Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

The only spirit within me are two Bintang beers each evening in Bali
Radley (slight lemon taste)

Treat with respect, sure they last me 2 hours

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Was not directed to you, just my thought bubble / observation on how it sometimes is

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course it would need a constant source that would produce all the enzymes that actually perform these reactions of the Krebs cycle (aconitase, etc). Moreover, those ezymes in order to work need some other stuff, etc).
Those enzymes work because of their 3D conformations and structures. Have you seen how they look like?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Eggs came first

Not really. That to me is to much "concrete", I would go for the every day activities being physics
Watching the system at work

Like

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Eggs came first

Not really. That to me is to much "concrete", I would go for the every day activities being physics
Watching the system at work

Like

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think you misunderstand.
First of all, if you want to count genes, the human biome is only 1% human DNA. The other 99% is all bacterial DNA. But that an aside.

Hazen (in his lecture) offers that our bodies basically consist of 500 different types of organic molecules used in the formation of all the trillions of cells in our body, including even the bacterial species. So we're dealing with great numbers but relatively few "kinds".
Hazen: the great bio-mass of a forest exists in the trees, the variety is in the small organisms dwelling in and on the trees and the forest floor.

Same with humans, the main biomass is in bone, muscle, and fatty tissue, the special molecules for the heart, lungs, kidney, and liver functions making up a relatively small number of very highly evolved complex internal organs, and last but not least our cytoskeleton and neural network, which allowed evolution into a self-aware sentience.

The human body has fractal structures all over the place. Fractals are simple and often repeating patterns. Easy to duplicate with little chance for error.

Interestingly, the famous single celled (multi-nucleus) slime-mold are masters in hivelike fractal structures with which they form their plasmodium and gain motility ( 1mm/hr),

No brain and yet perfectly capable of solving intricate mazes, mark dead-end streets, adjust to timed intervals, and display a host of other quasi-intelligent behaviors. A single cell with millions of neuclei, effectively creating a sophisticated mobile information sharing network. A hive mind in a single cell!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://herbarium.usu.edu/fun-with-fungi/slime-molds

 

What? You are calling me a creationist and that i talk bs just because i point out some leaps of logic, that are based on coffeeshop level scientific arguments?
Its ok! i will let you do your thing

 

I agree, but that also means that what you start with is a latent probabilistic potential that might turn a non-living egg into a living chicken, no?

Its a probabilistic deterministic event, depending on the introduction of male sperm to the equation, and a biochemical reaction takes place at which point the dynamical growth function (mitosis) commences.

Actually I wonder if the selection of two donors to the generic code was not a natural evolutionary deterministic survival strategy.

 

This is what they look like (with just a little eye-candy);

 

Some new here may not believe that is an example of one of your lesser oxymoronic word salad howlers. What was that one earlier; 'the spirit within you' - that from an avowed atheist/materialist! Gawd.

 

No sarcasm at all. And again what you believe is your own business and concern. As I said I don't castigate religious people because of what they believe, despite the silly lies and childish antics by my emotional mate.
But if they come to a science forum conducting crusades against science and telling lies as per the James Tour video, then its open season.
If I went to church with my Mrs tomorrow, Sunday, and started making suggestions or claims about their mythical beliefs, where do you suppose I'd end up?
By the same token some have been known to come here with agendas, both open and closeted, under the guise of being interest in achieving truth but with heaps of baggage seeing them jump on their white charger admonishing not only Abiogenesis, but the absolute certainty of evolution even. Add to that wishful and imaginative attempts at trying to surpass GR, and just for good measure, topping it all off with various conspiracy claims, and I believe it is obvious how genuine these crusaders are.

I mentioned it earlier wegs, the Catholic church recognise both the theory of evolution and the BB, obviously with all the intent and meaning of installing their god of the gaps where science comes up with no answers as yet. But the spaces for them to fit in their god of the gaps is getting smaller all the time.

 

OK lying hypocrite. That was directed at me in particular and don't pretend otherwise. You cannot justify anything in that line - but do TRY!

 

If the cap fits........

 

Irrespective of the ID and creationist claims, scientists are as certain as one can be that Abiogenesis took place via one or more pathways.......
It still is the only viable, scientific answer avalaible

 

I said TRY. That pathetic quip doesn't qualify, even if you think it does. Point to any posts of mine in any threads you like, that could justifiably be termed 'a crusade' - against science or anything else for that matter.
Likewise, point to anywhere in either of the TWO vids listed p5 #82 where Tour is at all lying rather than exposing lies of others.
You want to make reckless accusations - then accept the consequences - accountability - for once in your protected time here.

 

What? Where did you get that idea?

It's true that only about 2% of human DNA codes for proteins and hence are genes, strictly defined. But most of the rest of the DNA (once referred to as "junk DNA") is indisputably human, seems to be transcribed into RNAs that don't code for proteins, and much of it now seems to have some kind of function. Much of that seems to be regulatory in nature, determining when genes are turned on and off, how proteins are assembled, generating ribosomes and many other things. There are an unknown number of non-coding RNAs of many different sorts, probably thousands of them. This is an area of active investigation and final answers aren't available yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_RNA

There probably is a certain amount of non-human DNA inserted in there (nothing like 99%), but most of it seems to be viral in origin.

But this doesn't really address the point that if the human genome has roughly 20,000 genes, and if genes are defined as protein coding regions, then we would seem to have roughly 20,000 different proteins right there. But it's a lot more complicated than that, since genes often contain non-coding regions called "introns" and protein chains are produced in pieces. Then there's a whole process in which the pieces are spliced together, often in multiple ways. And if we factor in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (which represent much of the genetic difference between one human and the next) we get variant proteins that reflect these differences. Then proteins might end up folding in different ways...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intron

Bottom line is that there are a lot more protein variants in a human cell than 20,000. (The variety of proteins a cell produces is termed its 'proteome'.) The paper that I quoted in my last post estimated somewhere between 600,000 and 6 million protein variants in a human cell.

That may or may not be true, depending on what he means by "types". Proteins may be said to be one 'type' of organic molecule, even if they exist in almost countless variety. Assuming that every human has different DNA, DNA might be said to be one "type" of organic molecule that comes in some 6 billion functionally different varieties. (Not all in the same cell though, like the proteins. In the larger population.)

The larger point is that "500 different types" needn't imply simplicity, if each "type" comes in thousands of varieties and performs countless complex tasks.

Except that proteins perform a tremendous variety of tasks. Each one of these function-specific proteins has a name. Just think of all the countless enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions.

 

He's not referring to the human organism; he's referring to the human biome. He's including all microbes that live on, in and around a human body.

 

I don't see why any spiritual/religious person would argue with that point. This post resonates with me.

 

Bonnie Bassler
Watch the clip...It's really informative, for several reasons.

Of course, I was talking relatively. Assimilating 500 molecules instead of thousands does create more favorable probabilistic odds.
p.s. This number came from Robert Hazen in his lecture ar Carnegie.

I am not so sure abolut the variety of functions. If I understand Bassler, 500 different moleculs are able to perform all the millions of tasks and functions functions. I m not informed enough to pin these different finctions down to any comprehensive number.

https://www.livescience.com/45145-how-do-enzymes-work.html

Lots of chemical reactions, number of different enzymes required is questionable.
500 different molecules, not counting bacteria?
500 different molecules, including bacteria?

According to Bassler, any count of human interaction with his environment must include the human bacterial population. Without it we could not exist at all, nor could the majority of all mammalian life on earth. This is really interesting stuff. Humans are a micro-biome, an environment all by itself.

https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-016-0307-y

 

That is precisely what this thread is about. A shame that it has created so much hysteria. Also btw being discussed on another forum, started again by your's truly] without any of the nonsense portrayed here.

Anyway getting back on track, I found this interesting account by Professor Neil DeGrassse Tyson.....
https://www.salon.com/2014/04/29/ke..._tyson_has_creationists_flipping_out_partner/

Ken Ham's worst nightmare come true: Why Neil deGrasse Tyson has creationists flipping out

Almost a month after the premiere episode of Cosmos on Fox, the leading creationist organization, Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AiG) is still upset that Tyson dared suggest life on earth started without the help of God. Tyson honestly stated that the very origins of life are not yet understood. That field of science, called abiogenesis, is searching for these answers. Because abiogenesis has yet to turn up any verifiable results—not that they have claimed any are verifiable—AiG is calling that evidence of a clear flaw. What's clear is that Tyson isn't just a threat to creationists. Their big target is the reputation of science.

Scientists consider the origins of life one of the great mysteries of our time and are looking for answers with great excitement; however, according to AiG this mystery will not be solved until, “[…] They acknowledge God’s eyewitness account of the origin of life in the Bible.”

AiG continues in an attempt to discredit the science, saying:

“Abiogenesis has never been observed in experimental biology and violates the most fundamental law in biology, the law of biogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors of the review are confident there was a naturalistic chemical origin for life.” [Biogenesis is the natural law that life comes from reproduction by living things].

The jaw-dropping irony of these statements is lost on these creationists. To claim abiogenesis has not been observed (an honest statement), and then to say this proves their creation story is something that would raise the eyebrows of a first-grader.

Secondly, and maybe more importantly, the claim that abiogenesis breaks the law of biogenesis is simply dishonest. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life cannot come from non-life, yet Pasteur did not demonstrate that this is impossible, only that it does not happen in everyday life, and that life around us was more connected than people thought. Pasteur argued this before we had any understanding of genetics and he would have realized just how connected we are and the simple fact all life derives from a single source, a common ancestor.

The assumption that their audience lacks basic scientific understanding gives AiG permission to be "fact-free." Neil deGrasse Tyson gives viewers a naturalist's explanation for the world, and when he says science does not yet know something, this is not a sign of the failures of science, but instead a powerful example of the necessary honesty in which science thrives. The very fact that AiG sees the words “I don’t know” as a weakness shows the lengths of intellectual dishonesty they are willing to go to pull the wool over their followers' eyes.

This reaction from AiG shows their new position of pure panic. Neil deGrasse Tyson has become their biggest fear, public enemy number one. Not only does Tyson make science accessible to people; he is likeable and non-controversial. And he does not self-identify as an atheist, meaning his reach across both sides of the aisle is greater than that of Dawkins and Ham.

Millions of viewers each week are inviting Tyson into their home and listening and watching as he explains the magnificence of the world we live in. If the population begins to understand the living world and realizes it originated from natural events with no help from any supernatural forces, this causes the creationists a serious problem. Not that people will walk away from their faith, but that people will walk away from creationism. That would stop lining the pockets of AiG’s Ken Ham and push his creation museum into further financial despair.

Tyson has become the creationist scapegoat as they watch an intellectual world move right on by them. Their attempts to paint him in a dishonest light may convince their most loyal of followers into staying on board, yet will do nothing to expand the foundation they are trying to build off of.

Tyson's honesty and sense of wonder makes science feel cool again, just like Carl Sagan, his predecessor in the Cosmos series, once did. He is helping to revive America's love of science—and nothing scares the religious fundamentalists more.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!