the shape of proteins requires an engineer

a reply to: cooperton

Just to get into a bit of cosmology with this.

So basically as far as life on other planets like Class M water based planets, it doesn't increase the chances of life at all, in fact decreases it, is that what this means?

On a galactic level these planets being in their own dedicated solar systems in a goldilocks zone with lot's of water and a good temperature, but no life. Could be God paving the way for future expansion, just like a developer puts in all the infostructure before anybody builds houses and lives there.

The Fermi Paradox, could be because we are actually it right now, as far as biological beings are, but in the future many hundreds of systems will be inhabited, the paradox exist now, but has a finite life.
It's mind boggling to think biological life forms could have just started in the grand scheme of time, the universe has existed for billions of years and we are just a blip on the scene so far, but this will change when we eventually expand beyond this earth.
But as one pragmatic professor said, clean up your own room before you try to influence the world, before we ever expand we need to get earth issues fixed first.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: schuyler
The shape of proteins does not "require" an engineer. It just means nature is smarter than you are. Your ignorance does not prove God.

Nature is smart? You're implying intelligent design.

And THAT'S how Creationists view the world. You invoke God for everything you don't understand. Nature being "smart" implies Nature comes up with the best design via evolution, not intelligence. How can that be? Because all the failures die off. None of that requires a God.

originally posted by: schuyler
Nature being "smart" implies Nature comes up with the best design

And now you incidentally admit it's designed

originally posted by: GoShredAK

This short video is absolutely fascinating and it reminded me of your thread.

It shows the complex systems inside of our cells, specifically kinesin, little nano bots that work overtime traversing microtubules to deliver various packages.

It's incredible.

Yeah their behavior is most definitely reminiscent of micromolecular organic robots. It is absurd how many people have the default belief that it all came to be by dumb luck. The sequence of those proteins has to be so precise, and the intermolecular forces between the various parts of the protein chain also need to be precise so it folds into a functional shape that allows it to "walk" around the scaffolding of the cell. This is mind-boggling design.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: cooperton

Just to get into a bit of cosmology with this.

So basically as far as life on other planets like Class M water based planets, it doesn't increase the chances of life at all, in fact decreases it, is that what this means?

On a galactic level these planets being in their own dedicated solar systems in a goldilocks zone with lot's of water and a good temperature, but no life. Could be God paving the way for future expansion, just like a developer puts in all the infostructure before anybody builds houses and lives there.

Determining the nature of other planets is highly speculative. The extent of the evidence for exoplanets is that distant stars have blips in their detected radiation, they assume these blips are planets passing between our vision and it's respective sun. But it could also be a host of other variables. There are also no visible light pictures of any exoplanets that I'm aware of.

But yeah even if there's water on a planet in a goldi-locks zone it still would have insurmountable thermodynamic hurdles. Amino acids polymerizing in water is a necessity, but thermodynamics simply cannot allow it.

I said it before but it's worth repeating that if thermodynamics were the way that abiogenesis would need then the resulting life wouldn't be able to function. You'd get malignant masses of proteins and RNA/DNA constantly arising within organisms which would be fatal. It is the way it is to allow life to persist after life was created... amino acids do not spontaneously bond in water for this very reason.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: schuyler
Nature being "smart" implies Nature comes up with the best design

And now you incidentally admit it's designed

You are not paying attention. Evolution is effectively a hit or miss proposition. The most survivable DNA "wins." If "design" is a trigger word for you we can avoid it. An organism that survives to procreate does not imply Jesus died for your sins.

originally posted by: schuyler

Evolution is effectively a hit or miss proposition. The most survivable DNA "wins."

In theory sure. But there's never been any empirical evidence that demonstrates a population. Of organisms evolving into something new. They conducted 73,000 generations of an E. Coli line and it is still remarkably E. Coli, without any indication that it can become any other kind of prokaryote.

If "design" is a trigger word for you we can avoid it.

No I believe in design. I just thought it was interesting you used that word to describe living things. Design indicates intelligence.

An organism that survives to procreate does not imply Jesus died for your sins.

There's more recorded examples of Immaculate Conception in history than there are recorded examples of a population evolving into something different. Feel free to keep believing your beliefs, but it's certainly not backed by repeatable evidence.

a reply to: schuyler

Right, this type of wizardry depends on the whims of nature.

a reply to: cooperton

Several papers explain this is not the hurdle you think it is. What it is however is an unknown just because it could happen in a particular way doesn't mean that is how it occurred. You are being deceptive probably unintentionally but your sources are doing it on purpose. I will explain it this way We can decide to make a car engine now there are several places we could start. We could decide to start with a fuel injector then say transmission then engine block. Since there are multiple possibilities on how this could have been started we cant just look aat the engine and decide what steps happened first.

Similarly, all we can do is examine biology and come up with how it might have been possible but just like the car we cant guarantee that's how it started. So since science can't definitely say what steps came first at least not yet all we can do is examine possibilities. Now here is the dishonesty part because science I unwilling to say this is how it happened people take that to mean that it couldn't have happened. We are not near the stage to be able to determine that.


Here is one possibility we just cant determine if its the only one

revious work by us, and others, has shown that the formation of amino acids on prebiotic earth with the geometric arrangement called the L configuration can be understood. Some meteorites of the carbonaceous chondritic type deliver unusual amino acids, with alpha-methyl groups, which have an excess of the L isomers. We previously showed that in decarboxylative transamination reactions under credible prebiotic conditions they produce normal amino acids that also have a preference for the L isomer, as is found in our proteins. We, and others, showed that as little as a 1% excess of the L isomers could be amplified up to a 95/5 ratio of L over D on simple evaporation of a solution, so life could start with such a solution in which the dominant L isomers would be selectively chosen. We now find that the geometry of sugars referred to D, as in D-ribose or D-glucose, is not an independent mystery.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

PS Playing god of the gaps just isn't productive and often just gets in the way of true science. if we determine how things occurred then we can reap the rewards. we have already created synthetic life in the lab the next step is to make it useful for us and the environment. For example, a life form that can turn hydrocarbons into something useful for cleaning up oil spills.

a reply to: dragonridr

God fits every gap and space though.

originally posted by: dragonridr

PS Playing god of the gaps just isn't productive and often just gets in the way of true science.

Playing random-chance-of-the-gaps doesn't get us anywhere. You all assume evolution/abiogenesis MUST be true and you assume the gaps MUST be filled by the alleged workings of these theories.

But that is faithful speculation rather than empirical science 😉

Several papers explain this is not the hurdle you think it is.

Show me a paper that shows that amino acid monomers polymerize in water with favorable thermodynamics.

I'll save you time, there's no such thing. It has to be this way because it would be lethal to life if protein chains randomly bonded in water. If thermodynamics were to allow the special physics you're pleading for to allow the possibility of abiogenesis, then life itself couldn't exist in those new bounds of thermodynamics.

The physics you are pleading for are equivalent to a world with backwards running time. Where cooked potatoes become raw again, and skeletons grow organic flesh.

revious work by us, and others, has shown that the formation of amino acids on prebiotic earth with the geometric arrangement called the L configuration can be understood. Some meteorites of the carbonaceous chondritic type deliver unusual amino acids, with alpha-methyl groups, which have an excess of the L isomers.

"Aliens did it", brought to you by 'random-chance-of-the-gaps'.

But in all seriousness, even if meteorites were delivering amino acids from space there still aren't any favorable thermodynamic laws that would allow the monomers to polymerize. There's also a very high probability those meteorites are contaminated by the amino acids in the atmosphere or upon impact with the ground when they hit earth. That would explain the L-configuration favorability since life here is solely L-configuration

We previously showed that in decarboxylative transamination reactions under credible prebiotic conditions they produce normal amino acids that also have a preference for the L isomer, as is found in our proteins. We, and others, showed that as little as a 1% excess of the L isomers could be amplified up to a 95/5 ratio of L over D on simple evaporation of a solution, so life could start with such a solution in which the dominant L isomers would be selectively chosen. We now find that the geometry of sugars referred to D, as in D-ribose or D-glucose, is not an independent mystery.

Needs to be 100%. If a lab can't do it, random chance on earth wouldn't be any better at it.

if we determine how things occurred then we can reap the rewards. we have already created synthetic life in the lab the next step is to make it useful for us and the environment.

The only thing abiogenesis and evolution has offered humanity is justification for classism and genocide. Even antibiotic resistance we're now finding is due to epigenetics rather than evolution. This was shown by antibiotic resistance now being known to be quickly reversible once the antibiotic is removed from the population.

Until scientific disciplines start working together on a singleness of purpose in regards to this subject we all will be discussing this forever and this may be a forever thread.

Here's another slant and a good read.

Key in the transition of chemistry into biology is the acquisition of function. The core functional characteristics of life are its ability to replicate, to metabolize, and to be spatially segregated from its environment. Where life requires the functional integration of all of these characteristics, most research efforts still focus on one of these aspects in isolation.

Autocatalysis, the ability of systems (molecules, metabolic networks or compartments) to make copies of themselves, is central to all evolutionary scenarios. (14−18) Systems where autocatalysis is accompanied by information transfer and heredity are said to be self-replicating. Synthetic systems of self-replicators have been pioneered by von Kiedrowski using short DNA strands. (19) Subsequently, self-replicating molecules have been developed that feature most of the other important current biopolymers (i.e., RNA (20−24) and peptides (25−28)) as well as completely synthetic molecules. (29−33)

pubs.acs.org...#

originally posted by: quintessentone

Key in the transition of chemistry into biology is the acquisition of function. The core functional characteristics of life are its ability to replicate, to metabolize, and to be spatially segregated from its environment. Where life requires the functional integration of all of these characteristics, most research efforts still focus on one of these aspects in isolation.

Autocatalysis, the ability of systems (molecules, metabolic networks or compartments) to make copies of themselves, is central to all evolutionary scenarios. (14−18) Systems where autocatalysis is accompanied by information transfer and heredity are said to be self-replicating. Synthetic systems of self-replicators have been pioneered by von Kiedrowski using short DNA strands. (19) Subsequently, self-replicating molecules have been developed that feature most of the other important current biopolymers (i.e., RNA (20−24) and peptides (25−28)) as well as completely synthetic molecules. (29−33)

pubs.acs.org...#

Yeah this is one of the main proposed ideas. Some proteins do self-catalyze, but unfortunately for abiogenesis that does not include amino acid monomers.

If you go to your source and look at references 25-28 you'll see the experiments that show evidence of protein self-catalysis, they include larger proteins that allow only a very specific bond to happen:

"We show that a 32-residue alpha-helical peptide based on the leucine-zipper domain of the yeast transcription factor GCN4 can act autocatalytically in templating its own synthesis by accelerating the thioester-promoted amide-bond condensation of 15- and 17-residue fragments in neutral, dilute aqueous solutions."

In other words, this protein can help make the 15 and 17 locus bond. All of the self-catalysis I read have these sorts of limitations.

The holy grail for abiogenesis is to find a way to elicit amino acid polymerization all in the L-configuration in conditions that would reasonably be on a primordial earth. So far there's nothing, otherwise it would be easy to find in the literature.

a reply to: cooperton

I know that's why I said scientific disciplines need to get together and start using those gifted brain cells in new and wonderful ways.

originally posted by: Untun
a reply to: dragonridr

God fits every gap and space though.

Yeah for some i never understood how pointing out things we don't know means poof there is a god. Vikings believed thunder was caused by the gods why because they did not understand it.

The lack of knowledge doesn't prove divinity just means we don't know everything yet.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: cooperton

Just to get into a bit of cosmology with this.

So basically as far as life on other planets like Class M water based planets, it doesn't increase the chances of life at all, in fact decreases it, is that what this means?

“The special conditions on earth resulting from its ideal size, element composition, and nearly circular orbit at a perfect distance from a long-lived star, the sun, made possible the accumulation of water on the earth’s surface. It is difficult even to imagine the origin of life without water.”—Integrated Principles of Zoology, Sixth Edition.

Remember that water is essential to life. None of us can live without it for more than a few days. Plants, utilizing sun power, change water and carbon dioxide into sugars. This process, known as photosynthesis, is vital in producing food for animals and man.

Chapter 1: Life Does Have a Purpose (Life Does Have a Purpose)

...

The makeup of earth’s atmosphere is also very important if life is to continue. For example, we humans cannot live without oxygen. When deprived of it for just a few minutes, the brain is severely damaged. Usually death ensues. Is it not a very fine thing that oxygen exists in plentiful amounts in the atmosphere? But, then, oxygen is also what makes fire possible. So the vast quantity of this gas all around us could be destructive to life; we could be in danger of burning up. Why does this not happen? Because the oxygen in our atmosphere is greatly diluted with nitrogen, a relatively inactive gas.

Furthermore, the atmosphere has been prepared just as by a fine “recipe,” with other essential ingredients in the right proportions​—carbon dioxide, water vapor, and so forth. On the sun an atmosphere made up mainly of hydrogen is necessary, but in earth’s atmosphere hydrogen, because of its explosive properties, would be a constant menace. Unless there is a Master Architect with a purpose, why would such a balance, a “cooperation,” as it were, come about in the atmospheres of both sun and earth, so that the earth is so admirably fitted for life, while the sun, so far away, is equipped to sustain that life?

WATER​—LIFE-SUSTAINING FLUID

Besides an atmosphere with just the right mixture of gases, water in its normal liquid form​—lots of it—​is essential for physical life. Of all the planets, earth is unique in this respect. The enormous volume of the oceans is the basis for the rain cycle, which makes plant growth possible. The oceans also prevent extreme temperature fluctuation.

Without the oceans another cycle​—the oxygen and carbon-dioxide cycle—​would fail. Oxygen is used by animal life, carbon dioxide by plant life. The oceans absorb and release billions of tons of carbon dioxide as needed to keep the supply balanced at all times. Of course, the oceans are also a source of abundant mineral and animal wealth.​—Deuteronomy 33:19.

Water is a unique, almost “miraculous” fluid. It has the greatest solvent power of any liquid. For this reason it can store the chemical compounds needed to support plant life. Water penetrates the soil and dissolves the life-sustaining chemicals found there. It then carries these nutrients as it circulates to the various parts of the plants. (Isaiah 55:10) Water is the primary constituent of blood that carries life-giving nourishment to human and animal body cells. Our bodies are, in fact, about 70 percent water.

Remarkable, too, is the fact that water remains liquid under a wide range of normal temperatures. If it evaporated faster, rain could not stay on or in the ground to dissolve the minerals and transport these to the plants. Vegetation would lose its moisture too rapidly, and large areas would become desert land. If the boiling point of water were much lower than it is now, there would be the danger that our blood would boil when we were exposed to the hot sun. If water froze or solidified too readily, rainfall would be negligible and plants would die.

Additionally, water expands slightly on becoming ice, therefore floating instead of sinking to the bottom. This prevents lakes and other large bodies of water from freezing solid, with consequent damage to life. This property of expansion plays a part in soil making, for water runs into cracks and crevices in rocks, then expands as it freezes, breaking the rocks into fine, tillable soil​—all of this without man having to be concerned about it.

How does it happen that, of all liquids, there is so much of this valuable water on earth? Surely it did not just happen. Its provision must be the work of a Master Architect​—one who really cares for his living creation on earth!

THE EVIDENCE IS UNMISTAKABLE

...

a reply to: cooperton


see your misrepresenting science. Science does not say Abiogenesis must be true. What it says is that it's a possibility to explain life in the universe. All science is doing is seeing if it's possible you're the one claiming that you know how it was done science claims no such thing.


Now here you make some assumptions that don't belong in science.
you said

But in all seriousness, even if meteorites were delivering amino acids from space there still aren't any favorable thermodynamic laws that would allow the monomers to polymerize. There's also a very high probability those meteorites are contaminated by the amino acids in the atmosphere or upon impact with the ground when they hit earth. That would explain the L-configuration favorability since life here is solely L-configuration

1st we do not know the exact conditions if we did we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Now i will say it appears that meteorites are amino acid factories taking it a step further we find entire areas of space flooded with bio material. It could be this is normal and space creates the needed materials. The James web has made some remarkable discoveries in this area f molecular clouds. But that aside for the moment you also made the comment thats not 100 percent but thats not even what the article was discussing.

What they were saying is that just a 1 percent difference could lead to areas that dominated by L isomers.
they said

"We, and others, showed that as little as a 1% excess of the L isomers could be amplified up to a 95/5 ratio of L over D on simple evaporation of a solution."

Now you have an area 95 percent L isomers which do you suppose would form a chain first? This could indeed be why we see so few examples of D on earth.

See heres the problem we dont have all the answers for you anything that cant be explained god did it. If your comfortable with that you do you. However This isnt an answer for many people and saying god did it doesnt advance science in any way. We learn nothing and it prevents the ability to learn new things. Asking questions exploring possibilities is why we our having this conversation on the web. Science advanced just think this would be magic to someone living in the 1940s. We may not have all the answers but were learning and growing as a species.

Theres a ton of stuff we dont know yet there always will be that doesnt mean god did it in fact it doesnt disprove god did it. Though i will say if god created these things he could have done what we did when we created synthetic life we left watermarks in the DNA so we can tell we created it. If there are intelligent species out there they would be able to immediately see its artificial and created by us.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

No, I don't advise consulting your local demon. Where do you even get this from?

originally posted by: Untun
a reply to: dragonridr

No, I don't advise consulting your local demon. Where do you even get this from?

Think you quoted the wrong person? I know nothing about demons never met one. Though the ex-wife I have to admit was very close.

originally posted by: dragonridr

see your misrepresenting science. Science does not say Abiogenesis must be true. What it says is that it's a possibility to explain life in the universe. All science is doing is seeing if it's possible you're the one claiming that you know how it was done science claims no such thing.

No I'm simply showing the evidence that indicates life couldn't have emerged by dumb luck given our contemporary physical laws.

But that aside for the moment you also made the comment thats not 100 percent but thats not even what the article was discussing.

What they were saying is that just a 1 percent difference could lead to areas that dominated by L isomers.
they said

"We, and others, showed that as little as a 1% excess of the L isomers could be amplified up to a 95/5 ratio of L over D on simple evaporation of a solution."

Now you have an area 95 percent L isomers which do you suppose would form a chain first? This could indeed be why we see so few examples of D on earth.

Yes I know, and I said you need 100-0 ratio because there are no D-configuration amino acids. 95-5 is not sufficient.

See heres the problem we dont have all the answers for you anything that cant be explained god did it.

For you anything that can't be explained was done unintelligently. Although that's quite absurd considering the intelligible nature of pretty much everything from planetary orbits to biochemistry. It all goes according to intelligent physical laws. Not unintelligence like the secularists pray for.

Though i will say if god created these things he could have done what we did when we created synthetic life we left watermarks in the DNA so we can tell we created it.

It's literally called genetic code. Who do you think coded it? Random chance can't code 3 billion DNA monomers. Random chance can't create organic supercomputers, or even Amino acid polymers for that matter