first place. The kinetics are also against RNA, since there's no way this would survive over the alleged geological time.

But living cells have mechanisms to circumvent that. The ribonucleotides are ACTIVATED, to overcome the thermodynamic barrier. And RNA is a temporary molecule in living organisms (retro-viruses don't really count). But DNA is also unstable, and there are ingenious repair mechanisms to overcome those.

The mythical primordial soup would not have had this machinery.

See also: Origin of Life: Instability of building blocks http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4148.asp
Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3998.asp

[Gracchus]

[i]03-14-2003 @ 01:36 AM
Socrates:Fact is, water favors hydrolysis reactions over condensation reactions. Therefore RNA and even its component building blocks have a thermodynamic TENDENCY to break down in water. further, there is no tendency to form in the first place. The kinetics are also against RNA, since there's no way this would survive over the alleged geological time.

But RNA is manufactured in living cells. If some primordial RNA were sequestered in a protobiont, with the results of some variation of the Urey-Miller products, could not the replicant protobionts have contained copies of that DNA?
And the RNA need not survive over geologic time. The inevitable lysis of the protobionts would contribute reactants to other protobionts. The difficult part for me has always been the sequestering environment, the cell wall. Protobionts have helped plug a gap in the theory. Abiogenesis has, I think, graduated from strong hunch to just so story, maybe even to a testable hypothesis. And remember, while the actual path of historical abiogenesis may never be known, finding even one testable pathway of synthesis would be extremely interesting, and almost certainly useful.
You have, once we got past the indignant name calling, provided me with information useful in my "visualization of the cosmic all". Moreover, presenting my refutations to your arguments has honed my rusty rhetorical skills, and heightened my awareness of the library research resources on the internet. It is certainly more convenient than filling out a call slip and waiting for a library assistant to pull a volume out of the stacks.
So, I owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank you. You may now kick yourself for giving aid and comfort to your perceived enemy.

A comment on theology: "God is very fond of atheists. While busily denying the external presence of God in front of them they are easily taken from the rear. Idolaters are tougher cases, because their internalized idols must be destroyed first, which makes them very irritable, and hard to deal with by those around them." I read that somewhere. I can't vouch for the truth of all of it. And I couldn't prove any of it. And in my experience, a methodological atheist who is an ontological agnostic can cut a pretty good deal. :deal:

KJV Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

:hrm: :eek: :bonk: :rofl:

[Epoetker]

But RNA is manufactured in living cells. If some primordial RNA were sequestered in a protobiont, with the results of some variation of the Urey-Miller products, could not the replicant protobionts have contained copies of that RNA?

General times, places, nature of RNA, and the nature of protobionts are needed. In another thread I discussed the relatively large implausibility of self-replicating RNA ribozymes. It seems rather presumptuous to assume that an RNA that folds itslef in the conformation necessary to replicate itself is going to unfold itself from that chemically stable arrangement meant for ligating two nucleotides strands to POLYMERIZE and ligate individual amino acids. Are we assuming that:

1. There are enough proteins(not proteinoids, please!) present to unwind and replicate the RNA?

2. That the (lipid bilayer, cell wall, whatever mishmashed covering postulated for a protobiont) is letting enough NEW necessary amino acids and nucleotides for this production?

3. That different types of RNA with different catalytic functions all somehow came together with the proteins necessary to start some sort of viable "hypercycle?"

The difficult part for me has always been the sequestering environment, the cell wall. Protobionts have helped plug a gap in the theory. Abiogenesis has, I think, graduated from strong hunch to just so story, maybe even to a testable hypothesis

The hypothesis is not testable under present-day conditions, and given that so many theories reign on the general composition of the prebiotic environs, it might never be. "Just-so story" seems to describe it well, although I would move that the theories are extremely open-ended and don't tend to mesh with each other too well: i.e: Proposing solutions to some problems causes further problems for other solutions. A scientifically coherent SYNTHESIS of the disparate conclusions seems to be lacking.

And remember, while the actual path of historical abiogenesis may never be known, finding even one testable pathway of synthesis would be extremely interesting, and almost certainly useful.

Why not do like the person in the other thread with JP's name on it, and give us a few current papers from the National Acadamy of Sciences on the issue? They seem to be testing quite vigorously, and if you want me to take on certain arguments in the article text (rather than merely the abstracts, if you feel the detail level is too low) my university is quite capable of providing it for me.

Best of luck:brow:

[Socrates]

Gracchus:
But RNA is manufactured in living cells. If some primordial RNA were sequestered in a protobiont, with the results of some variation of the Urey-Miller products, could not the replicant protobionts have contained copies of that DNA? Where does primordial RNA come from? I've pointed out the tremendous chemical problems. How do you have a replicant protobiont without nucleic acid? How did you switch from RNA to DNA in one paragraph? :huh:
And the RNA need not survive over geologic time. The inevitable lysis of the protobionts would contribute reactants to other protobionts.This lysis would destroy any genetic information it carried :bonk:

[Berserker]

This lysis would destroy any genetic information it carried

no it would not. The rna would remain intact unless the temperature and Ph was not suitable and according to many theories they were suitable.

[Socrates]

I wrote:
This lysis would destroy any genetic information it carried ” Beserker replied:
no it would not. The rna would remain intact unless the temperature and Ph was not suitable and according to many theories they were suitable.Oh come on! RNA is a VERY unstable molecule. And my point was about lysis which YOU brought up. The genetic information is not in the RNA "letters" (nucleotides), but in their SEQUENCE. So if RNA broke up, then good-bye information! Also, cytosine is labile to hydrolysis to uracil which would destroy information too. BTW it's pH not Ph. And the temperature would never be suitable -- that's why biochemists typically store RNA at liquid nitrogen temperatures.

[Berserker]

Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
Socrates:

I wrote:
Beserker replied:
no it would not. The rna would remain intact unless the temperature and Ph was not suitable and according to many theories they were suitable.Oh come on! RNA is a VERY unstable molecule. And my point was about lysis which YOU brought up. The genetic information is not in the RNA &quot;letters&quot; (nucleotides), but in their SEQUENCE. So if RNA broke up, then good-bye information! Also, cytosine is labile to hydrolysis to uracil which would destroy information too. BTW it's pH not Ph. And the temperature would never be suitable -- that's why biochemists typically store RNA at liquid nitrogen temperatures.

You can also double strand it... and no its stable in some natural environment ask any retrovirus. Also trying to correct me with knowledge I already know is not very effective... unless your trying to smoke screen me.

[Gracchus]

Epoetker wrote (3/13/03 5:46 AM): General times, places, nature of RNA, and the nature of protobionts are needed.

Well, of course they are. I hope you don't expect me to pull them out of my hat! What's in my hat may be good enough to start with, but for this trick I'll need a bigger, better reaction vessel. But the basic trick is to go from a non-living organic chemical to a non-living self-replicating chemical. Protobionts will form spontaneously given the proper reactants and conditions.

I have read, I am sure, that RNA in certain environments can catalyze its own replication, and moreover it can catalyze protein formation. Still more, RNA and protein can catalyze the formation of DNA. My memory could be faulty.

Epoetker wrote: In another thread I discussed the relatively large implausibility of self-replicating RNA ribozymes. It seems rather presumptuous to assume that an RNA that folds itslef in the conformation necessary to replicate itself is going to unfold itself from that chemically stable arrangement meant for ligating two nucleotides strands to POLYMERIZE and ligate individual amino acids.

Let's be clear. I am not saying that I am familiar enough with biochemistry to do much more than philosophical hand waving. I grant that, but…you say that it is implausible that self-replicating RNA, that has folded itself in the conformation necessary to replicate itself, could unfold itself to assemble proteins. At least that is my understanding of your argument. Still, will that RNA not unfold under the proper conditions? Does it not?

Epoetker: 1.There are enough proteins(not proteinoids, please!) present to unwind and replicate the RNA?

OK,OK! Shazaam! Urey-Miller hurls a lightning bolt. Darkness falls. A startled world awaits...

Let's assume a reaction vessel with some strand of RNA in the self-replicating configuration, happily going about its business, copying itself. Presumably, since the reaction wasn't designed, there might be some free amino acids as well as the bases that polymerize to make up the RNA present in the reaction vessel.

(For anyone who might not be familiar with it, I am providing the following material to help you follow my reasoning. I had to look it up myself, as I haven't opened a biology text in thirty years or more.
I did break down and buy a second hand copy of the second edition of Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology". I got it just today. The third edition is a little pricey for me. Maybe, after I finish what I've got, I can peruse a new edition pulled from the stacks at our local cow college for the changes. To check it out, I'd have to spend thirty dollars on a library card.

By the way, Socrates, I found your position pretty clearly outlined by page four. It was the latest in biological theory at one time. It's been pretty much trashed since Lamarck though.

"Is it perfume from a dress, that makes me so digress?" Alas no. A lass? No. Just old age, a putrid sense of humor and a sub-Noachian flood of ideas. Or maybe an arachnoid hemorrhage. Sorry…back to the topic after a cup of coffee or a full nights sleep, whichever comes first.)

Proteinoids are protein-like molecules formed inorganically from amino acids. Some theories of abiogenesis propose that proteinoids were a precursor to the first living cells.
The inorganic polymerization of amino acids into proteins through the formation of peptide bonds was thought to occur only at temperatures over 140°C. However, the biochemist S. W. Fox and his co-workers discovered that phosphoric acid acted as a catalyst for this reaction. They were able to form protein-like chains from a mixture of 18 common amino acids at only 70°C in the presence of phosphoric acid, and dubbed these protein-like chains proteinoids. Fox later found proteinoids similar to those he had created in his laboratory in lava and cinders from Hawaiian volcanic vents and determined that the amino acids present polymerized due to the heat of escaping gases and lava. Other catalysts have since been found; one of them, amidinium carbodiimide, is formed in primitive Earth experiments and is effective in dilute aqueous solutions.
When present in certain concentrations in aqueous solutions, proteinoids form small structures called microspheres or protocells. This is due to the fact that some of the amino acids incorporated into proteinoid chains are more hydrophobic than others, and so proteinoids cluster together like droplets of oil in water. These structures exhibit many of the characteristics of cells:

1 a film-like outer wall.
2 osmotic swelling and shrinking.
3 budding.
4 binary fission (dividing into two daughter microspheres).
5 streaming of movement of internal particles.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid 3/14/03

Now a state change occurs, possibly the contamination of the reaction by molecules that catalyze (the above mentioned phosphoric acid or amidinium carbodiimide) the formation of protobionts/microspheres. There is a temperature change. RNA stops copying itself and begins to assemble proteins. It is not to be expected that all of the RNA was originally identical. Nor is it surprising that copying errors might arise.

I can almost hear some of you say, "This is all very improbable", "This is one of those 'just so stories'". And "What sort of reaction vessel could possibly have all the right conditions?" "That’s just vague hand waving." "He's just imagining things."

That is certainly true. But when you wave your hands just right and add some magic words and imagination…VOILA! MAGIC!

Around the volcanic vents in the deep sea floor we are going to find turbulent flow. I'm sure you remember those wonderful and fantastic videos that Alvin, the deep-sea submersible, brought back.
You remember that there was a large temperature gradient from nearly freezing benthic seawater to the chemically rich mixture issuing from the black smokers, at temperatures so high they would have boiled if not for the fantastic pressure. And in that environment is my proposed reaction vessel. A fluctuating thermal and chemical gradient, a vessel composed not of glass or metal or even stone, but of fluctuating boundary conditions. And that black smoke is rich in copper, silver, gold and platinum. The catalyzing properties of the surface of platinum are well known, and here is platinum in a form that maximizes its free surface area, boiling into that fantastic soup, simmering all along a crack that stretches across the world. And this can go on for hundreds of millions of years. (Sorry, I get a little carried away some times.)

I hope, Epoetker, that I have made some progress against your first objection.

2. That the (lipid bilayer, cell wall, whatever mishmashed covering postulated for a protobiont) is letting (in) enough NEW necessary amino acids and nucleotides for this production?

Let's check our reaction vessel. Our RNA, bases, and amino acids are being incorporated into the protobionts, in literally millions of flavors, forming a and lysing and releasing evermore varieties of RNA and proteins. And each microsphere is now a reaction vessel, and there are billions of them, under that huge hyperdimensional gradient of temperature and chemical compositions. The nature of the protobionts changes, they incorporate some of those myriad building blocks into themselves from the environment and release them into their interiors. More than water can cross the barrier, it is now a cell wall.

Epoetker continues: 3. That different types of RNA with different catalytic functions all somehow came together with the proteins necessary to start some sort of viable "hypercycle?"

Gracchus wrote: The difficult part for me has always been the sequestering environment, the cell wall. Protobionts have helped plug a gap in the theory. Abiogenesis has, I think, graduated from strong hunch to just so story, maybe even to a testable hypothesis.(amend "even" to eventually)

To which Epoetker replied: Why not do like the person in the other thread with JP's name on it, and give us a few current papers from the National Acadamy of Sciences on the issue? They seem to be testing quite vigorously, and if you want me to take on certain arguments in the article text (rather than merely the abstracts, if you feel the detail level is too low) my university is quite capable of providing it for me.

I'll have to check that out. But those papers have got a lot of big words in them, some of them invented in the thirty-odd years since I last set foot in a classroom or laboratory. Besides, as someone once wrote, "We can't all play first violin in the orchestra. Some of us have to push wind through the trombone."

There's your chance, Socrates, you can add blowhard, to apostate and Godhater, and with a lot more accuracy. But if I were dealing with you, I would be tempted to take up percussion!

More black coffee, or sleep?

Anyway, it's not really magic, just smoke and mirrors.

(Waving his hands, he vanishes in a mysterious cloud of liquid black smoke.)

[Epoetker]

"Let's assume a reaction vessel with some strand of RNA in the self-replicating configuration, happily going about its business, copying itself. Presumably, since the reaction wasn't designed, there might be some free amino acids as well as the bases that polymerize to make up the RNA present in the reaction vessel."

This is why I continually suggested reading the thread where I made the argument that NO SUCH RNA HAS EVER BEEN DISCOVERED.

[Epoetker]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1376&perpage=15&pagenumber=8

Here's where I jumped in and ended the ruckus....

[Gracchus]

Today @ 01:01 AM
Epoetker:

&quot;Let's assume a reaction vessel with some strand of RNA in the self-replicating configuration, happily going about its business, copying itself. Presumably, since the reaction wasn't designed, there might be some free amino acids as well as the bases that polymerize to make up the RNA present in the reaction vessel.&quot;

This is why I continually suggested reading the thread where I made the argument that NO SUCH RNA HAS EVER BEEN DISCOVERED.

Before I comment on that first RNA, have you found any major flaws with any of the rest of the scenario?

I think it would be a waste of my time and yours to hash out whence came that first RNA, if you have strong objections to what I have already presented.

[Epoetker]

Notes on Berserker's assertions:

"and no its stable in some natural environment ask any retrovirus."

Forgive me if I'm forgetting MY biological education here, but isn't retroviral RNA almost always operating within the protective environment of either the viral protein coat or the cell it happens to be invading? Neither would seem to form the definition of a "natual environment." Certainly not a prebiotic one.

"Also trying to correct me with knowledge I already know is not very effective... unless your trying to smoke screen me."

If anything, it appears to be the other way around. I would advise against making untrue assertions like the preceding one, especially as you are supposed to be one studying the area. You may only be an undergrad, but that's no excuse for making easily remedied mistakes.:whip:

[Berserker]

Yes and that protective environment is not very deferent from a pond filled with lipids and amino acids... hence the organic goo theory of Abiogenesis. And of course we have not found any prebiotic life: all of it was eaten by biological life. Maybe if we check out some of the other planets or moons we might find something that would shed some light on Abiogenesis. And no I did not make a mistake there… despite my quite, calm nature I do in fact know what I’m saying.

[Epoetker]

"Yes and that protective environment is not very deferent from a pond filled with lipids and amino acids... hence the organic goo theory of Abiogenesis."

You're switching terms and environments here, qualifying you further for the Smokescreener title. Care to get a little more specific on how the aqueous mineral-rich prebiotic environment suddenly turned into a gooey swamp? It IS different; the protein coat keeps the RNA from degrading, and the interior of the cell maintains an environment specifically suited for the viral RNA to insinuate itelf into the DNA. Are you suggesting that the prebiotic world was one big supercell? :wink:

"And of course we have not fond any prebiotic life: all of it was eaten by biological life. Maybe if we check out some of the other planets or moons we might find something that would shed some light on Abiogenesis."

Thank you for postponing the issue. If you'd read closely, you'd note that I'm not looking for "life", just a self-replicating ribozyme. Barely the beginnings of life. Should be simple to find or synthesize. And yet it hasn't happened yet, despite valiant efforts.

"And no I did not make a mistake there… despite my quite, calm nature I do in fact know what I’m saying."

If that's true, it makes it worse-your error was deliberately meant to deceive, rather than unintentional. I'll just assume your misunderstaning for yhe time being.

[Berserker]

Sounds like a straw man fallacy here, Did I say "gooey swamp", RNA last pretty long in cytoplasm and that’s what "aqueous mineral-rich prebiotic environment" is (except prebiotic is replace with bio-molecules). And no the Prebiotic world was not "one be super cell" because lipids tend to from small bubbles only microns wide so everything had its only tiny vesicle pre-made.

Nope a "self-replicating ribozyme" would not be easy to distinguish from its evolve counterparts (most life has ribozyme) also the environment here on earth no longer exist for it the form or exist long enough to be detected... that’s what I was referring to above… nor would it be easy to make it, it would take year if not centuries to make one in a prebiotic simulation.

[Socrates]

It was the Beserk One's fellow anti-Christian bigot Gracchus who said:
And the RNA need not survive over geologic time. The inevitable lysis of the protobionts would contribute reactants to other protobionts.So it was perfectly in order for me to reply:This lysis would destroy any genetic information it carried So does the Beserk One still have any problems with the fact that breaking up the RNA would destroy the information which is in the SEQUENCE not the LETTERS THEMSELVES? I also await answers to the other chemical hurdles involved in getting any sort of RNA in the first place!

And the Beserk One should go back and finish his undergraduate studies before arrogantly spruiking forth here. Fact is, living cells have machinery to cope with the chemical tendency to break down. E.g. there are enzymes to repair breaks in strands, and others to undo hydrolysis of cytosine to uracil.

But there's no way that RNA could last very long outside the special environment of a cell. Certainly not over the proposed eons of the primordial soup. Even DNA could not last more than about 10,000 years (T. Lindahl, ‘Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA’, Nature 362 (6422):709–715, 1993). Svante Pääbo has found that DNA fragments a few hours after death into chains 100–200 units long, that water alone would completely break it down by 50,000 years, and that background radiation would eventually erase DNA information even without water and oxygen, ‘Ancient DNA’, Scientific American 269(5):60–66, 1993. DNA is a lot more stable than RNA since one of the reactive hydroxy groups is replaced by a hydrogen atom, and the C-H bond is far less reactive, so the problem is far greater.

[Berserker]

Socrates,

Leaving any organic molecules in a radical environment and eventually you form nucleonic acid… give it enough time and by random luck they would form a RNA strands.

Your forgetting that DNA and RNA left in static will decay... but if they are self replicating and double stranded then the life time of the a individual strand is not critical: the strands replicates enough to counteract for decay.

If you want a problem in Abiogenesis that we don’t have a reasonable answer to try Chirality.

[Epoetker]

Sounds like a straw man fallacy here, Did I say "gooey swamp", RNA last pretty long in cytoplasm and that’s what "aqueous mineral-rich prebiotic environment" is (except prebiotic is replace with bio-molecules).

Don't complain about scarecrow abuse when you constructed the straw man in the first place:dufus: The interior of most cells is "gooey" due to the effects of the cytoskeleton, which gives what would normally have the consistency of light vegetable oil something closer to Jell-O. And a concentrated, regulated cytoplasm COULD be considered equivalent to a dispersed, chaotic prebiotic environment-if you want to ignore chemical composition and concentration entirely and go by what it looks and feels like to the observer unaided by any scientific knowledge or equipment whatsoever!:lol:

And no the Prebiotic world was not "one be super cell" because lipids tend to from small bubbles only microns wide so everything had its only tiny vesicle pre-made.

A lipid vesicle is pretty useless unless it has specific vesicular proteins in its coat that let in the substrates for whatever particular enzyme it contains. Not to mention the proteins that ensure that the enzymes in question are the ones that enter into the formed vesicle in the first place-any vesicle without such incorporated proteins( like, 99.99 percent of those that form spontaneously in prebiotic syntheses) would serve no useful prebiotic purpose whatsoever.

Nope a "self-replicating ribozyme" would not be easy to distinguish from its evolve counterparts (most life has ribozyme)

Umm...all we need is an RNA sequence that replicates itself from individual free RNA nucleotides. The ribozymes we have today(tRNA and rRNA) are meant for assisting in protein translation; they do not replicate themselves. Very easy to distinguish between them, it seems.

also the environment here on earth no longer exist for it the form or exist long enough to be detected... that’s what I was referring to above… nor would it be easy to make it, it would take year if not centuries to make one in a prebiotic simulation.

Years? Centuries? We have the estimates from geological studies on the approximate environment, we have plenty of bases in great experimental quantities to speed up the experimental process, and if RuBisCo had already appeared widely 3.7 billion years ago, as SOME studies seem to indicate, it gives us a general mid-billion-year period between the origin of the earth and the prevalenve of single-celled organisms to work with. The OOL is actually the one aspect of naturalistic origins theories MOST subject to exacting present-day scientific experiment. And many experiments concerning such have been done. READ about them, already. :read:

WAY off topic: Do you play a lot of WarCraft 3? They're putting the Troll Berserker back in for the expansion pack!:joy:

[Socrates]

Beserker:
Leaving any organic molecules in a radical environment and eventually you form nucleonic acid… give it enough time and by random luck they would form a RNA strands. This is an assertion. Since the equilibrium is towards monomers, and decay of these monomers, time is the ENEMY. It merely allows more time for equilibrium to be reached, and this is AWAY from life.

Your forgetting that DNA and RNA left in static will decay... but if they are self replicating and double stranded then the life time of the a individual strand is not critical: the strands replicates enough to counteract for decay. You're forgetting that a truly self-replicating RNA has not yet been made even articificially, let alone from a Miller-Urey type experiment. In fact, even pyrimidine nucleosides have not yet been formed by mixing pyrimidine bases and ribose, and nor is there even a plausible prebiotic synthesis of cytosine or any plausible way to prevent its hydrolysis to uracil. A double strand is even harder, as is getting the right sequence for self-replication. Splicing two matching and activated halves is hardly enough, since before there is life, only chance could generate the match (even assuming that monomers could be activated in some way).

If you want a problem in Abiogenesis that we don’t have a reasonable answer to try Chirality.That's very commendable honesty. See also Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp) www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp And note, this undermines your idea, because it points out that allochiral impurities would act as chain terminators for any template-assisted RNA oligomerization.

[Berserker]

Though chirlity would act as chain terminators in biological systems we still have no clue how Prebiotic chemistry works… the problem why then is life not achiral with both D and L (classic naming, they now want to implement R and S)? The hypothesis is that achiral nucleic polymers were less stable in double stranded form (if not at all) but then you would have two competing prebiotic forms that are identical except one is the total opposite incompatible stereoisomers… then we have to say by random competition one became better then the other or evolve some way of destroy and feeding off the antiversion.

As for RNA never being found to self synthesize: there is some evidence that it has but none has yet been verified.

Also you are falsely say it is not possible that a cytoplasm and/or RNA stable environment could have exist naturally… and Epoetker if you had read me correctly you would see I never imply the word gooey had anything to do with this, in fact I was saying the very same thing: that vague definitions do not imply the detail. Also when prebiotics molecules became trapped in a lipid bubble that’s what I wanted and if they need freedom they could be release though lysation and if the environment around as (many have stated) was stable for such molecules the reaction could continue in gaining complexity. Also 500 million years seems like a heck of a long time to me! In fact there is evidence of life going back to 3.9 billion so you should move that time limit closer.

So whne did I not say this field was hypothetical? Just because we do not have all the answer does not mean it did not happen. If you want to believe a god did it so be it… its now a matter of opinion and (though unlike) may never move up to theoretical.

And no I mainly play FPS like UT2003 and Q3UT2… and yes “Berserker” is my gaming name… I also have been under the names of “WellCookedFetus” , “KentuckyFriedFetus” and “8===D-_”… but now just berserker. Sadly few know what a berserker is… look up Viking history.

[Epoetker]

the problem why then is life not achiral with both D and L (classic naming, they now want to implement R and S)?

I hate the R/S naming convention. Hatehatehatehate. I deal with it, but it was just one of jillions of annoyances with how they taught organic chemistry(that class needs a summer session-only schedule to keep enough time open to really let the subject sink in)

As for RNA never being found to self synthesize: there is some evidence that it has but none has yet been verified.

The vary nature of RNA itself seems to work against anything more than the inefficient ligases we've been able to come up with. It's a simple mechanical problem:

1. RNA chains can fold themselves into conformations that make enzymatic catalytic sites, but:

2. In order to align with free nucleotides, the RNA has to be unwound into an unfolded, uncatalytic shape.

Accomplishing all of this MIGHT somehow be possible in a single RNA polypeptide chain, but it would have to be a heck of a lot longer than anything they've come up with in prebiotic models.

Also you are falsely say it is not possible that a cytoplasm and/or RNA stable environment could have exist naturally…

A cell's cytoplasm is, well, a cellular environment, not a "natural" environment. If there was evidence of a widespread cytoplasmic environment and not the usual ammonia/nitrogen/hydrogen sulfide/various minerals composition that geology seems to keep telling us was the starting point for abiogenesis, then fine. But the evidence only exists in hopeful postulates.

and Epoetker if you had read me correctly you would see I never imply the word gooey had anything to do with this, in fact I was saying the very same thing: that vague definitions do not imply the detail.

M'kay. Scientific papers. Now. Great time to learn to read them, as you should no doubt be learning in your upper-division bio labs.

Also when prebiotics molecules became trapped in a lipid bubble that’s what I wanted and if they need freedom they could be release though lysation and if the environment around as (many have stated) was stable for such molecules the reaction could continue in gaining complexity.

Thanks for clarifying my argument for me. If a lipid bubble has no specific surface proteins to take in SPECIFIC chemical reactants, like all of those within your cells do, it may as well not exist in a functional sense. Sure, occasionally some organic materials will get trapped in it, but where's the urgency for that happening if the outer environment is already chemically accomodating? And if the environmant is NOT accomodating, how are cells specifically led to these lipid-bubbles-of-the-gaps? There is no chemical mechanism for this process, which is why it happens to be irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

Also 500 million years seems like a heck of a long time to me! In fact there is evidence of life going back to 3.9 billion so you should move that time limit closer.

I was only talking about RuBisCo, but okay.

So whne did I not say this field was hypothetical? Just because we do not have all the answer does not mean it did not happen. If you want to believe a god did it so be it… its now a matter of opinion and (though unlike) may never move up to theoretical.

Because this (as well as a few other places in history) is where methodological naturalism most clearly and spectacularly fails-by accepting the wildest speculations and theorizing on what may very well point to intelligent design, a much more parsimonious explanation (why do you think Francis Crick left himself the panspermia "out" rather than taking the much less risky naturalistic position?) in the face of the evidence. If you reject a design explanation here, you'll simply be proving to those who do not trust "mainstream" scientists for whatever reason that even if the supernatural/extraterrestrial DID do something, you would never be able to discern it, instead inventing theories on the subject ever-more-removed from reality. Because I do not share your need to exclude the influence of the divine from everyday life, I am not prone to that limitation, and can accept most common naturalistic cases while allowing for alternate explanations in cases where naturalism hos no explanatory power. Quite liberating, actually.:cool:

And no I mainly play FPS like UT2003 and Q3UT2… and yes “Berserker” is my gaming name… I also have been under the names of “WellCookedFetus” , “KentuckyFriedFetus” and “8===D-_”… but now just berserker. Sadly few know what a berserker is… look up Viking history.

Ah. Twitch gameplayer. I love the secondary fire bit in UT23k, though. I'll bet those charging viking frontliners would have loved that feature on their axes:smile:

[Socrates]

Beserker:
Though chirlity would act as chain terminators in biological systems we still have no clue how Prebiotic chemistry works…Then one must wonder whether it's science at all. But the creationist argument from chirality depends on what we DO know about chirality. the problem why then is life not achiral Life couldn't work unless it was homochiral, yet ordinary stochastic chemistry can't generate it.
with both D and L (classic naming, they now want to implement R and S)?And rightly so, because R and S refer to an absolute configuration at the molecular level. + and - refer to the dextro and laevo rotation of polarized light at the sodium D line. But differnent compounds with the same absolute configuration at the chiral carbon in common can be + or - (example below). R and S are also useful in the case of more than one chiral center. D and L is different again, because here it depends on the how the stereochemistry of a the main chiral carbon matches to that of R/D(+) or S/L(-) glyceraldehyde. To give you an idea of the differences, D-glucose, which is R by absolute configuration, is + (dextrorotatory), while D-ribose with the same absolute configuration is - (laevorotatory).
The hypothesis is that achiral nucleic polymers were less stable in double stranded form (if not at all) but then you would have two competing prebiotic forms that are identical except one is the total opposite incompatible stereoisomers… then we have to say by random competition one became better then the other or evolve some way of destroy and feeding off the antiversion.But there is no possibility of evolution if there is no life. Maybe one can do better than the other, but both are dead in the starting blocks. Also, even getting a single homochiral polymer is a huge ask.

I think the article Origin of life: the chirality problem (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp) would repay careful study www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp.

[Berserker]

Epoetker,

Who said I reject a divine influence? I accept any theory with evidence behind it, Don’t start labeling everyone that does not believe in god fully as a atheist (like Socrates does) I am agnostic and consider a divine force quit possible. This field is like I have said over and over again Hypothetical and has little evidence and many unanswered scenarios . That’s not to say we might not ever find answers and evidence for Abiogenesis. It is a fallacy to say just because we ca not prove Abiogenesis that we have to accept creationism. Both lack evidence.

By the way what anime character is that? It looks kind off like Jene Starwin but it is not... who is it?

Jee Socrates are you a proffessor of mine? If so you have already tested me on this do we have to go through it again? If not, don't treat me like I was.

And there is life so then there is evolution... if god created life then there would still be evolution since evolution is well proven and has no connection to how life started.

[Epoetker]

Who said I reject a divine influence? I accept any theory with evidence behind it, Don’t start labeling everyone that does not believe in god fully as a atheist (like Socrates does) I am agnostic and consider a divine force quit possible. This field is like I have said over and over again Hypothetical and has little evidence and many unanswered scenarios . That’s not to say we might not ever find answers and evidence for Abiogenesis. It is a fallacy to say just because we ca not prove Abiogenesis that we have to accept creationism. Both lack evidence.

Great, honest starting point, with a few pushbacks. Let's make one thing quite clear:

Rejecting naturalistic theories for abiogenesis does not lead immediately to YECism, or any other type of creationism(rabid claims of Dawkins and others ID critics notwithstanding.) It DOES mean that one has accepted that extraterrestrial/divine events are possible within a historical timeframe, and that one may interpret available evidence to support these ends. It is not necessary that one invoke them to explain EVERY biological feature, but it is the best way to get away from the caustic infinite reduction of complete methodological naturalism.

The trouble I see is that you seem to be of the type of mind that would hold on to such naturalistic theories even against all available evidence. Invoking the scientific research of the future to explain the gaps of the present is great if you wish to bow out gracefully from a debate that is either going nowhere or lost, but using it as an argumentative method is highly questionable at best, annoying stalling at worst. As it is, my current primary interest is:

Since you have conceded that nothing prohibits the operation of divine events in the past as long as sufficient evidence exists to point in that direction, would you now consider the historical evidence of miracles from the time of Jesus enough to consider, say, a preliminary consideration of the truth claims of Christianity as regards Christ? Especially since I have demonstrated the importance of keeping as close to the truth as possible on every issue I speak upon, and that doing so has not thus far jeapordized ANY Christian claim thereof?

By the way what anime character is that? It looks kind off like Jene Starwin but it is not... who is it?

Seto Kaiba.

Sidenote: Y'all can't diss Socrates too much. While occasionally somewhat off-putting, when he's serious about his argument, he's serious, and can honestly identify and critique competing theories and claims with the best of them. And he's quite happy to disagree with his own Christian (possibly even YEC)bretheren when it comes to things like, say, current politics. You could learn quite a bit from him, even if you do disagree.

[Stratnerd]

E-

At what point do you substitute supernatural for ignorance?

Response to sidenote: I don't think anyone here diss's Socrates because of his knowledge. A jerk can be right all the time but that's not what makes the person a jerk.

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:48 PM
Stratnerd:

E-

At what point do you substitute supernatural for ignorance?

Response to sidenote: I don't think anyone here diss's Socrates because of his knowledge. A jerk can be right all the time but that's not what makes the person a jerk.

Excuse me for butting in, but do you believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh?

[Stratnerd]

I'm skeptical but I can't say anything either way....

[Epoetker]

At what point do you substitute supernatural for ignorance?

I never substitute supernatural for ignornace. Insufficiency, perhaps, but never ignorance. You can't argue that I ain't giving you DATA.

I'm skeptical but I can't say anything either way....

At what point in your ignorance would you make a particular, debatable contention either way? Where's your turning point?

Endsidenota: Go aheadand diss him for being a jerk, but ONLY WHEN HE'S BEING A JERK. You could be debating, say, Sauron or undead...:hrm:

[Stratnerd]

E-
I never substitute supernatural for ignornace. Insufficiency, perhaps, but never ignorance. You can't argue that I ain't giving you DATA. I wish I was more familiar with the OOL stuff but when do you substitue supernatural for insufficient... when do you decide that something is insufficiently explained for how well it's been explored? Like I said, I don't know much about this other than reading the PNAS, Science and Nature stuff that comes out. I did appreciate one of Hugh Ross shows that had a OOL chemist. His basic message was that not much has been done and most folks are not going in the right direction - that is, they start with too much (RNA's).

My other thought is that life is highly unlikely since it appears that most of life has descended from a single source. So whether we'd tested the particular string of events that happened so long ago in the right order and environments seems immensely unlikely.

At what point in your ignorance would you make a particular, debatable contention either way? Where's your turning point? situation dependent and depends on the strength of evidence.

Endsidenota: Go aheadand diss him for being a jerk, but ONLY WHEN HE'S BEING A JERK. that's all I've done....

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:01 PM
Stratnerd:

I'm skeptical but I can't say anything either way....

I had previously jumped to the conclusion that you were a Christian. Sorry for my mistake.

[Stratnerd]

Raised a Christian but back then I probably didn't know what that meant either...

[Epoetker]

I wish I was more familiar with the OOL stuff but when do you substitue supernatural for insufficient... when do you decide that something is insufficiently explained for how well it's been explored?

When every new paper introduced on the theory proposes new theoretical methods or new theoretical starting points, disconnected from each other, rather than filling in gaps on a preceding theory. This pattern has persisted ever since Stanley Miller.

Like I said, I don't know much about this other than reading the PNAS, Science and Nature stuff that comes out. I did appreciate one of Hugh Ross shows that had a OOL chemist. His basic message was that not much has been done and most folks are not going in the right direction - that is, they start with too much (RNA's).

As the prevailing theory is the RNA world, so the research will go in that direction. If this scientist has found a new nucleotideoid or amino acidoid that replicates itself from its monomers in solution and can be shown as a viable precursor to the nucleotides and amino acids that were present not much later in geologic history, then fine, his criticisms have some merit. But he seems perilously close to the type of infinite methodological reductionism I warned against. RNA was the most promising molecule to investigate precisely because of its ability to act as a template in some cases and a catalyst in others. Is it not likely that any RNA precursor just might be MORE complex than its descendant, if it had such properties?

My other thought is that life is highly unlikely since it appears that most of life has descended from a single source. So whether we'd tested the particular string of events that happened so long ago in the right order and environments seems immensely unlikely.

So you, then, might advocate the position that we are alone in the universe due to the very improbablility of life forming again in similar conditions? What if you let me stretch for a minute here and say that perhaps the necessary string of events would be much more probable in an extradimensional laboratory? And that perhaps the whole "common descent" thing might just be indicative of a very patient Designer who made sure that His Creature fit his Creation at the outset? Like I said, no particular need for YECism if you feel so disinclined, a mechanism to encompass both acts of supernaturalism and naturalism, and no more need to invent ever-more-unsatisfying scenarios to refute the vast majority of sentient beings who claim personal experience of such interference. In a rather ironic development, it is both the very recent and very far distant past where most of our theories on such things can be something close to scientifically* tested.

*: Obviously, not the type of hard-definitive-scientific that requires repitition in a controlled environment, but the next best thing with the available evidence.

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:51 PM
Stratnerd:

Raised a Christian but back then I probably didn't know what that meant either...

A common situation. Unfortunately descent from a genuine Christian family does not count in this case for each person will eventually stand before God and account for his/her individual belief.

[Stratnerd]

E-

rather than filling in gaps on a preceding theory. This pattern has persisted ever since Stanley Miller. Sounds like you're saying it's a problem of methods rather than success or failure of each particular test. If this is what you're saying, then I'd agree.
As the prevailing theory is the RNA world, so the research will go in that direction. The problem isn't RNA it's the starting point. Like you've pointed out, this leaves out the gap that formed the RNA in the first place.
So you, then, might advocate the position that we are alone in the universe due to the very improbablility of life forming again in similar conditions? hard to say... I don't think we have the faintest idea of what's out there yet. But, if planets are rare then, yes we're probably alone.
What if you let me stretch for a minute here and say that perhaps the necessary string of events would be much more probable in an extradimensional laboratory? And that perhaps the whole "common descent" thing might just be indicative of a very patient Designer who made sure that His Creature fit his Creation at the outset? The problems I have with such an explanation is that it feels pulled out of the sky... I've said this before - why couldn't there be a union of designers each working with a template that must use certain materials. And at what level do we look at to inductively describe the designer(s)? If DNA then do prions have a separate designer? Or the organisms that use different codons have a different designer? Sure it's possible but I'm skeptical about discovering it or positive evidence for it.

[Epoetker]

Sounds like you're saying it's a problem of methods rather than success or failure of each particular test. If this is what you're saying, then I'd agree.

Whoa, there. It has everything to do with the failures of the tests to advance any coherent integrated theory. The fact is that the tests, while they do produce interesting results, do not produce those essential molecules necessary for the essential phases in OOL theory that WE'RE most interested in. The results are not shining light on how a naturalistic process could have produced self-replicating polymers. The methodology of the experiments is generally not the problem, its the failure of the experiments to show how existing natural processes could produce prebiotic precursors.

The problem isn't RNA it's the starting point. Like you've pointed out, this leaves out the gap that formed the RNA in the first place.

Well, some traces of nucleotides have been detected in halfway-plausible prebiotic syntheses. I figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume that these nucleotides were of a concentration and type to form homochiral polynucleotide chains.:wink: This was merely a starting point for my contention that even these chains would be useless for life generation without self-replication. I COULD just throw the entire chirality/catalytic/self-replicative/hydrolyzing/lack of receptors/lack of specificity/instability list of OOL problems at you at once, but hurling elephants ain't my style.:teeth:

The problems I have with such an explanation is that it feels pulled out of the sky...

You speak as you have been taught. It's hard to get out of habitual mental naturalistic assumptions even after quite a bit of logic seems to lean against them.:help:

I've said this before - why couldn't there be a union of designers each working with a template that must use certain materials.

Creationists might not have as much trouble with that idea as you might think. A union of various designers under an integrative Head is perfectly possible and not exactly unbiblical.

And at what level do we look at to inductively describe the designer(s)? If DNA then do prions have a separate designer? Or the organisms that use different codons have a different designer? Sure it's possible but I'm skeptical about discovering it or positive evidence for it.

The number of designers is neither the most important nor the most accessible discovery to seek. The question of design is. And the fervent wish for "positive" evidence of either naturalistic or teleological origins is absolutely fruitless. It is the interpretation that matters, and how loudly that particular interpretation speaks to your decision-making mind. As I said before, I believe the Christian way offers the deepest and widest explanatory net for both today and yesterday, and, due to its incorporation of both naturalistic and supernaturalistic explanations(and methods to determine which seems more likely at any given time,) a more intellectually satisfying one. But that's just me.

[Socrates]

Stratnerd:
The problem isn't RNA it's the starting point. Like you've pointed out, this leaves out the gap that formed the RNA in the first place. And this is a problem for evolutionists!

And another one is the instability of nucleic acid, and RNA is more unstable than DNA. Some have disputed with me on this, but the latest New Scientist backs me up (Running repair, pp. 40-43, 15 March 2003):

DNA in living cells is a perilously unstable molecule that requires constant maintenance to keep it structurally sound. Over the past few years, biologists have painstakingly worked out how organisms exploit DNA's built-in back-up to keep their genomes in peak condition. In doing so, they've realised that DNA repair is one of the fundamental processes of life, and letting it slip--even a little--can have devastating consequences.

As well as being prone to disintegrate of its own accord, DNA suffers from a staggering barrage of chemical attacks from both inside and outside the cell. The genome in each of your cells endures 30,000 damage events each day,according to Tomas Lindahl, a biochemist at Cancer Research UK in London.

So the idea of DNA, let alone the more unstable RNA, surviving in the hypothetical primordial soup for even a fraction of the claimed geological time is preposterous. The DNA would be subject to hydrolyis, UV damage and quite possibly oxidative damage since the geological evidence supports an early oxidixing atmosphere (under their own dating assumptions).

[Stratnerd]

It has everything to do with the failures of the tests to advance any coherent integrated theory. so you're saying there can't be a theory because there are no successes to speak of? Really?
The results are not shining light on how a naturalistic process could have produced self-replicating polymers. unless you consider the lessons taught by failures but I don't believe all tests are failures.
its the failure of the experiments to show how existing natural processes could produce prebiotic precursors. so no prebiotic molecules have been formed experimentally? What about your next quote...
Well, some traces of nucleotides have been detected in halfway-plausible prebiotic syntheses.
This was merely a starting point for my contention that even these chains would be useless for life generation without self-replication.
So at this point we should invoke miracles? Or was it some point before?
You speak as you have been taught. what does that mean?
It's hard to get out of habitual mental naturalistic assumptions even after quite a bit of logic seems to lean against them. no, not an assumption at all but I'm just skeptical of invoking the supernatural at points where we know the particular field is immature (you're now the 3rd person on this board claiming to be able to climb into my mind and claim to know what I assume and don't).
not exactly unbiblical. what does the Bible have to do with this? Aren't ID advocates saying that we are supposed to look at the world and from that infer design (as a concept). It seems like then, we need an entire new class of inference methods by which we would use to infer supernatural entities or an entity from nature. What are the limits (how many designers and their powers) and at what level of nature do we start looking?
The number of designers is neither the most important nor the most accessible discovery to seek. The question of design is. But if there's nothing known about the designer then how do we know things (DNA, organisms) were designed. I still get the feeling that it comes down to "difficult to answer therefore supernatural".
And the fervent wish for "positive" evidence of either naturalistic or teleological origins is absolutely fruitless. why?
more intellectually satisfying one. But that's just me. Indeed and that's great (and I'm not saying that in a smart ass way either) but invoking miracles for tough questions isn't satisfying for me. Convenient yes; satisfactory no.

[Socrates]

Beserker spouted:
Jee Socrates are you a proffessor of mine? If so you have already tested me on this do we have to go through it again? If not, don't treat me like I was. For goodness's sake, I was only explaining why chemists prefer the R/S nomenclature. I am a chemist by training, and was only trying to help with what seemed to be puzzling. I find a lot of biologists discussing origin of life don't understand chemistry that well, sorry to say. That's why creationist chemists are among the best to critique OOL research, and as Epoetker says, this is independent of their views of the age of the Earth.

[Stratnerd]

S-

And this is a problem for evolutionists! uh, I know. I never said that we solved the problem. In fact, if you read my posts I try to point out that I think we're not even close!

So the idea of DNA, let alone the more unstable RNA, surviving in the hypothetical primordial soup for even a fraction of the claimed geological time is preposterous. do models presume that DNA hung out for "geological time" before things started happening?

[tgamble]

03-12-2003 @ 04:52 AM
Socrates:

Don't these evolutionists read strong critiques of chemical evolution aka abiogenesis at Origin of Life Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp).

Of course not. Such junk isn't worth reading. If AIG has anything scientific to say, let em publish in scientific journals. But all they have is lies and distortions. It's all they'll ever have.

No matter how much evidence is given, they'll reject it because they prefer to cling to myths instead.

[tgamble]

03-12-2003 @ 04:52 AM
Socrates:

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted

Given that AIG has a strict statement of faith, this is hilarious!

[tgamble]

03-13-2003 @ 07:40 AM
Morimotus:

Evolution, as hyped as it is, is but another branch of biology - a weak one at that, for it’s essentially non-empirical:

It's the unifying principle of biology and one of the best supported facts of science around.

Darwin’s finches and peppered moths show what real evolution is: simply modifications of existing traits.

lol! Sarfati, in his typically ignorant way, claims that hte issue isn't new traits but new information.

I think something we all need to admit here is that origins science (be it evolution or creation) is simply not that important. It will never result in the type of science that can be experimented with, nor the science that creates new vaccines or describes new plant species or finds out how organelles in cells work.

Medical researchers disagree. What do you mean it can't be experimented with? What were Urey/Miller doing?!

Biology is not dependent on any origins theory. It’s well worth looking into the origin of life, but we must remember that it’s inherently limited because it’s not empirical. In essence... it's NOT &quot;real science&quot;, Gracche.


Obviously, scientists disagree.

Real science like Genetics actually only tells us nature can select from existing traits; mutations most often than not produce harmful or neutral effects.

They also produce new traits.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a very weak argument for evolution, for evolution needs to produce novel organs like lungs from gills.

Not really. Lungs evolved in the water. It's why amphibians have both....

We don't know &quot;how&quot; protobionts could have changed into cells... so how can we be sure of it if we can't test it or see it.

Doing experiments would be a good start.

[Socrates]

Socrates:
[quote]Don't these evolutionists read strong critiques of chemical evolution aka abiogenesis at Origin of Life Questions and Answers.[uote]

tgamble gave a typically fact-free rant :rant::
Of course not. Such junk isn't worth reading. If AIG has anything scientific to say, let em publish in scientific journals. But all they have is lies and distortions. It's all they'll ever have.I.e. "I can't refute the chemical hard evidence against chemical evolution aka abiogenesis, so I'll slander the messenger instead. :dufus:

No matter how much evidence is given, they'll reject it because they prefer to cling to myths instead.Maybe you should try presenting some evidence instead of resorting to the abusive ad hominem fallacy.

[Socrates]

Morimotus wrote:

Evolution, as hyped as it is, is but another branch of biology - a weak one at that, for it’s essentially non-empirical:

tgamble just repeated his fact-free ranting :rant: and ignorance of science :dufus:
It's the unifying principle of biologyLinnaeus, Pasteur and Mendel managed perfectly well without it. and one of the best supported facts of science around.Yet tgamble doesn't provide any support for this alleged "fact" and insteads smears those who dissent.

M:
Darwin’s finches and peppered moths show what real evolution is: simply modifications of existing traits.
TG:
lol! Sarfati, in his typically ignorant way, claims that hte issue isn't new traits but new information.He (and all the AiG scientists) are a lot better qualified in science than gamble, and he's right! And gamble's answer is, what? (besides more abusive ad hominem). Evolutionists have no good answer either, which is why they keep on deceitfully equivocating, playing bait'n'switch by calling all change 'evolution', then insinuating that creationists deny all change.
What do you mean it can't be experimented with? What were Urey/Miller doing?!Desperately trying to find evidence to support their FAITH in chemical evolution!

M:
“ Biology is not dependent on any origins theory. It’s well worth looking into the origin of life, but we must remember that it’s inherently limited because it’s not empirical. In essence... it's NOT "real science", Gracche.
TG:Obviously, scientists disagree.
Only evolutionist scientists, not creationist scientists.

:M:
We don't know "how" protobionts could have changed into cells... so how can we be sure of it if we can't test it or see it.
TG:
Doing experiments would be a good start.Yeah, and they show how ridiculous chemical evolution is! But no matter how many failures, the ilk of tgamble would not abandon their blind faith in it.

[Stratnerd]

TG: It's the unifying principle of biology
Soc: Linnaeus, Pasteur and Mendel managed perfectly well without it.

Indeed, but evolution gives their work, particularly that of Linneaus and Mendel, a larger context rather that a jumble of facts (or like stamp collecting like one physicist put it). Moreover, systematics is explained by evolution where for Linnaeus it was almost a mystic exercise.

[Socrates]

Actually, creation in distinct kinds, and a subsequent Fall makes far better sense of the studies of Linnaeus, Pasteur and Mendel -- they certainly thought so!!

[tgamble]

03-11-2003 @ 07:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=32071#post32071)
Morimotus:

Recently in my biology 1202 class, the lecture came to protobionts and RNA. Our professor said that b/w this simplest of structures, protobionts possibly filled w/ RNA, and the next step of full fledged cell, there is a huge gap which has gone for the most part unexplained. She says problems include the fact that protobionts are essentially just bubbles of phospholipids... they lack all the surface and transversing proteins real cell membranes have.


What ever happened to the conspiracy to silence professors such as yours? Identify her so that the evil darwinist establishment may have her fired and executed for daring to even think of questioning the sacred cow of evolution. She will be killed for this! Her, her family, her pets, her neighbours and their pets as a lesson to anyone who even CONSIDERS questioning!

DEATH TO ALL CHRISTIANS! ALL HAIL THE DARK LORD SATAN!

:rofl: :rofl:

For those of you who are humor disadvantaged, none of the above is even remotely serious.

[tgamble]

Today @ 08:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44424#post44424)
Socrates:

Actually, creation in distinct kinds, and a subsequent Fall makes far better sense of the studies of Linnaeus, Pasteur and Mendel -- they certainly thought so!!

Linnaeus classification actually refutes the "kinds" nonsense.

I doubt you can support the claim that either Pasteur or Mendel believed the creation myth.

Even if they did, their discoveries don't make them infallable. They'd still be wrong.

[Berserker]

hey tgamble,

I know who you are! I know of only one person that can praise satan like that!

[tgamble]

<<Maybe you should try presenting some evidence instead of resorting to the abusive ad hominem fallacy.>>

Try the scientific journals. Loads of evidence there. But you'll still reject it all and cling to the Bible instead.

Admit it, it matters not how much evidence is given! The bible still stays the same and you'll cling to that instead.

>>tgamble just repeated his fact-free ranting and ignorance of science >>

Socrates continues his insults and nastiness because he can't refute the facts.

>>Linnaeus, Pasteur and Mendel managed perfectly well without it.>>

And physicists like Kelvin managed fine without reletivity! Biologists also managed fine without genetics, DNA, antibiotics etc. etc. etc. What's your point? Evolution is still the unifying principle of biology.

>>Yet tgamble doesn't provide any support for this alleged "fact" and insteads smears those who dissent.>>

You're all confused as usual. I (and others) have presented plenty of evidence. There are hundreds of science books that provide evidence, thousands of scientific journal articles that provide more. But you choose to ignore it all! http://www.talkorigins.org/comdesc provides plenty of evidence. Embryology, molecular biology, the fossil record, species distribution. All of it fully supports evolution.

>>He (and all the AiG scientists) are a lot better qualified in science than gamble, and he's right!>>

And the thousands of scientists who accept evolution are better qualified than the quacks at AIG. Nice try with your appeal to authority which only applies when it works in creationist favor! LOL!

Sarfati's gross ignorance aside new genetic information has been OBSERVED. Sarfati doesn't bother to explain why new traits doesn't imply new information. Nope, it's just reshuffing of old information. He'll say anything to deny reality!

Sarfati has a phd in chemistry and hasn't done any science in years prefering to waste his educating fighting it instead.

It hardly qualifies him to attack biiology. No surprise he can't get his ravings published.

>>Evolutionists have no good answer either, which is why they keep on deceitfully equivocating, playing bait'n'switch by calling all change 'evolution', then insinuating that creationists deny all change.>>

Once again, your lies don't change reality.

At least you admit creationists have no good answer! LOL!

>Desperately trying to find evidence to support their FAITH in chemical evolution!
>

Snear all you want. They were doing experiments.

>>Only evolutionist scientists, not creationist scientists.
>>

Nope, SCIENTISTS. Not just evolutionary biologists.

Creation scientists is an oxymoron.

>>Yeah, and they show how ridiculous chemical evolution is! >>

Only according to antiscience religious quacks. You realize that you're admitting now that experiments are possible? You just disagree with the results!

[Socrates]

When Gamble actually produces evidence for chemical evolution, people might take a non-scientist like him seriously. Conversely, AiG's Dr Sarfati, a qualified Ph.D. chemist with PROVEN ability to publish in secular journals, has launched devastating criticisms of chemical evolution on CHEMICAL grounds alone! This is real science, and published in the refereed journal TJ, but gamble prefers the FAITH of chemical evolution.

[Berserker]

How is it faith? it has more evidence behind it then a god snapping his fingers and life popping up. Faith means no evidence at all. Also any one with bias beliefs can make up "damming" evidence against something. A true scientist only cares about what can be proven and theorized and has not bias nor stubbornness in changing belief and dogmas (ya that’s not possible because of the nature of the human animal, but is a good goal in life.)

[Tycho]

Today @ 10:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45143#post45143)
Berserker:
How is it faith? it has more evidence behind it then a god snapping his fingers and life popping up. Faith means no evidence at all.
Socrates may very well think that faith and evidence are one and the same. The only purpose of this bizarre equivocation (that I can think of) would be to be able to deny the validity of evidence just as he denies the validity of other people's faith.

[Socrates]

Of course chemical evolution is blind faith. There is no OBSERVATIONAL evidence that non-living chemicals can organise themselves into living cells. There's no theoretical support either. Rather, REAL chemistry shows that the direction is AWAY from that required to form life. E.g. polymers tend to break down into monomers, homochiral compounds racemize, cytosine hydrolyses, sugars and amino acids would tend to react with each other to form biologically useless tar, phosphate would precipitate, etc.

[Berserker]

But there is theoretical support. If you knew anything about chemistry then you would know that just about any equilibrium for any reaction can be changed and reversed depending on the environmental conditions. If the polymers are replicating they will out produce the rate of decay.