|
Abiogenesis Debate iii |
|||
|
Albion said: Well, since Crusadar apparently isn't going to respond to my question about his quot efrom Lehninger, I'll answer it myself. The full quote (with the extra bit that ends the section bolded) is as follows: “Since peptide bonds are thermodynamically unstable in aqueous solutions, once a primitive proteinoid arose, it would be highly susceptible to hydrolytic breakdown in the warm primordial sea. Thus no single proteinoid molecule could be expected to survive for long. This fact raises a fundamental problem. It is difficult to see how any given proteinoid could have undergone residue-by-residue evolutionary improvement to an amino acid sequence better able to survive if each proteinoid molecule lasted but a short period and if there were no means of recording or replicating the amino acid sequence of the “better” proteinoids. This follows from mathematical considerations alone. In all the organisms known today there are only about 10^12 different types of proteins, whereas over 10^300 different types of proteins can theoretically be formed from 20 different amino acids. We shall return to this point.” (Biochemistry: Second Edition, Albert L. Lehninger, Worth Publishers, 1975, p1041) The following sections include descriptions of prebiotic enzyme and nucleic acid synthesis and templates, including discussions of catalysts and how they are likely to have become more specific and more efficient over time. And a discussion about the chirality problem, which doesn't seem to be saying that it's some sort of insuperable obstacle. He then goes on to discuss proteinoid microspheres and their spontaneous formation under certain conditions of temeperature and pH. The fact that proteinoids woudn't have been stable in the warm open ocean doesn't preclude their formation at local areas of higher temperature. That’s because the rest of the text goes into speculative science Albion. There is no substantial evidence at all what Lehninger and his gang have presented reflects what have been the chemical pathway taken to become the speculated first life. However it’s been a while - about ten years or so since I did my first paper on abiogenesis using the above source and can remember only vaguely the nonsense presented in their explanations. If you want to discuss further what was referenced and compare it with current research you will need to bring up the main points discussed at the time and we shall see if there is anything of significance. Not sure who said this: Perhaps that is why abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution? - without the first life there is no mutation or natural selection of any kind, is there? Without the first life, there's no infectious disease either. Does that mean that germ theory is wrong if abiogenesis didn't occur by natural processes? No relevance to the topic. On the contrary, evolution not only requires life to arise via abiogenesis - it demands it. No it doesn't. Evolution is the process of descent with modification from common ancestors. The first cellular life could have been created by God or ET, and evolution would still occur as long as those cells had the correct properties. Unsupported evolutionary gibberish - I suspect. Descent with modification of what? Without the first life there is no modification of any life. Lets suppose however that upward evolution after the first life of course can occur, but that would mean that new information can be added to the genome of that very fist life - which interestingly enough does not occur as all point mutations which have been studied at the molecular level shows no increase of any information. I will be more than happy to discuss the recent research done in mutations which shows that all known mutations delete existing genetic information as oppose to creating new information – that is however another topic in which I will address to a certain extent. Something which has never occurred nor will it ever. Your scientific evidence being? Laboratory experiments to date. You must have ignored what was presented from observation and research of known biological processes in favor of speculative science - which is quite often the case with so called “proofs of evolution”. Assuming however that it is true that life came to be by itself - it goes against all the known laws of nature! A good biochemist will tell you that life is not merely basic substances mixed together. Life requires highly organized precise processes in order to sustain and reproduce itself. So apart from the fact that simple machines (let alone von Neumann machines) cannot arise unguided, the theory of evolution would take someone with much more faith to believe since that would be an even greater miracle in the making since it excludes the miracle maker. I gather you missed the part of the Lehninger book where he talked about the origin of life? I assume (since you quoted him earlier) that you include Lehninger in your list of good biochemists. Like I said it has been a while – and not it was not missed but rather discarded in favor of real science as what came after was much more speculative. The fact that I include anyone among my quotes says nothing about their credibility, only that what they present represents what is observed to occur in the natural world. Now the conclusions they extrapolate from observations however are a different matter. Where, exactly, in that chapter about abiogenesis did he mention that it was impossible because it went against all the known laws of nature? Where exactly did they say that it was possible? What you will read are no observable evidences at all but simply just so explanations where the “could have beens” and “likely paths” occur only in the imaginations of the ones who wrote the original source and no where in the natural world. ------------------------------------ Arth said: As you can see, the single sentence taken out of context is entirely misleading. When married to the rest of the paragraph - i.e. in context - it is clear that Darwin is not using the unlikeliness of eye evolution as evidence against evolution. A lesson in semantics, how wonderful. Of course you failed to see entirely the sarcasm in “no context”. However you caught on fairly well as you state (with suggestions to add context in italics): The way you use the phrase 'out of context' implies that you are assuming the 'context' to be the evolutionary paradigm which has little or no observable evidence to support other than speculations , so then you claim that there is no context because you don't believe in evolution as natural processes do not confirm it. This is wrong because I have not examined all the evidence for myself. This is, however, exactly what you were doing when you quoted Lehninger without including that last critical statement we will return to this later. There was no significant statement made anywhere deemed worthy of my attention other than an introductory statement to nothing more than just so explanations that is neither observed or can be tested. ------------------------------------ SLP said: As has been pointed out, you apparently do not understand what “out of context” means. I think Arth seems to be the only one who has caught on to what I was really saying. Refer to the above paragraph by arth (the italics are mine). SLP said: Perhaps you can point out where I called you a liar? You’re being a tad paranoid, aren’t you? No point in denying what you said SLP, it is clear that your remarks meant all creationists – me included – simply by the fact that you mention no one in particular to have “lied”. I suppose you would much rather believe that evolutionists are more truthful and creationists are not with no support other than a blatant accusation. It is true some of my fellow brothers can be very dogmatic, but they do not in any way represent creationists in general. "Evolution has not been proved and cannot be proved. We believe in it however, because the only alternative would be creation by God and this is inconceivable." Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955) English evolutionist. ------------------------------------ Arth said: Do NOT accuse me of not having examined the evidence if you haven't looked at this document. Of course Arth, it was bad judgment on my part, what I should have said was: Have you examined and studied the evidences in person yourself to definitely conclude that it does support evolution? Or are you simply going on the word of unbiased :wink: scientists? However since you do place a lot of confidence in your so called evidences for evolution maybe we can discuss them if you would bring up each point yourself and give yours (or talkorigins) best reason for it being evidence for evolution - to include of course observed occurrences for the all important increase of genetic information required for simple species to become complex ones. ------------------------------------ SLP, I won’t go into all your entertaining responses to my posts as they are nothing more than a source of amusement – I will however only respond to the ones dealing with real science from this point on and no more to your evolutionary bickering rants. However since you do place a lot of confidence in your so called evidences for evolution maybe we can discuss them if you would bring up each point yourself and give yours (or talkorigins) best reason for it being evidence for evolution - to include of course observed occurrences for the all important increase of genetic information required for simple species to become complex ones. ------------------------------------
SLP said: Here's the riddle: An organism acquires a
transposon. The insertion of this transposon causes an increase in the
production of a protein. The increased production of this protein produces
a benefit. The new allele spreads through a population.
There is no doubt information has gained, but can we honestly say that it is “new information”? To qualify as new information we must question its origination. Was it existing information being transferred from one organism to another or did the organism manufacture the information itself as it foresaw the benefit that would result from generating it on its own. As the above was what I was referring to - not a transfer of existing DNA but a creation of brand new information which did not exist previously in nature – as that is what is required for simple one celled organisms to become multicellular ones. To this day there is no evidence that brand new information has ever been generated by any organism simply because it realized on its own that its own biological functions were inadequate, therefore added instructions to create new beneficial functions and then passed on that capability to its offsprings. Of course not, that was my point from the beginning or did you purposely omit the part where I noted that? What is evident is that proteins control almost all the chemistry of life. Without a properly assembled protein there is no function - as the order of amino acids in a protein chain determines its specific function – and where do you suppose a blueprint of protein synthesis in a living cell is found so that you will have the correct function? So, which is the proper aseembly of, say, cytochrome c? that in humans or that in fish? There are differences in cytochrome C found in the two, as a matter of fact there are slight differences in the amino acid sequences of cytochrome C in most living creatures - but not as the result of common ancestry if that is what you are getting at. If we look at the progress along the presumed evolutionary path from the simplest life form to the fish, amphibians, reptiles, primates and then humans, we should see a logical order of change in the arrangement of amino acids in these organisms shouldn’t we? What we really see are no progressive changes in the 100 or so amino acid arrangement that make up cytochrome c at all. The only differences are minor ones which can be concluded as being designed for optimizing that particular protein for that particular creature – perhaps due to its physiology. Back to your question however, both are properly assembled in fish and humans in that they are necessary proteins which help produce cellular energy in that particular organism – and these proteins do serve their designed purpose well don’t they. I forgopt no such thing, because no such thing occurs. Enzymes are in fact NOT 'turned on and off'. What I should have said was “activated”. A good example is blood clotting. Clotting enzymes are in fact turned on or activated when it is required and deactivated when clotting is no longer needed or you will run into the problem of Hypercoaguable or over clotting or if it is not sufficiently activated - you bleed to death. For if you believe in the survival of the fittest than you are apt to do what seems to be the strongest impulse within yourself - and if you will not be held accountable to anyone then that justifies your means. What utter *Holy Cow Pud, Batman*. I mean the fact that Crusader clearly does not know what survival of the fittest means. It would help your credibility is you understood what you attack, Crusader. It would also help if you were not so completely self-righteous and arrogant, not to mention insulting. How about I just quote you from the man who dreamt up the myth of evolution himself (actually he didn’t do it all on his own, but that is another topic). “A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, and no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them.” - The Origin of Species. Chapter 3: Struggle for Existence. Paragraph #5 by Charles Darwin Nice quote. Now perhaps you can point out exactly where Darwin indicated: "...survival of the fittest than you are apt to do what seems to be the strongest impulse within yourself - and if you will not be held accountable to anyone then that justifies your means." “A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” Charles Darwin, The Morality of Evolution, Autobiography, Norton, p. 94, 1958. ------------------------------------ SLP said: I am eagerlay awaiting your retreaction and apology re: your, frankly, stupid claim that I plagiarised when I posted that abstract before.. Like I said your responses are very entertaining, full of bickering, but entertaining nonetheless. And so it would seem that it has become a personal vendetta for you hasn’t it? Do you hope that by supposedly defeating me with nothing but bickering rants you do everyone else here a favor? Can you honestly say you have convinced anyone here that you are authority in the subject matter, I know I haven’t nor am I in any authority to claim such. What I can do is simply review your responses and point out the level of thinking that went into what was said. That of course would simply be a waste of time, which I have little of nowadays, as it would be nothing more than mud slinging which I refuse to do. Its just too bad I don’t have as much pride in myself as you do or I would answer your every bickering – which really is a good thing. Yes, I will apologize, but only to myself for being mislead into thinking that evolutionists and creationists can sit down and have an intelligent discussion of the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks, from both sides – which I see this discussion turning out to be. ------------------------------------- SLP said: Funny - the same can be said of yours. Lots of baseless assertion and hand waving, thats about it. Want to know what’s even funnier? I don't recall trying to claim that I am. It was YOU, as I recall, whose first several posts in this forum were intended to brow-beat the heathen into submission with your matter-of-fact charges and condescending nonsense. My 'personal vendetta'? My, you are way too self-important. Now that's funny! What I can do is simply review your responses and point out the level of thinking that went into what was said. Well, it is true that not much thinking has thus far been required to counter your claims. As I suspected. You are not prideful? Wasn't it you that wrote: "Your only objection I suspect is that it contradicts the fairy tale version of science known as evolution – which tells us of how frogs can turn into princes. Mind you that real science is usable, repeatable, and testable - not fairy tales supported by nothing more than wishful thinking" Yes yes, I admit sometimes I let myself go, I am only a fallible human being you know. So tell me, how useful is evolution as a science? Does it help us build better planes? Find cure for diseases? Or solve racial disputes? Why, yes it was! Not overtly prideful, but certainly dismissive of those with obviously more expertise on the subject matter. You are good at bickering aren't you? An expert at it I might add. As it doesn't take that much expertise to believe in evolutionary wishful thinking of course - I tell fairy tales to my children everyday. Of course, you could not even get it straight that abiogenesis has no import to evolution... You are convinced of that aren't you? Well, it only seems appropriate that you do, since you are an expert evolutionist! Yes, I will apologize, but only to myself for being mislead into thinking that evolutionists and creationists can sit down and have an intelligent discussion of the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks, from both sides – which I see this discussion turning out to be. So do I. Apologize, for calling creationists liars right? Implying that evolutionists are like serial killers and the like didn't help you much. And calling all creationists liars is very becoming of a trained scientist as yourself isn't it? The implication was entirely of your own making - just like everything else so far. Then there is your accusation that I plagiarised someone when in fact that person and myself merely pasted the abstract of a scientific paper - along with the appropriate citation. Would it also be coincidence that another person at the same yahoo forum has another one of your references in their post. That you cannot recognize a paper's abstract is not my problem. It would also appear that you cannot use scientific literature databases, for had you done so, the original artiucle would have been found. And it would seem that an abstract does not qualify as a reference – now I wonder how do you get away with using only abstracts in your research papers. Instead, it looks like you did a Google search and got back some internet hits instead. No - actually I use to be a member of the forum a while back. If you cannot say you got the abstract from someone else’s post is a problem. However lets look at entire reference in question again exactly the way you posted it. Nature. 2002 Mar 28;416(6879):403-6. Related Articles, Links Amino acids from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analogues. Munoz Caro GM, Meierhenrich UJ, Schutte WA, Barbier B, Arcones Segovia A, Rosenbauer H, Thiemann WH, Brack A, Greenberg JM. Raymond and Beverly Sackler Laboratory for Astrophysics at Leiden Observatory, PO Box 9513, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands. Amino acids are the essential molecular components of living organisms on Earth, but the proposed mechanisms for their spontaneous generation have been unable to account for their presence in Earth's early history. The delivery of extraterrestrial organic compounds has been proposed as an alternative to generation on Earth, and some amino acids have been found in several meteorites. Here we report the detection of amino acids in the room-temperature residue of an interstellar ice analogue that was ultraviolet-irradiated in a high vacuum at 12 K. We identified 16 amino acids; the chiral ones showed enantiomeric separation. Some of the identified amino acids are also found in meteorites. Our results demonstrate that the spontaneous generation of amino acids in the interstellar medium is possible, supporting the suggestion that prebiotic molecules could have been delivered to the early Earth by cometary dust, meteorites or interplanetary dust particles. And here is the exact extract from the pub med site: Nature. 2002 Mar 28; 416(6879): 403-6. Related Articles, Links Amino acids from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analogues. Munoz Caro GM, Meierhenrich UJ, Schutte WA, Barbier B, Arcones Segovia A, Rosenbauer H, Thiemann WH, Brack A, Greenberg JM. Raymond and Beverly Sackler Laboratory for Astrophysics at Leiden Observatory, PO Box 9513, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands. Amino acids are the essential molecular components of living organisms on Earth, but the proposed mechanisms for their spontaneous generation have been unable to account for their presence in Earth's early history. The delivery of extraterrestrial organic compounds has been proposed as an alternative to generation on Earth, and some amino acids have been found in several meteorites. Here we report the detection of amino acids in the room-temperature residue of an interstellar ice analogue that was ultraviolet-irradiated in a high vacuum at 12 K. We identified 16 amino acids; the chiral ones showed enantiomeric separation. Some of the identified amino acids are also found in meteorites. Our results demonstrate that the spontaneous generation of amino acids in the interstellar medium is possible, supporting the suggestion that prebiotic molecules could have been delivered to the early Earth by cometary dust, meteorites or interplanetary dust particles. PMID: 11919624 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Which is the same, however my accusation wasn’t that you plagiarized the article – that I could tell just by the difference between the abstract and your bickering responses to my posts. I simply questioned where you got it from – your own research or from other peoples’ posts. Interestingly enough the below extract in which you used in the very same post where the above extract is from, in the same yahoo forum: Orig Life Evol Biosph. 1995 Jun;25(1-3):175-90. Chirality and life. Bonner WA. Department of Chemistry, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA. The crucial role of homochirality and chiral homogeneity in the self-replication of contemporary biopolymers is emphasized, and the experimentally demonstrated advantages of these chirality attributes in simpler polymeric systems are summarized. The implausibility of life without chirality and hence of a biogenic scenario for the origin of chiral molecules is stressed, and chance and determinate abiotic mechanisms for the origin of chirality are reviewed briefly in the context of their potential viability on the primitive Earth. It is concluded that all such mechanisms would be nonviable, and that the turbulent prebiotic environment would require an ongoing extraterrestrial source for the accumulation of chiral molecules on the primitive Earth. A scenario is described wherein the circularly polarized ultraviolet synchrotron radiation from the neutron star remnants of supernovae engenders asymmetric photolysis of the racemic constituents in the organic mantles on interstellar dust grains, whereupon these chiral constituents are transported repetitively to the primitive Earth by direct accretion of the interstellar dust or through impacts of comets and asteroids. Found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abiogenesis/message/846 And finally in the same post where the above extracts where from you said the below: On p.49, Wells quotes an article by Lake, Jain and Rivera to bolster his claim, in a section titled The growing problem in molecular phylogeny: "But the expectation that more data would help matters "began to crumble a decade ago," wrote University of California molecular biologists James Lake, Ravi Jain, and Maria Rivera in 1999, "when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone." Reading the article (Mix and Match in the Tree of Life, James A. Lake, Ravi Jain, Maria C. Rivera, 1999), we see that Wells' quote is plucked from this paragraph (Wells' quote bracketed by **): "The clonal theory **began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone.** To explain the differences between the evolutionary trees reconstructed from eukaryotic rRNAs and from proteins, Sogin (2) proposed a chimeric origin for eukaryotic genomes, with rRNA genes coming from one organism and genes encoding proteins coming from another. Analyses of DNA-dependent, RNA polymerases (3) and heat shock protein (hsp70) gene sequences from different organisms (4) supported theories of chimeric evolution (5-10)." Which traces to this site here: http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000108-3.html - which I suspect could be no other than yourself SLPx, however someone else which you failed to mention actually pointed the very same things, unless you are Scott and placed it in the amazon.com book review. Anyway here is the unedited review by a Scott L. Paige from Northfield Vermont:
But it is a shame that you appear unwilling or unable to do anything more than make assertions. And it is a shame that your only solid responses come mainly from other people’s posts. Now, don't you have a 'science' class to teach? Hello? Martin Luther King day, no school. |
|||
| BACK |
NEXT |
||
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelations 4:11 KJV
about site | artworks | e-books | feedback | homepage | links | site map | writings |
|||