It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
The god factor will always be there for some, that is why I said that they will go to their graves saying anything else is faked and lies created by satan.
They are religious, they are not looking for any other answer, they turn to science, like in this thread, because it kinda supports the conclusion they want to arrive at.
originally posted by: daskakik
Superfast and Water-Insensitive Polymerization on α-Amino Acid N-Carboxyanhydrides to Prepare Polypeptides Using Tetraalkylammonium Carboxylate as the Initiator
Polymerization of beta-amino acids in aqueous solution
Seems like, given the right circumstances, they can.
ETA: Also, who says it had to have happened in water?
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
I don't think it is unconscious at all. You would have to actively seek out things that fit the preconceived conclusion and reject what doesn't.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
The god factor will always be there for some, that is why I said that they will go to their graves saying anything else is faked and lies created by satan.
They are religious, they are not looking for any other answer
You are religious, you are not looking for any other answer than evolution and abiogenesis.
Yeah i already said that if the ph is super low in the aqueous solution it can favor polymerization. The thing is that any change like this will make life inviable.
originally posted by: daskakik
You need extreme lab-like conditions to test the possibility, you don't necessarily need it for it to have happened. That is what I mean by being "unable to see that the intelligence needed to figure out the "how" doesn't imply intelligence for it to happen."
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton
Yes, but isn't all of that simply chemicals, elements and processes? Can't we replicate it all?
originally posted by: whereislogic
originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton
Yes, but isn't all of that simply chemicals, elements and processes? Can't we replicate it all?
Here's an honest review of the state of the field (OOL research), the video was uploaded 4 days ago, so it's quite up-to-date. First key point in relation to your question is at 5:53-6:16 (keep in mind that ribosomes are made of both RNA and amino acids):
Just keep in mind that when he's talking about the "early earth" (9:27; 10:30; 14:55) or "prebiotic earth", that what he's saying often also counts for when you move the project over to an extraterrestrial scenario/environment (such as asteroids or interstellar clouds), or the obstacle or problem he's describing gets even worse because the conditions there are even less favorable for the required chemical reaction(s) being discussed (and/or more inclined to favor reactions and effects that get in the way of accomplishing what is being discussed by Tour there as a required step in the origin of life).
Another key point in relation to your question is found at 20:24.
When the subject of interactomes comes up (18:10), sometimes a picture says more than a 1000 words, imagine what an animation can accomplish. Since he uses a yeast cell as his example as well:
...
The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory [whereislogic: we're talking here about the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life"], are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?
The Primitive Atmosphere
In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.
Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”7 [whereislogic: so what do they do? Exclude both environmental conditions from the experiment, forget about simulating or re-creating a plausible prebiotic environment, just get the reactions you want, then claim you've got something here that is relevant to the origin of life. When someone points out it's not relevant because you excluded these environmental conditions from your experiment, just ignore him (James Tour usually grants them a reducing atmosphere, but then you still have the cosmic rays problem, it's an 'either ... or' situation, you can't exlude both from your experiment cause then you are no longer recreating a realistic scenario, a realistic natural environment where this chemistry could take place). Do the same thing with the next problematic environmental condition. See below under the question: Would an “Organic Soup” Form?]
The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth’s primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. No one knows for sure what it was like.
Would an “Organic Soup” Form?
How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them. [whereislogic: see how that works? Just don't recreate a plausible scenario, just try to get what you want, in this case amino acids, then declare success and pretend it doesn't matter you didn't recreate an actually plausible scenario that does not involve intelligent interference from the researchers to save your product from degradation or decomposition, which would happen in a plausible natural environment.]
However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”8
So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”9
Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”10 Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”11 [whereislogic: this is what Cooperton is talking about when he's talking about the formation of proteins in water being thermodynamically unfavorable.]
...
It's the first fact presented in that comment that supports the argument of induction that life was the product of engineering/creation, laid out there (another thread).
originally posted by: whereislogic
Established (observed) fact #1: machinery is the product of engineering/creation.
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others.
“With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”
They are able to avoid the effects of radiation because they have a protective protein called Dsup, short for “damage suppressor,” which coats their DNA and provides resistance, according to the study. They can also repair damaged DNA and RNA and can produce fatty acids, which humans can’t do, even though they are essential for brain and nerve function and overall cell health.
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: quintessentone
You'll need amino acids first before you can get protective proteins. Then those amino acids will have to spontaneously form polymers (strings) of amino acids. So you're faced with all the same problems to get to protective proteins. And even if you did get to that point, what would they protect? They serve no function yet until some RNA or DNA joins the scene (nucleotides, RNA and DNA is even more unstable and prone to decomposition, degradation or depolymerization than amino acids and proteins, i.e. they break up at lower temperatures). And without a cell membrane to protect them, neither proteins, DNA nor RNA will stick around for long (especially near a hydrothermal vent, as some of the scenarios go for the origin of life or the cell membrane specifically, where conditions are highly volatile and conducive for decomposition, degradation and depolymerization, with the high temperatures there).
Answer. Hydrothermal vents support unique ecosystems and their communities of organisms in the deep ocean. They help regulate ocean chemistry and circulation. They also provide a laboratory in which scientists can study changes to the ocean and how life on Earth could have begun
The study of hydrothermal vent ecosystems continues to redefine our understanding of the requirements for life. The ability of vent organisms to survive and thrive in such extreme pressures and temperatures and in the presence of toxic mineral plumes is fascinating. The conversion of mineral-rich hydrothermal fluid into energy is a key aspect of these unique ecosystems. Through the process of chemosynthesis, bacteria provide energy and nutrients to vent species without the need for sunlight.
These mitochondria probably began as free-living bacteria before they embarked on a symbiotic relationship with us. The only reason that we don’t include them in our tally of bacteria is that they never leave the confines of human cell membranes, though they are, in many respects, independent organisms with their own DNA.
originally posted by: quintessentone
...
Yes, I read all that but I was wondering if the beginnings of molecular life would have protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play in unison with the harsh extreme pre-biotic Earth conditions not necessarily a protective protein.
An ad hoc argument isn’t really a logical fallacy, but it is a fallacious rhetorical strategy that’s common and often hard to spot. It occurs when someone’s claim is threatened with counterevidence, so they come up with a rationale to dismiss the counterevidence, hoping to protect their original claim. Ad hoc claims aren’t designed to be generalizable. Instead, they’re typically invented in the moment.
originally posted by: whereislogic
originally posted by: quintessentone
...
Yes, I read all that but I was wondering if the beginnings of molecular life would have protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play in unison with the harsh extreme pre-biotic Earth conditions not necessarily a protective protein.
Well as long as you're just "wondering" and not using that idea as a personal rationale to side-step the counterevidence to the chemical evolution theory of life as presented in the article I was quoting from (or by James Tour and Stephen Meyer). Counterevidence (facts) that in my opinion show that the chance of a purely naturalistic origin of life is 0. It's not 1 in a gazillion (whatever big number you want to fill in here), it's simply 0, it's never going to happen that way because these problems prevent it from happening that way.
Have you ever heard of an "ad hoc argument"?
8 logical fallacies that are hard to spot - Big Think
An ad hoc argument isn’t really a logical fallacy, but it is a fallacious rhetorical strategy that’s common and often hard to spot. It occurs when someone’s claim is threatened with counterevidence, so they come up with a rationale to dismiss the counterevidence, hoping to protect their original claim. Ad hoc claims aren’t designed to be generalizable. Instead, they’re typically invented in the moment.
Note that your idea of special "protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play" in a prebiotic environment did not come from the discovery of evidence for such special "protective and adaptive elements and mechanisms at play" at the time this is said to have occurred (the OOL; so no tardigrades around, so you can't use their proteins as evidence for this). It comes from your desire to find a way (a rationale, an explanation, a scenario) to make it work within an evolutionary framework, given the facts of chemistry that are problematic for the evolutionary storyline as were just explained to you prior to bringing up that idea, i.e. the counterevidence to evolutionary theory.
originally posted by: quintessentone
Then again, microbiologists still can't figure it out, so what are they missing?
In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”