Anti-Evolution Theories?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Dinosaur, Feb 1, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    True, but it increases the list of planets in the universe which could host life by a few hundreds of trillions. .

    True, but any of those conditions are deadly to humans. Just as surface life is deadly to ocean adapted life.
    To each they are "deadly" alien environments. I agree this is all a result of evolution based on a gradual change in DNA coding, but that is the strength of an planet like earth being able to perform a conservative estimate of two trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions over a time span of about 4 billion years.

    But IMO, all this increases the list of possible life forms that would be able to adapt to hostile planetary environments.

    One thing is clear from the Hazen clip, bio-chemicals are easy to make and on earth alone life seems to exist everywhere, including deep in the earth's mantle.

    The bottle-neck is found in the need for certain conditions being necessary for the self-assembly of self replicating biochemical strings. But if you start counting chemical reactions and time spans in universal terms, it seems that the probability for the development of other life forms somewhere in this vast universe is not only high, but may well be an imperative.

    It all starts with chemicals and there is an overwhelming abundance of chemicals in the universe and they have existed for probably some ten billion years.

    Given those conditions, even a monkey could come up with a Shakespearean poem, by randomly typing letters on a computer.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    What did you discover?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Well give me some time . Now that I am in this discussion, I want to be able to speak with at least a rudimentary knowledge.

    One thing seems clear, chemosynthesis does not require a Cinderella planet like earth, but only an abundance of chemicals and a source of energy, either from external or internal conditions. That covers a wide range of possible energetic processes for chemical reactions.
    Even on Earth Hazen estimates that there are some 1500 chemicals yet to be discovered.

    But I believe we have already discovered very simple life forms deep in earth's crust. There is now a new category of science called DEW (deep earth water) and another category which investigates life deep in the earth's crust under enormous pressures and temperatures.

    Perhaps the arrival of gold (and its ability to synthesize chemicals (grow nano scale particles such as carbon) may have been instrumental in the creation of certain necessary chemicals. If we can do it in a lab, I am confident that a planet can duplicate these types of processes during its formation and lifetime of billions of years..
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,244
    Gold??
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Still researching, but something struck me. The use of gold for synthesizing bio-chemical nano particles in labs.
    Yep,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...particles-in-crystal-formation/8441467989965/

    They now use gold to analyze the bio-chemical actions around Hydrothermal vents. As Hazen explains in his presentation. It seems odd but apparently gold may be instrumental in the synthesis of bio-chemical molecules.
    https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/techni...science/nanomaterials/gold-nanoparticles.html

    p.s. IBM also uses gold to grow carbon nano particles for computer processors. It seems to be the most cost effective (efficient) way to grow pure chemically pure molecules.

    Nothing mystical, but gold is not native to earth. Its created in novae
    Just probing if gold may have been instrumental in growing long strands of bio-molecules.
    I am just a curious pro-evolution advocate. And origins starts with the formation of polymers, as Hazen claims..
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2017
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,244
    You've gone from 'humans find gold useful' to 'maybe life used it to evolve'. That's a bit of a leap.

    Do you have any evidence that gold serves a biological purpose at all, let alone one that catalyzes molecular production?
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Did you read the quoted passages? It specifically mentions gold is used for bio-chemical applications. IMO, this is an important discovery, especially when we are exploring how polymerization can occur.

    And , importantly, if we can use something in a laboratory, I am willing to bet nature uses a similar (albeit uncontrolled) function for growing things at nano scale.

    That was the point, it's only recently that we discovered gold (and heat) is an excellent medium for growing nano scale particles. In the Hazen clip you can see the scientist in front of the little oven growing stuff as part of deep ocean chemistry and the tiny little droplet of gold at the tip of his finger.
    (see the Hazen clip @ 31:30)

    IMO, any process that can be linked to polymerization and de-polymerization of bio-molecules must be carefully studied. How and why does gold have this ability? Are its properties useful in the formation of bio-chemistry. I believe these are important questions to be answered, as it seems to work very well and can even be used in laboratory settings.

    http://www.education.mrsec.wisc.edu/nanoquest/carbon/index.html#apps

    In the NOVA series "how to make things smaller" , an IBM scientist is using gold to grow nano tubes of carbon for use in processor chips. Previously all chips were horizontally connected and we are running out of space, the only way to expand processors is building them up.
    So we are now synthesizing vertical carbon tubes, which will increase our computing power exponentially.
    Start viewing at 14:30.

    The point I am making is that gold, because of its purity and resistance to chemical bonding is the perfect medium for synthesizing pure particles at nano scale.
    Note, this addresses "self assembly" a crucial step in bio-chemical cell formation and duplication.

    I know this is going far afield, but nano particles are crucial to the health or detriment of living things.


    I am trying to approach the beginning, kinda trying to work backwards to the very fundamentals of how natural bio-chemistry itself evolved, and if or how gold could be pertinent to Origins.
    Just discovered this clip.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,244
    Yes. 'Applications'. i.e. not part of natural biology.

    My question remains unchanged:


    We've found applications for cyanoacrylate glue (crazy glue) in medical surgery too, but that doesn't lead to "Crazy Glue may have been instrumental in the creation of certain necessary chemicals."
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    In the scope an time of universal evolution, you think that when we can make something in a lab, this process did not already happen somewhere, sometime in the past or will in the future?

    It's just that in nature Crazy Glue may not be a viable ingredient. It might make one big lump of the universe, everything bound together by Crazy Glue.
    And you ignore the fact that humans are a product of universal evolution, so by extension Crazy Glue is an evolutionary process as well. We are a part of , not apart from the universe.

    How did insects and reptiles invent poisonous substances. In a lab?
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,244
    Great ideas; but it's all entirely evidence-free conjecture regarding your original point:

    "Just probing if gold may have been instrumental in growing long strands of bio-molecules."

    It wasn't. There's no evidence to suggest gold has ever played a biological role.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    If we can do it now , here, it can do it elsewhere. That's how rare events happen., among others.
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Don't be silly. The article you cite is about scientists coating gold particles and it is these coatings that have uses. Not the gold. That is inert.

    There were some interesting conjectures and ideas in the Hazen video, concerning the origins of chirality in particular (via differential adsorption of molecules on chiral crystal surfaces), but nothing to do with gold whatsoever.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    I never said it's the gold that is used in medical applications. I said that gold is a growth medium for nano size m0lecules which are used for various purposes, among which are medicinal uses.

    Except that gold appears to be the preferred medium (better than silver) which allows for growth of bio-chemical nano-particles such as carbon, and proteins in laboratories, because it does not bond with other molecules.

    The picture in post 107 (as well as in the NOVA clip of "how to make things smaller") clearly shows the golden droplet which facilitates the synthesis of whatever is growing in the picture (30,000 times magnified).

    We're not growing gold, we're using gold as a growth medium.

    I am not talking about gold flakes in a bottle of liqueur. Just the application of gold as a growth medium at nano scales. If it works in a lab, it can (and probably does) work in nature.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,244
    This is the definition of non sequitur.

    I guess, unless you're a proponent of ID...
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    You are making the claim that humans can create stuff in a lab in a few years that the universe cannot duplicate in 13 billion years, even as a rare event? Can you even imagine the conditions which exist in the universe? I call that hubris.
    Show me what logic you used to come to that conclusion.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,244
    No, I am not. I have not made any claim.

    You are making a conjecture for which there is no basis.
    It's just a fanciful "wouldn't it be neat if..."
    And you have digressed from biology (i.e. Earth) to the whole universe over 13 billion years.

    I have come to no conclusion.

    But this is the Biology and Genetics forum, not Free Thoughts and not Alien Life. There is zero evidence to support the hypothesis that gold plays a biological role. If you have ideas about whether it is possible in the greater, wider universe, those thoughts don't belong here.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Oh I see, something like "what happens on earth stays on earth".


    Then why even present it as an argument?

    There is plenty evidence that gold is used in the growing (synthesis) of nano particles, among them bio-chemical particles. such as proteins. We do it in laboratories, as I have shown with quoted narrative and pictures. Why should this be controversial?

    The reason why we may need to look further out is the fact that gold is not native to earth. But then in the bigger picture the earth itself is made from stuff coming from space, no?
    At a certain point life on earth emerged and my only question was if the presence of gold may have been instrumental in the process of polymerization..
    If I said carbon is necessary for life on earth, would you object to that as well? What about proteins? What about DNA? It seems gold can be used in the formation of these bio-chemical building blocks.

    As Hazen explained, polymerization (making strings and breaking them apart) is the key to finding the right bio-chemical formula for creation of self duplicating molecules. Gold seems to be at least one of the elements that are able to assist in this function. It is a perfectly valid question, IMO.

    Have you read anything I've presented? I believe the links came from reliable sources.
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,244
    Because your logic is flawed. Your conjecture does not follow from your premise.


    There's plenty of evidence that lasers are used in laser-cauterization, but that does not lead to the conjecture that laser-cauterization happens in nature.

    There's plenty of evidence that α-(N-Phthalimido)glutarimide causes birth defects, but it does not lead to the conjecture that it caused birth defects in nature.

    How is that, in any way, relevant to its possible use in biology?

    We have zero evidence that this was ever the case.

    No, I wouldn't. because ... wait for it ... waaaaaiiiit ffooooor iiiiit .... we have some fairly good evidence that carbon is necessary for life.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Did anything I said suggested ID?
    https://www.quora.com/Does-laser-li...erse-or-is-laser-light-created-only-by-humans
    If we can do it in a lab, the universe can do it naturally.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutarimide
    Odd, that you should mention this as gold seems to be a potent facilitator of protein synthesis.
    Gold is not used in biology.
    It is used to make polymers used in biology.
    We do it in laboratories every day.
    Riiiiight, and gold is an excellent medium for growing carbon nano-tubes as well as proteins, some of which are necessary for life.

    Can you explain origins in definitive chemical terms? Even Hazen said that there may be several ways how self replicating bio-chemicals may form.

    If you cannot make a clear case of the chemical origins of species, do you have any knowledgeable authority to reject my speculative proposition out-of-hand? I am talking origins, the creation (synthesis), self-organization and polymerization of bio-molecules which may have led to the first living organism, some 4 billion years ago.

    You know, the evolution of life itself. I am not talking about the evolution of the hominid species at all. All the variety came just a little (a couple of billion years) later in the evolutionary process of living things.
    http://www.dnaftb.org/40/
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,244
    I do.

    This is the Biology and Genetics forum, not the Free Thoughts forum.

    Interesting as your ideas may be, they are sullying the science bring discussed here with unsubstantiated speculation.
     

Share This Page