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

a reply to: cooperton

Your "designer" is crackpot science. You have ZERO evidence for a supernatural creature. There were follow up experiments which demonstrate the formation of organic monomers like amino acids, purine bases like adenine, s-triazines and pyrimidines under prebiotic conditions.

You continually post that I and others who oppose your crackpot science believe that life walked out of "primordial soup" or that apes mutated into humans. Yet you can't find a single quote from me that EVER said or even suggested that. You just make up your crackpot science as you go along. You lie, cheat and steal your way through your delusional world.

You're a crackpot and a fraud.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Your "designer" is crackpot science. You have ZERO evidence for a supernatural creature.

God's not a creature he's a creator you dunce lol.

There were follow up experiments which demonstrate the formation of organic monomers like amino acids, purine bases like adenine, s-triazines and pyrimidines under prebiotic conditions.

We've been over this before, the formation of monomers is not the difficult part because it is thermodynamically favorable for them to form. Amino acid or nucleic acid monomer polymerization is the true thermodynamic difficulty. Even if this thermodynamic barrier is surpassed, all the bonds need to be oriented in the same manner (L- for amino acids, D- for nucleic acids), which the only known catalyst that facilitates this is the ribosome. chirality does not occur selectively in nature without the ribosome. This alone Makes abiogenesis impossible. It's the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma over and over and over again.

You continually post that I and others who oppose your crackpot science

What specifically did I get wrong regarding the empirical science? I never said that life walked out of primordial soup. The leading hypothesis for abiogenesis insists that life emerged from an aqueous solution rich with organic compounds. I call it pond scum because that is essentially what an aqueous solution with random organic compounds would be.

You're a crackpot and a fraud.

lol. You resort to ad hominems when you no longer can debate the science. Prove you are scientifically literate and respond properly to the dilemmas I present. No more go-fish articles that only bolster my point even more. I want it in your own words. But you can't do that. You're a blind believer in an empirically baseless theory.

a reply to: cooperton


There is no "leading hypothesis" for how life began. You made that up to look like scientists believe it.

And yes, you are a crackpot, a fraud and a liar. You're part of a cult just like Jonestown.

Your "designer" has zero evidence for its existence. Magic wands and supernatural clowns are not required for real science.

Your theme should be "Send in the Clowns":



A supernatural clown would be more fun than your creature anyway.

a reply to: cooperton


And I repeat: I HAVE NEVER SAID OR SUGGESTED THAT LIFE WALKED OUT OF A PRIMORDIAL SOUP. You're a liar and a fraud.

originally posted by: whereislogic
I have not seen this supposed "attack" on science, that's how you see it when evolutionary philosophies or philosophical naturalism are challenged, which is not the same thing as science.

The deal is that evolution isn't some hard statement that is set in stone. I have said many times that the spark of life can be intelligent design, or not as we do not know yet. My point has always been that I see no need for intelligent design so I lean in that direction, but it isn't done deal yet for me.

I have not seen any young earth creationist suggesting that 10,000 elephants popped into existence from nothing. Why do you feel the need to change the argument before saying something about it? Do you even care that you're bringing up a straw man? Do you care that I'm not a young earth creationist?

There is a rather wide band that creationists fall on to. I'm open to the idea that God sparked life and allowed the natural order of evolution to work. I'm not in favor of somehow species just coming in current form, or the notion that 6000 years ago God created everything as is.

What all this looks like is you all seem kind of quiet in the "how" other than to suggest that life does not evolve and so comes in its current form. For a species to do that we will need some numbers too so that there is genetic diversity as too few numbers are not good. What this means is either God popped into existence species in their current form and in some numbers, or there is a different path for all this...what say you?

God did not create everything from nothing.

If God is in the mix then I would say he did create everything from nothing as we do not know what nothing is like outside of our universe. So you would need to expand on this statement some.

You seem to ignore all responses to the standard arguments you bring up. And then repeat the same questions/challenges and arguments as if you've never had a response or seen a response to it. The least you can do is skip ahead a little in the debate, acknowledge the (usual) response, and then respond to that. Saves some time repeating the same points for you to ignore as you return to the original argument or question.

If questions are repeated then it is because none of you care to even remotely answer them. Most of mine are to point out key points that if God created everything then why do we have XYZ, or other animals have XYZ. I also try to figure out where on that Creationalist line people sit.

Case in point:

I already answered that question, you are ignoring the response and returning to your original question, with only 2 options to chose from, one of which is clearly meant derogatively and not described in a serious fashion. There's no popping into existence as if by magic (or all kinds of lifeforms at once, or in a couple of days for that matter) when talking about the act of creation or engineering over a period of millions of years, creating different categories of lifeforms at different stages.

Popping into existence isn't really derogatory if one believes that God made everything in its current form 6000 years ago. I understand you do not believe this, but others here do.

Your view is not the view of many on the creationist side.... Did God spark life 4.5 billion years ago to have what we have today? Do humans, for example, have other species' ancestors? Was there life here billions of years ago? Is the direction of life predetermined, or does God allow it to grow in whatever direction within the general conditions of the universe? Are humans special over other species?

Evolution doesn't talk about the "why" as in why is life here, nor does it speak to how life started. All it does is follow the path that life goes down after that spark started.

It also seems you are rather quiet when other creationists post their version that you do not believe in either, why is that?

originally posted by: cooperton


We've been over this before, the formation of monomers is not the difficult part because it is thermodynamically favorable for them to form. Amino acid or nucleic acid monomer polymerization is the true thermodynamic difficulty. Even if this thermodynamic barrier is surpassed, all the bonds need to be oriented in the same manner (L- for amino acids, D- for nucleic acids), which the only known catalyst that facilitates this is the ribosome. chirality does not occur selectively in nature without the ribosome. This alone Makes abiogenesis impossible. It's the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma over and over and over again.

And then we have the chicken or egg scenario with God too that you seem to accept.

The problem with your posts is you seem to be starting not at the beginning, but already leaping ahead and then saying this is impossible. You really do not look in the direction of "how do we get to the next stage before" and just say God did it all.

With your chicken or egg, it seems amino acids were the "egg" that preceded the enzyme "chicken." So what this means is we need to figure out how the key amino acids of life came about. The key most likely are the amino acids arginine and lysine which carry a positive electric charge. In a sea of amino acids, very few that are needed for life have a positive charge so that is where we need to look.

If we look we can see that ornithine is also positively charged, but not a part of the building blocks of life. One key point here is that researchers have found that simple chemical reactions could convert ornithine to arginine. Once you get arginine you basically have the God spark of life with Arginine-Rich Peptides.

Is this 100% correct, most likely not, but is it on a path that can explain how positive charge amino acids needed for life came about...it is on a good path.

a reply to: cooperton

Dawkins claims that the ocean became an “organic soup,” as quoted by me on page 8 (The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16.) I wonder if you would have had an ad hominem regarding your ignorance and being behind the curve if you had used that term instead.

I'm not talking about your usage of the term "pond scum", since Phantom was responding to "primordial soup". The general idea regarding both soup terms is the same.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
...
If God is in the mix then I would say he did create everything from nothing as we do not know what nothing is like outside of our universe. So you would need to expand on this statement some.

Did It Just Happen, or Was It Created? (Awake!—1999)

...

It is now accepted that the universe at one time did not exist and that by some means it came into existence. Can what has been learned about the laws of the universe help us to understand how this could have happened?

“Two Sides of the Same Coin”

The above has been said of energy and matter. “Matter is simply one form of energy,” Scientific American noted. This relationship between matter and energy was expressed by Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). This equation reveals that a little mass, or matter, harbors unbelievable energy. “It explains,” noted university professor Timothy Ferris, “why a bomb the size of an orange can lay waste to a city.”

Looking at the other side of the coin—according to Einstein’s theory, energy can also be turned into matter. The forming of the material universe may thus have involved what one cosmologist called “the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.”

From where, though, did the matter and the energy needed for such a “transformation” originate? Science has no satisfying answer. [whereislogic: I would say philosophical naturalists rather than "science".] Interestingly, the Bible says of God: “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Whatever means God used to create the universe, he clearly has the energy and the power needed to do so.

Does scientific evidence provide a basis for believing that a Supreme Intelligence created our universe? A look at the way the universe began helps to supply an answer.

An Orderly Beginning

...

Energy is not nothing, regardless whether it exists inside or outside of our physical universe.

originally posted by: Phantom423

And yes, you are a crackpot, a fraud and a liar. You're part of a cult just like Jonestown.

If you can't keep up with the scientific discourse then go take your childish half-witticisms elsewhere

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


There is no "leading hypothesis" for how life began.

lol exactly because it's not a possible hypothesis... Yet you cheer it on as if its settled science and anyone who believes differently is a crackpot. You're the same type of people who persecuted Galileo.

originally posted by: whereislogic

I'm not talking about your usage of the term "pond scum", since Phantom was responding to "primordial soup". The general idea regarding both soup terms is the same.

Yeah and the main point is that it is some ancient aqueous solution of organic molecules. The only difference is phantom is probably referring to hydrothermal vents being the heat source rather than the sun.

The reason scientists suppose it must be hydrothermal vents is because they exhibit an acidic pH that is more favorable to monomer polymerization (the thing I always have to remind phantom about). But the problem is that this sort of acidity would quickly denature any resulting amino acid or nucleic acid polymer, such as ruining the function of ATP synthase, or how pH below 5 depurinates DNA. Not to mention again the necessity of all of these monomers polymerizing in the same configuration (L or D) being statistically impossible without a ribosome to selectively choose the right configuration.

Phantom will resort to semantics and erroneous not-so-clever insults because she can't debate any of the actual science at hand.

a reply to: cooperton

lol exactly because it's not a possible hypothesis... Yet you cheer it on as if its settled science and anyone who believes differently is a crackpot. You're the same type of people who persecuted Galileo.

Link a single post where I said life started from pond scum. You can't do it because I have never said that.
You're the one who posted the "leading hypothesis" nonsense. You can't even support your own statements.

You have no rationale or empirical evidence for your "beliefs" - and they're not beliefs, they're crackpot positions held by no one except you and your cult.

The only pond scum I see is YOU and the creeps you hang out with.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You really do not look in the direction of "how do we get to the next stage before" and just say God did it all.

An intelligent Creator creating the intelligible world is much more likely than a lack of involvement of a sentience. "God did it" is a much more likely starting hypothesis than "no higher intelligence was involved"

With your chicken or egg, it seems amino acids were the "egg" that preceded the enzyme "chicken."

But if there were no enzymes to polymerize the amino acids then enzymes (amino acid chains) can not form.

If we look we can see that ornithine is also positively charged, but not a part of the building blocks of life. One key point here is that researchers have found that simple chemical reactions could convert ornithine to arginine. Once you get arginine you basically have the God spark of life with Arginine-Rich Peptides.

Is this 100% correct, most likely not, but is it on a path that can explain how positive charge amino acids needed for life came about...it is on a good path.

Generating amino acids isn't the hard part, it is thermodynamically favorable in relatively stable conditions. The difficulty is polymerizing these amino acids without ribosomes and the other necessary machinery that properly builds these polymers into functional micromachines. The paradox is that ribosomes themselves are amino acid polymers, so how could these amino acids have formed a ribosome if a ribosome is necessary for amino acid polymerization? This is why no scientists have been able to replicate how such a thing could have happened in a lab.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Link a single post where I said life started from pond scum. You can't do it because I have never said that.

I never said you did. I told you in the prior post that I came up with pond scum as a reference to aqueous solutions that contain organic matter. This is the same description that can be used to described hydrothermal environments... aqueous solutions with organic matter.

originally posted by: Phantom423

The only pond scum I see is YOU

Your beliefs insist that the original cell emerged from an aqueous solution of organic compounds. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree where do you believe that the first cell emerged from? Or do you admit there's no plausible theory?

I know purposeful ambiguity is a tactic to avoid admitting you were wrong, and you do it all the time. You'll never complete a debate with me because you're just too dumb. I'm not being rude, just being honest.

a reply to: cooperton

Your beliefs insist that the original cell emerged from an aqueous solution of organic compounds. Do you agree or disagree

I have NEVER said that. Neither has any textbook or credible scientist. Science is NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM. Experiments point to the synthesis of prebiotic organic compounds associated with compounds required for life on this planet. That's NOT THE SAME as saying scientists BELIEVE that life crawled out of a pond. You've reconstructed the science to read like it's a belief system or a religion. Science does NOT make statements that can't be demonstrated in the lab.

YOU, however, believe in some supernatural joker that has ZERO empirical evidence. It's pure speculation.

originally posted by: Phantom423

cooperton: Your beliefs insist that the original cell emerged from an aqueous solution of organic compounds. Do you agree or disagree

Phantom: I have NEVER said that. Neither has any textbook or credible scientist. Science is NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM. Experiments point to the synthesis of prebiotic organic compounds associated with compounds required for life on this planet. That's NOT THE SAME as saying scientists BELIEVE that life crawled out of a pond. You've reconstructed the science to read like it's a belief system or a religion. Science does NOT make statements that can't be demonstrated in the lab.

lol. You're. So. Dumb.

an aqueous solution with organic compounds is literally water with amino acids, nucleic acids, etc. It is universally accepted as a necessary step for life to emerge from non-life.

I really can't find anything that doesn't suppose organic life came from organic compounds and water. hahahah.. phantom, you've outdone yourself.

Please humor me and tell me your alternative that wouldn't require organic life coming from organic compounds and water.

a reply to: cooperton

This is what the SCIENCE says about prebiotic compounds:

Synthetic connectivity, emergence, and self-regeneration in the network of prebiotic chemistry

SCIENCE
25 Sep 2020
Vol 369, Issue 6511
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw1955

Abstract

The challenge of prebiotic chemistry is to trace the syntheses of life’s key building blocks from a handful of primordial substrates. Here we report a forward-synthesis algorithm that generates a full network of prebiotic chemical reactions accessible from these substrates under generally accepted conditions. This network contains both reported and previously unidentified routes to biotic targets, as well as plausible syntheses of abiotic molecules. It also exhibits three forms of nontrivial chemical emergence, as the molecules within the network can act as catalysts of downstream reaction types; form functional chemical systems, including self-regenerating cycles; and produce surfactants relevant to primitive forms of biological compartmentalization. To support these claims, computer-predicted, prebiotic syntheses of several biotic molecules as well as a multistep, self-regenerative cycle of iminodiacetic acid were validated by experiment.

Mapping primordial reaction networks

Chemists seeking to understand the origins of life have published a wide range of reactions that may have yielded the building blocks of proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids from simple precursors. Wołos et al. scoured the literature to document each such reaction class and then wrote software that applied the reactions first to the simplest compounds such as cyanide, water, and ammonia, and then iteratively to each successive generation of products. The resulting network predicted a variety of previously unappreciated routes to biochemically relevant compounds, several of which the authors validated experimentally.

INTRODUCTION
Although hundreds of organic reactions have been validated under consensus prebiotic conditions, we still have only a fragmentary understanding of how these individual steps combined into complete synthetic pathways to generate life’s building blocks, which other abiotic molecules might have also formed, how independent reactions gave rise to chemical systems, and how membranes encapsulating these systems came into being. Answering such questions requires consideration of very large numbers of possible synthetic pathways. Starting with even a few primordial substrates—e.g., H2O, N2, HCN, NH3, CH4, and H2S—the number of prebiotically synthesizable molecules grows rapidly into the tens of thousands. Detailed analysis of this space and its synthetic connectivity may be beyond the cognition of individual chemists but can be performed by smart computer algorithms.

www.science.org...

And I don't see ANY MENTION OF POND SCUM.

And please note the text in BOLD. You can't take your supernatural creature into a lab nor can you produce an iota of evidence that one exists.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

This is what the SCIENCE says about prebiotic compounds

loololol yes praise lord SCIENCE!!!

hahaha

[/sarc]

Synthetic connectivity, emergence, and self-regeneration in the network of prebiotic chemistry

SCIENCE
25 Sep 2020
Vol 369, Issue 6511
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw1955

Mapping primordial reaction networks

Chemists seeking to understand the origins of life have published a wide range of reactions that may have yielded the building blocks of proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids from simple precursors. Wołos et al. scoured the literature to document each such reaction class and then wrote software that applied the reactions first to the simplest compounds such as cyanide, water, and ammonia, and then iteratively to each successive generation of products. The resulting network predicted a variety of previously unappreciated routes to biochemically relevant compounds, several of which the authors validated experimentally.

INTRODUCTION
Although hundreds of organic reactions have been validated under consensus prebiotic conditions, we still have only a fragmentary understanding of how these individual steps combined into complete synthetic pathways to generate life’s building blocks, which other abiotic molecules might have also formed, how independent reactions gave rise to chemical systems, and how membranes encapsulating these systems came into being. Answering such questions requires consideration of very large numbers of possible synthetic pathways. Starting with even a few primordial substrates—e.g., H2O, N2, HCN, NH3, CH4, and H2S—the number of prebiotically synthesizable molecules grows rapidly into the tens of thousands. Detailed analysis of this space and its synthetic connectivity may be beyond the cognition of individual chemists but can be performed by smart computer algorithms.

www.science.org...

And I don't see ANY MENTION OF POND SCUM.

It amazes me that every source you post proves whatever point I'm trying to make.

Let me rehash what I said regarding pond scum: "I told you in the prior post that I came up with pond scum as a reference to aqueous solutions that contain organic matter."

So now this is multiple posts in a row where I had to explain to you that life is hypothesized to have emerged in an aqueous solution filled with organic compounds. Which you blindly went around screaming that is crackpot science lol. You can't even keep your cool. Mixed with your stupidity i'd bet you do something really awful one day.

Your paper literally just re-iterated what I said in the prior post, citing the necessity of water and organic compounds. An abiogenesis theory would require an aqueous solution with organic compounds. I prefer to call this pond scum, which is semantically accurate enough because pond scum is literally an aqueous solution with organic compounds. I never said this was the textbook definition, nor did I say you called it pond scum. It is an endearing term I choose to use to exemplify how stupid the theory is.

a reply to: cooperton

You're inserting your own crap into the paper. The paper says nothing about life walking out of pond scum. You can make a fool of yourself all you want. The more the better, actually.

It's just another example that you have no clue how to read a real scientific paper.

The only pond scum is YOU and the creeps you hang out with. Your supernatural joker is a total fabrication with zero evidence.

originally posted by: Phantom423

cooperton: Your beliefs insist that the original cell emerged from an aqueous solution of organic compounds. Do you agree or disagree

phantom: I have NEVER said that. Neither has any textbook or credible scientist.

Lol bro i can't get over this. You're so backwards you somehow think no textbook or credible scientist has ever asserted the necessity of organic compounds (amino acids, nucleic acids, etc) in an aqueous solution (water) to be required for abiogenesis to occur. Dude that is just so off-based I'm concerned for you. I will literally venmo you 1,000$ if you can find a textbook or scientist who claims organic life does not need organic compounds or water to exist.

This is from the paper you just linked, trying to say no scientists say life needs organic compounds in an aqueous solution:

Chemists seeking to understand the origins of life have published a wide range of reactions that may have yielded the building blocks of proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids from simple precursors. Wołos et al. scoured the literature to document each such reaction class and then wrote software that applied the reactions first to the simplest compounds such as cyanide, water, and ammonia, and then iteratively to each successive generation of products. The resulting network predicted a variety of previously unappreciated routes to biochemically relevant compounds, several of which the authors validated experimentally.

Yet the bolded parts themselves are exactly that: water and organic compounds.

Check mate. I am your moby dick, and you are going insane trying to outwit me.

a reply to: cooperton

Where exactly does it say that life emerged from pond scum? That's the position you assume scientists believe like a religion. Yet you can't even read that paper and understand what a COMPONENT is versus a living creature emerging from pond scum which is your interpretation of science.

You are one sicko, buddy. Get some pills.

EOM.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Where exactly does it say that life emerged from pond scum? That's the position you assume scientists believe like a religion.

Don't change the topic, I already explained that I NEVER said you or any scientists refer to it as pond scum. I specifically said: "It is an endearing term I choose to use to exemplify how stupid the theory is."

But back to your scientific illiteracy:

cooperton: Your beliefs insist that the original cell emerged from an aqueous solution of organic compounds. Do you agree or disagree

Phantom: I have NEVER said that. Neither has any textbook or credible scientist.

This is just gold. I might frame this and make it my sig. For you to say that no credible scientist has ever supposed abiogenesis involved water and organic compounds is mind-boggling. Look back at it and you can see I didn't even mention pond scum, the phrase that triggers you so much. I assume your error came from not knowing that an aqueous solution simply means a mixture of compounds in water. This sort of mistake would not be made by a real chemist or biologist. You know, I wouldn't dig in so much if you weren't such a wretch. Your sort of arrogance needs to be dissected for the absurdity that it is. Along with the trash theory that you endorse with your mere blind belief.

originally posted by: Phantom423

EOM.

Run from the truth you coward