Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

originally posted by: Phantom423
All of the bases in DNA and RNA have now been found in meteorites
The discovery adds to evidence that suggests life’s precursors came from space

Amino acid synthesis is not the difficult part. Those form favorably from their components in terms of thermodynamics. The main thermodynamic challenge for abiogenesis is polymerizing these monomers and then having chaperone proteins assist with proper folding. If it doesn't fold correctly it is junk.

Amino acids from space doesn't really change anything, you'd need amino acid and nucleic acid polymers present on meteorites to make it a remotely viable theory. Regardless, It is cool that meteorites may contain organic material outside our atmosphere.

I still question it though because contamination would be hard to avoid... there's even amino acids floating around our atmosphere that could contaminate them. Let alone the organic matter that it collides with when it hits earth's surface. Couldn't find any reports that said they used non-surface parts of the meteorites.

originally posted by: cooperton
Growing number of scientists disbelieve the validity of evolution

Is this some BS creationist push? We know a chunk of Darwin was incorrect, there are some great books on it. We also know today that what Darwin worked on is a very small amount as to what we know today yet you seem to want to ignore that and continue to argue points from the 1800s.

... yet you just claimed whereislogic is close-minded in the last page. Do you see the irony?

You are rehashing crap from 100s of posts ago across many other OP's. You ignore anything other people bring to the table, so what is the point here? You do not remember having these debates before? Why again?

Given that the boiling point of hexamethylenetetramine is 280 degrees Celsius, it is clear that this molecule did not come with the meteorite through the atmosphere. The atmosphere would have vaporized this molecule off the asteroid. Instead it makes far more sense that it picked up organic molecules when it hit organic life upon impact with the earth's surface

It's inside..duh

Wrong question!

Why do You think Advanced Chemical Reactions
that we call Biological or Organic.
Are any thing but Advanced Chemical Reactions?

Biological or Organic are made up of
Chemicals that are bonded together.

It has just taken billions of years for them to make life.
Fill the void with 10^53 Kg of hydrogen randomly.
wait for 3 billion years and they will pull together to make stars,
they then super nova and make the next elements.
on and on it goes untill we have You! ?

"The composition of universe is approximately 90% hydrogen"
google !

So we are just getting started!

a reply to: cooperton

From the article about protein folding you shared:

In addition, about 80% of the cell’s proteins fall outside these three classes and fold spontaneously without chaperones.

What do you think about that number, since no reference was listed for it and they don't seem to go into it anymore (although I skimmed the paper, could have missed it)? And do you think the sentence above means that in a living cell, 80% of proteintypes that are produced, do not traverse through the folding machine for their final confirmation form, they fold on their own (into their final 100% functional form)?

Or do you think it means that 80% of proteintypes can fold on their own and still retain at least some of their functionality, but they won''t be as efficient as the same proteins produced in a living cell that do use the folding machine for their final confirmation form and 100% functionality?

originally posted by: Phantom423

All of the bases in DNA and RNA have now been found in meteorites
The discovery adds to evidence that suggests life’s precursors came from space

originally posted by: cooperton

...
I still question it though because contamination would be hard to avoid... there's even amino acids floating around our atmosphere that could contaminate them. Let alone the organic matter that it collides with when it hits earth's surface. Couldn't find any reports that said they used non-surface parts of the meteorites.

When reading the article Phantom423 linked and coming to this part:

“I think [the researchers] positively identified these compounds,” Callahan says. But “they didn’t present enough compelling data to convince me that they’re truly extraterrestrial.” Callahan previously worked at NASA and collaborated with Glavin and others to measure organic materials in meteorites.

I'm thinking, if they can't even convince a believer like Callahan who also earns his living by catering to this particular market/flock (as per 2 Tim 4:3,4) that what has been detected is of extraterrestrial origin, why should I be? And then why would this be "evidence that suggests life’s precursors originally came from space" as those who published the paper say (and repeated by Phantom with no questions asked)?

Especially considering Callahan must be well aware of the 'isomers'-argument described in the next paragraph of the news article. And considering how rapid terrestrial contamination occurs in meteorites that have been on earth for a while as mentioned when I brought up that article on page 8:

The rapid amino acid contamination of Martian meteorites after direct exposure to the terrestrial environment has important implications for Mars sample-return missions and the curation of the samples from the time of their delivery to Earth.

Source: Amino acids in the Martian meteorite Nakhla

You still have the uncontrolled energy problem in or on an asteroid in space that I explained in more detail before.

Besides the 'isomers'-argument, this is the argument the writers of the paper use to argue an extraterrestrial origin:

Using the same technique, the team also measured chemical abundances within soil collected from the Australia site and then compared the measured meteorite values with that of the soil. For some detected compounds, the meteorite values were greater than the surrounding soil, which suggests that the compounds came to Earth in these rocks.

Apparently, any other reason why this may be the case is not up for consideration. I also wouldn't be surprised if some trickery was involved (given my experience with these types), such as cherry-picking data or in the technique used in comparison to the material studied (for example when a particular technique is better at detecting a particular compound in the material of a meteorite than in soil samples, then obviously you're going to detect more of that compound in the meteorite than in the soil samples). And that that's why Callahan isn't convinced, cause he knows what's going on here.

Also, how far-fetched is it to consider the potential for deliberate terrestrial contamination (or through apathic neglect for the avoidance of contamination*) by those who stand to gain financially by the detection of so-called "building blocks of life" in samples from sample-return space missions? In the form of continued funding for further sample-return space missions and the research into the samples returned (which involves the careers and salaries of hundreds of scientists and engineers, if not thousands). *: why would you care about doing everything possible to avoid terrestrial contamination if you want the building blocks of life to be detected in these samples?

The video below is about the origin of nucleotides that can be used for RNA or DNA. Now swap out every time Tour asks a question about "a prebiotic earth" with "a prebiotic asteroid or comet", does it make it more or less plausible that the chemistry (the chemical reactions, and most importantly, the constantly changing, at exactly the right times and for the right duration, carefully set up and very specific conditions) presented by Sunderland and discussed there, is responsible for the emergence of nucleotides on prebiotic asteroids and comets (more or less plausible than on a prebiotic earth)? Start at 17:20, key questions where you can apply the swap start at 18:59:

Howcome do we as humans come to find things are odd.

"That's not normal" "That's weird" "That's strange" like we operate as rulers of reality.

"This can't be" "That's not right" "That's impossible" like we created the environment we live in and enforce the laws of it upon it.

a reply to: AlienView

"Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?"

The real question is...

Why does a tree contain carbon in a world where trees aren't completely made of the base element carbon?

Think about it for a minute. Then facepalm real hard.

a reply to: Kreeate

You are rather unpleasant.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Excellent and well thought out retort. Kudos to you good sir/mam/*insert your skewed version of gender here*

Do you have any real feedback on my post, or are you simply displaying your frustration at the fact that I pointed out the flaw in the OP's posit?

a reply to: Kreeate

No.....I have been reading your posts on ats.....and I find you rather unpleasant.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Kreeate

No.....I have been reading your posts on ats.....and I find you rather unpleasant.

That is your prerogative. My point stands nonetheless.
You have the "freedom" of not replying to my posts.

Suggestion... use that "freedom".

Have a great day.

Back on topic... "Why does a tree contain carbon in a world where trees aren't completely made of the base element carbon?"

originally posted by: whereislogic

Also note Dave Farina using the expression "by chance" (30:44) to explain the cause by which what he claims there happened (as per the overall story that the origin of life happened by chance, including individual steps towards the origin of life).

Just like Dawkins saying "by accident". Yes, their argument is that this all happened by chance. This proposed cause is not negated or does not go away from the storyline by adding other causal factors such as the forces of nature or so-called "natural selection" (where no actual selection is taking place), even when they are imagined to operate in the opposite direction as we have observed for centuries. Or by arguing that "chance" is used incorrectly when this cause has been at the basis of evolutionary philosophy and mythology for thousands of years and clearly still is as demonstrated by those continuously arguing that these things happened "by chance" or "by accident".

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: whereislogic

Also note Dave Farina using the expression "by chance" (30:44) to explain the cause by which what he claims there happened (as per the overall story that the origin of life happened by chance, including individual steps towards the origin of life).

Just like Dawkins saying "by accident". Yes, their argument is that this all happened by chance. This proposed cause is not negated or does not go away from the storyline by adding other causal factors such as the forces of nature or so-called "natural selection" (where no actual selection is taking place), even when they are imagined to operate in the opposite direction as we have observed for centuries. Or by arguing that "chance" is used incorrectly when this cause has been at the basis of evolutionary philosophy and mythology for thousands of years and clearly still is as demonstrated by those continuously arguing that these things happened "by chance" or "by accident".

Please stop regurgitating garbage. None of what you say is actual science.
There is a major difference between "chance" and "random".
Evolution is proven. Get used to it.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
The video below is about the origin of nucleotides that can be used for RNA or DNA. Now swap out every time Tour asks a question about "a prebiotic earth" with "a prebiotic asteroid or comet", ...

edit: or "interstellar molecular clouds" for that matter.

Amino acids, which are a key ingredient of life, could have originally been made in interstellar molecular clouds like that from which the solar system formed, before winding up in asteroids that later crashed on Earth, bringing the amino acids with them.

Source: Asteroids may have picked up building blocks of life from interstellar clouds | Space

They're so fond of that expression "could have". Always reminds me of those who argue that if given enough time, (just about) anything can happen. (both variations)

a reply to: Kreeate

Consciousness is primary and permeates the universe. Everything else is a manifestation of it.

a reply to: AlienView

Imagine a penguin living in Antarctica. Knowing nothing but the other penguins and some fish.

It would blow that penguins mind to find out that far away up north there exists a world of parrots. And people. And people with parrots in cages. And parrots singing along to people playing guitars on tic tok

Hard to believe

a reply to: cooperton

You don't understand the energetics of protein folding. It's a natural process that happens all day long in living organisms.
Here's an online source where you can learn the thermodynamics of protein folding. Pay attention to the science (for a change).

About Foldit
Foldit is a one-of-a-kind protein folding computer game developed by university scientists. By playing Foldit, you can contribute to advanced research on human health, cutting-edge bioengineering, and the inner workings of biology.

Foldit is free to play and not-for-profit. Discoveries made in the game are published in peer-reviewed research journals and Foldit players are always credited for their contributions.

Every week, Foldit scientists post new puzzles focused on the latest problems in protein folding. Read on to learn about ongoing research in protein design to treat diseases like influenza and COVID-19, small molecule design to invent new drug compounds, and protein structure solving to map the molecules that drive biology.

For a deep dive into the science behind protein folding, visit the Science page.

fold.it...

What shape will a protein fold into?
Even though proteins are just a long chain of amino acids, they don't like to stay stretched out in a straight line. The protein folds up to make a compact blob. As it does, it keeps some amino acids near the center of the blob, and others outside; and it keeps some pairs of amino acids close together and others far apart.

Every kind of protein folds up into a very specific shape. Most proteins do this all by themselves, although some need extra help to fold into the right shape. The protein always folds to its most stable shape. Picture a ball at the top of a hill – the ball will always roll down to the bottom. If you try to put the ball back on top it will still roll down to the bottom of the hill because that is where it is most stable.

The same applies to polymerization. It's basic organic chemistry 101 (which you have never done. Nor have you ever been in a lab). They are natural, thermodynamic processes.

No magic wand required.

originally posted by: AlienView

If you start with a physical Universe that does not have biological or organic lfe in it - What are the odds of living, breathing, breeding
biological life forms occurring

1/1 as it turns out.

a reply to: AlienView

Has it been considered that there are no things that are alive?

The one life is what there is.....it is what's appearing (manifesting).

No thing separate.

a reply to: surfer_soul

www.abovetopsecret.com...