An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

a reply to: Noinden

Yikes, that sounds nasty. I started out isolating and chemically characterizing new compounds. Then moved on to cancer research and cytopathology where I hold a board certification. My Ph.D. advisor got his degree under Linus Pauling at Cal Tech. But our lab really wasn't well run - one day an EPA inspector came through - examined one of the hoods which was working very well except for one minor problem - the air flow was recycling back through the building and not exiting properly. No wonder the place stunk of benzene, chloroform - . Anyway, I moved on to cancer research where I wasn't confronted with those problems!

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

Abiogenesis is no more a fact then the big bang theory. Not a fact but the best explanation we have at this stage.

To argue it as a fact is an ignorance fallacy. Not sure why you cant see this.

Coomba98

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

Abiogenesis is no more a fact then the big bang theory. Not a fact but the best explanation we have at this stage. Given the evidence available

To argue it as a fact is an ignorance fallacy. Not sure why you cant see this.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

If you say so. Remember that you're not a fact when you look in the mirror.
And don't forget to work on that Abiogenesis equation that I posted -

a reply to: coomba98

Actually you might be referring to the strict definition coined by Huxley - i.e. the life popped out of a swamp or a rock or something similar. I'm using the term as a generalized description of life origination - doesn't' really matter if it's organic or inorganic - just the origin of life itself. Possibly some confusion there which is my fault.

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

Alls good.

Like i said before, i think abiogenesis to be obviously true, but to say its obvious therefore true is wrong.

Until we evaluate the proess to confirm it, its just a hypothesis.

We hopefully will one day whilst im alive. Thats an estimated 50 years if im lucky.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

I don't disagree. I'm a bench scientist - more like a Sherlock Holmes in many respects - evidence is critical to an investigation. But the theoretical people are also important - without new ideas - crazy as they may seem, we never more forward.

Have a good evening.

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

Totally agree there.

Have a good night digger

Coomba98

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: chr0naut

Because of the current diversity of life and the differences in transcription between different domains, it is rational to assume that there must have been multiple, unconnected, abiogenetic events.

Even one abiogenetic event is unfathomable. The most simple prokaryotes require the following:

1) replication and protein coding genes through nucleic acid template
2) Translation machinery to create proteins
3) metabolic machinery
4) cellular membrane
5) homeostatic mechanisms (i.e. epigenetics)

A cell must have all of these, especially 1-4, otherwise it is inviable and cannot perpetuate a cell line... Yet it begs the question of how, even in 13 billion years, could such complexity arise from randomness?

In two words - self organisation. The Secret Life of Chaos

a reply to: wildespace

Cooperton's mistake is much more fundamental than that - he is merely dusting off an old strawman argument that has been explained to him many times.

First 'life' was most certainly NOT a prokaryote which is far far too complicated to have been 'first'.

For the bazillionth time:



And another which demonstrates clearly Sciences understanding of the process: prokaryotes are many steps down the road: "no life" => monomers => protocells => cells => eventually 'modern' prokaryotes

This video discusses this beginning at about 2:00 minutes in. (The first two minutes discusses the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: wildespace

Cooperton's mistake is much more fundamental than that - he is merely dusting off an old strawman argument that has been explained to him many times.

First 'life' was most certainly NOT a prokaryote which is far far too complicated to have been 'first'.

I was never arguing that the first life was a prokaryote. I was pointing out the requirements for a "protocell" to be alive. The hop from monomers to "protocell" is immense... It needs to replicate, it needs to produce energy to replicate and power the organism, it requires proteins and the machinery necessary to make proteins to allow replication, and other necessary processes... and much much more.

Viruses are an exception because they leech off the machinery of living organisms.

And another which demonstrates clearly Sciences understanding of the process

if science "understood" the progression of non-life to life, and if such evidence existed of a possibility for this to occur, it would be shoved in our faces daily. Abiogenesis is something that is in complete theoretical disarray and unfathomable to even the most imaginative hypothesis. Sure we can assume the progression would be monomer -> protocell -> cell, but when you meticulously analyze the required mechanisms for such a transformation to take place you realize how impossible this would be without some sort of intelligent directing force. Meditate on The requirements of a viable organism. Use your own brain without relying on the scientism priesthood for chauvinistic, insufficient answers.

a reply to: cooperton

The hop from monomers to "protocell" is immense...

Yes. But not from a chemistry and physics point of view. Only from an organizational point of view.

It needs to replicate,

Yes, and Dr. Szostak's work has demonstrated that monomers can do just that. It is called chemistry.

it needs to produce energy to replicate and power the organism,

or be in an environment where energy is abundantly available... like near a sea vent or a fumorole. Dr. Szostak's monomers do not 'need' energy in the way that you mean (or at least the way I interpret that you mean). Chemistry and Physics causes the lipid 'enclosure' (my descriptive - not technical - word) to expand and chemistry and physics causes other monomers to be attracted across that 'enclosure boundary' (the lipid enclosure 'eats'). This is gaining energy that causes further expansion, and eventually mechanical forces makes the 'enclosure' break into two or more (it divides and duplicates).

Seriously. Watch the Szostak video above. It isn't rocket science... it is chemistry.

it requires proteins and the machinery necessary to make proteins to allow replication, and other necessary processes... and much much more.

Monomers can replicate without proteins (see Dr. Szostak again). Certainly proteins are an improvement allowing more energy efficient replication.

All you are saying is that protocells weren't the first thing that could replicate and be called life, that there had to be something before them. As the internet meme says "obvious troll is obvious".

Really the only valid question in your argument is: "how simple can a replicating molecule be and still be called be called life?" Exactly what must our definition of life be? Shall we say that unless it has proteins it is not life, or can something like Dr. Skostak's monomers be called life. If a monomer can be called life, then it is life as soon as it can replicate itself - and evolution takes over as soon as it is life. Evolution favors the efficient, so a process molecule that can take advantage of chemical reactions that can occur in less energetic environments will succeed in colonizing those environments. Proteins would be one way of accomplishing this and once you have proteins you eventually get protocells.

If it needs to have proteins before you are willing to call it life, then are we not placing to much of a limit on the definition? If you insist on it containing proteins before calling it life, then when the monomer molecules reach the point of protein construction then evolution takes over and eventually you have protocells.

Whatever. The boundary of "nolife"/ "life" is a matter of definition more than anything else - its more of a indistinct continuum - just like the differentiation of two closely related species.

originally posted by: rnaa
then when the monomer molecules reach the point of protein construction then evolution takes over and eventually you have protocells.

A meticulous analysis of this step will demonstrate what I am trying to convey. What is necessary for the leap from monomer molecules to protein construction? Nucleotide monomers have to assemble in a particular order to code for proteins necessary for replication... this of course makes no sense without the necessary machinery to read the nucleotide polymer chain (RNA/DNA).

Let's just assume against immense odds that this randomly generated nucleotide sequence so happens to code for all the proteins necessary for replication; but, you'd still need the machinery that reads this sequence and transcribes it into proteins. So now you'd also need the nucleotide sequence that codes for the transcribing machinery. Yet, how could the first nucleotide sequence be transcribed to proteins if the proteins necessary for this transcription have never been transcribed before?

The deeper you think on this matter the more paradoxical this conundrum becomes. Even if the "Chemistry did it" argument would hypothetically surmount a large chunk of the intricate assembly exhibited in rudimentary cells, you still have the chicken-or-the-egg conundrum with proteins and their respective nucleotide sequences.

Whatever. The boundary of "nolife"/ "life" is a matter of definition more than anything else - its more of a indistinct continuum - just like the differentiation of two closely related species.

The major theoretical fallacies of the scientific world will continue to hide behind semantics - i.e. "That's not adaptation, that's evolution" - all the while ostracizing any dissenters of the house of cards that constitutes mainstream scientific rhetoric.

a reply to: cooperton

Even if the "Chemistry did it" argument would hypothetically surmount a large chunk of the intricate assembly exhibited in rudimentary cells, ...

Why can you not understand that we are not talking about cells when we are talking about the very earliest 'life'? We are not even talking about a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere but methane and ammonia (probably, but certainly nothing like the modern atmosphere).

You just keep presenting strawman complaints around and around and around.

Its life cooperton, but not as we know it.

a reply to: cooperton

Nucleotide monomers have to assemble in a particular order to code for proteins necessary for replication... this of course makes no sense without the necessary machinery to read the nucleotide polymer chain (RNA/DNA).

No it doesn't. All it takes is for a chemical reaction to take place that is just a little bit more efficient at replicating the monomer in some way than previous reactions. And then another. And another. Each time getting a little bit more effective and accidentally getting closer to what we now call proteins. Maybe some catalyst is spewed out by a volcano, maybe the reaction takes place on the surface of a rock that contains some vital ingredient to getting 'better'.. Who knows?

But even if the likely hood of any particular step occurring is say 1 in a bazillion, since we are talking about a planet wide chemical lab with virtually limitless natural resources and virtually limitless energy, we have a bazillion raised to the googleplex reactions going on over time and that 1 in a bazillion chance is gonna come home eventually. And then the next one. And the next.

The molecular reactions we are talking about here are NOT 'modern' cells. They are self-sustaining chemical reactions. Nothing more. Nothing less. Energy is supplied by the environment, not the chemical reaction process.

A 'modern' cell, even the simplest virus you can find is massive collection of self-sustaining chemical reactions.

a reply to: cooperton

if science "understood" the progression of non-life to life,

Here is news for you. "Science" doesn't know if it will ever know the exact process that took place to end up where we are now. What it does hope to find is at least one plausible pathway for non-life to life. If it can find one (or more) such pathways, it doesn't matter (to "science") whether or not that pathway was the exact one. There may be many pathways, discoverable or not. Perhaps 'modern' life is result of many such pathways merging. Dunno. Don't care (at least at this point).

and if such evidence existed of a possibility for this to occur,

'such evidence' does exist. Our planet is teaming with life - once upon a time there was no life on the planet. Therefore it is 100% certain that there was a "progression of non-life to life" of some sort, at some time. 100% positively.

it would be shoved in our faces daily.

Well, scientific papers are published everyday, is that what you mean?

Abiogenesis is something that is in complete theoretical disarray and unfathomable to even the most imaginative hypothesis.

What does that even mean? That there is no theory, only hypotheses? Yeah, OK. There may never be a Theory of Abiogenesis. As I said above, "science" doesn't know if it will find the 'one true pathway' or even if there is 'one true pathway'. There is certainly nothing 'in disarray' about Scientists proposing hypotheses, testing them, and either rejecting or accepting them. That is exactly how science works.

You are arguing from bias for your preconceived answer and that because YOU don't understand how abiogenesis might work, then NO ONE can ever understand it. You don't understand how complexity can come out of simplicity, OK, fine. That is no reason to deny that others can study that process and gain valuable insights into how things came to be how they are.

If all humanity had your attitude, Prometheus would have never stolen fire from the gods and Adam and Eve would have never eaten of the Tree of Knowledge.

And yes, Cooperton, in case you didn't notice, I just asserted that the so-called 'fall' was an absolute positive for humanity.

originally posted by: rnaa

Why can you not understand that we are not talking about cells when we are talking about the very earliest 'life'?

I meant for rudimentary cell to be synonymous with protocell. Let's not start nitpicking semantics, it's a black hole conversation.

No it doesn't. All it takes is for a chemical reaction to take place that is just a little bit more efficient at replicating the monomer in some way than previous reactions. And then another. And another. Each time getting a little bit more effective and accidentally getting closer to what we now call proteins. Maybe some catalyst is spewed out by a volcano, maybe the reaction takes place on the surface of a rock that contains some vital ingredient to getting 'better'.. Who knows?

I wasn't even referring to the creating of individual amino acids, which is another monumentous step! In my example I was taking for granted that amino acids were already viable for protein synthesis from the given RNA sequence... but yes, that is another HUGE step that must be taken into consideration.

Our planet is teaming with life - once upon a time there was no life on the planet. Therefore it is 100% certain that there was a "progression of non-life to life" of some sort, at some time. 100% positively.

Yes, but that leap, to many people, requires some sort of intelligent agency. People believe such because organisms, planets, and solar systems, are in such a beautifully complex equilibrium that it seems insurmountable for randomness to have culminated these systems. Do you realize when your body is harmed, it heals itself automatically without any conscious input? Mimicking this facet is far beyond the scope of us intelligent beings - think about how less capable randomness would be at creating such complexity.

And yes, Cooperton, in case you didn't notice, I just asserted that the so-called 'fall' was an absolute positive for humanity.

Without the fall we would not be consciously aware of our given Being right now. There is much more to our existence than some nightmarish fantasy that we are the erroneous progeny of a mutated microbe. I attempt to expose the logical impossibilities of these theories because they disable people from coming to realize what they actually are

a reply to: cooperton

I attempt to expose the logical impossibilities of these theories because they disable people from coming to realize what they actually are

Coop, every time this subject comes up you post the same thoughtless answer. Numerous papers on self assembly, thermodynamics, energetics of life-forming molecules as well as research articles on the early Earth have been posted in response to your replies. Yet to date, you obviously read none of these articles because you're on the same worn out horse, riding continually into ignorance.

As rnaa wrote, it comes down to chemistry and physics. The chemistry and physics that enabled early life may never be known completely. However, there's enough data in the literature to suggest that the ability to replicate is probably the most important aspect of anything that we define as being "alive". It may not be the only aspect, but it's most definitely at the top of the list.

You also have an annoying habit of never addressing the research articles that are posted here which could greatly broaden your understanding of research. You leave them hanging as though they don't exist. It's always a one-sided conversation with no innovation on your part - just same worn out position. Must be a very boring life.

..im not wanting to interfere with the thread,
but i feel it's a veiled discussion about creationism VS evolutionism

both sides are Off

creationism because she doesnt understand that our present physical body ánd this solarplane,
since 8000BC, have nothing to do with Eden ;
evolutionism because they never adress the POWER by which cells are made to grow,
in always the same serpentine [!] Fibonacci-sequence ;
cells by definition must aquire their energy to grow from ELSEWHERE.

That law of energy
is convieniently disregarded by evolutionists.
Since they will not answer "the energy what makes any cell to grow",
- never they do.
is too awkward.

read : another dimension :
the same one directiong the fibonnaci-theme.
Read : Saturn.

conclusion :
so-called 'evolution' is nothing else but "creations by saturn energies"
and
is totally foreign to the gorgious creations of Eden.

originally posted by: loNeNLI
..im not wanting to interfere with the thread,
but i feel it's a veiled discussion about creationism VS evolutionism

both sides are Off

creationism because she doesnt understand that our present physical body ánd this solarplane,
since 8000BC, have nothing to do with Eden ;
evolutionism because they never adress the POWER by which cells are made to grow,
in always the same serpentine [!] Fibonacci-sequence ;
cells by definition must aquire their energy to grow from ELSEWHERE.

That law of energy
is convieniently disregarded by evolutionists.
Since they will not answer "the energy what makes any cell to grow",
- never they do.
is too awkward.

read : another dimension :
the same one directiong the fibonnaci-theme.
Read : Saturn.

conclusion :
so-called 'evolution' is nothing else but "creations by saturn energies"
and
is totally foreign to the gorgious creations of Eden.

Your input suggests that you haven't read through this forum. There are enough science-based research articles posted that refute everything you have said about evolution. You can start by referring to the ATS Library (link below) for some answers.