Anti-Evolution Theories?

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

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    No. Gold nanoparticles appear to be a totally artificial state of gold that does not occur in nature. The interest is in plasmon-mediated synthesis, apparently, a way of getting light to take part in chemical reactions. But there is zero evidence of these things appearing in nature and until there is, there is no basis for you to claim gold may have relevance to abiogenesis.

    But plasmon-induced synthesis is something I'd like to know more about, I must admit.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    Abiogenesis is still just a theory though and in the future it could be proven to be false.

    The fact is that scientists still don't know how life on earth began.

    Scientists don't even know what consciousness is or whether or not there is life after death.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    You know how origins started?
    Well, you're the only one then. No one else seems to know, including Hazen and he knows a lot.
    Precisely and I am right on topic.
    And there is that pesky picture in Hazen's laboratory that shows how gold is used to grow bio-chemical nano-particles for analysis of black smoker chemistry. And in the NOVA clip which shows gold is used to grow carbon nan-particles in the IBM laboratory. It's all part of the science that studies origins and the evolution of life.
    I bring evidence of procedures used in laboratories using gold for conducting experiments of how nano-particles can form spontaneously, and you call this sullying the science?

    So, what is the science being discussed here? Anti-Evolution? Is that a science?
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    No.

    Abiogenesis is a fact: there was at one time no life and now there is. That means abiogenesis indisputably took place.

    All "abiogenesis" is is a label for "the process of life arising from non-life". It says nothing about how it occurred.

    What we do not have is a theory of abiogenesis. All we have are some tantalising clues.

    There is no need whatever to have any idea about consciousness, let alone the (totally untestable and hence unscientific) notion of life after death, in order to develop a theory of abiogenesis.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
    Write4U likes this.
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    What are these biochemical nanoparticles, please? Using such things for chemical analysis is different from claiming they play a role in biochemistry. Do you have a reference for this?

    P.S. Nobody is discussing evolution here. We are talking about abiogenesis.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,122
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    Except that seem to be able to duplicate the process using gold, rather then silver.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925346717300046
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,314
    That was not the question you asked to which I was responding.
    What you actually asked was '...do you have any knowledgeable authority to reject my speculative proposition out-of-hand?...'
    The answer is: yes. The authority is the forum rules on speculation.

    You proposed a possibility, that life might have one time had a biological use for gold; the response was 'interesting, but not supported by any evidence'. Unless you have something sort of evidence to offer, further exploration of your idea should happen in a more appropriate forum.

    Furthermore, if you intend to deliberately misrepresent me, by pretending I responded to a question I didn't, then you have moved from science discussion into argument. Noted.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637

    Nonsensical response. What has duplicating one totally artificial process by another artificial one have to do with the relevance of either of these to natural processes?
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    The direct answer is that gold seems to be able to grow more pure nano particles than silver. I believe that is an important consideration.

    But one of the necessary steps in abiogenesis is growth of bio chemical polymers. We know carbon is a major ingredient in living things. But it's not just carbon that we need, we need nano scale carbon. But how do you get nano scale carbon?
    a) We have demonstrated that gold and light (heat) have the ability to grow nano scale carbon particles.

    We know that abiogenesis requires proteins.
    b) We have demonstrated that gold and light (heat) have the ability to grow proteins.

    I agree, but that may support my claim that gold at nano scales may have been deposited long ago by cosmic dust from novae and is a rare metal with exceptional qualities.

    But plasmon-induced synthesis is something I'd like to know more about, I must admit.[/QUOTE]
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925346717300046
    c) Gold nanorods have a range of plasmon resonances depending on their size and shape at nano scales.

    I am not proposing that gold IS the origin of abiogenesis, I am proposing that gold may have played a part in it due to its exceptional naturally functional properties. We know that water (or some liquid) assists in the formation of cell like structures (Hazen), that only

    As to evidence, we have precious little evidence of how abiogenesis actually occurred, how many steps were required, what the conditions were at the time, and the composition of the soup which provided the necessary bio-chemicals to form self assembling polymers which were able to duplicate themselves.

    I believe everyone will agree that abiogenesis can be considered a rare probabilistic event which required a unique combination of conditions and ingredients. However I read that there may have been many tries at abiogenesis, but Darwinian evolution (natural selection) made them non-viable for sustained reproduction.

    As far as I know there have been a fractal function as an early replication method, which were then replaced by RNA information carriers, and finally a combination of DND and RNA produced a living organism that was able to use its environment for energy and sustained self replication (reproduction).

    Then there is the question of the part plasmon plays. This can range from UV light which already are creating larger, more complex particles and molecules incosmic clouds, to visible light, but also to heat (a thermal energy) in places which receive no sunlight at all, such as around black smokers in the deep ocean, or deep in the earth's mantle.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon

    (A little aside; the red panes in cathedral windows are made from gold nano particles.) Curiously, none of the glassblowers had a clue how or why this happens. No one bothered to find out.

    Because of the extraordinary qualities of gold, and it's apparent usefulness when we try to approximate (imitate) certain natural conditions in laboratory settings, is it not an obvious question, that when something works as we expected it, then this is an indication that it may possibly be a part of the original process itself.

    Can we look at this from both sides?
    I am sure there may be critical arguments against this proposition. But off-hand is see no fatal flaw in my proposition that gold may have been instrumental in the abiogenesis of life on earth.

    If we look at it from a perspective that whatever we can do in a laboratory can never approach the: some
    2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions that have taken place on earth alone and before that, at a universal scale an additional 10 billion years of chemical processes.

    I have not heard a logical argument that proves my proposition is a priori false.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925346717300046
    c) Gold nanorods have a range of plasmon resonances depending on their size and shape at nano scales.

    I am not proposing that gold IS the origin of abiogenesis, I am proposing that gold may have played a part in it due to its exceptional naturally functional properties. We know that water (or some liquid) assists in the formation of cell like structures (Hazen), that only

    As to evidence, we have precious little evidence of how abiogenesis actually occurred, how many steps were required, what the conditions were at the time, and the composition of the soup which provided the necessary bio-chemicals to form self assembling polymers which were able to duplicate themselves.

    I believe everyone will agree that abiogenesis can be considered a rare probabilistic event which required a unique combination of conditions and ingredients. However I read that there may have been many tries at abiogenesis, but Darwinian evolution (natural selection) made them non-viable for sustained reproduction.

    As far as I know there have been a fractal function as an early replication method, which were then replaced by RNA information carriers, and finally a combination of DND and RNA produced a living organism that was able to use its environment for energy and sustained self replication (reproduction).

    Then there is the question of the part plasmon plays. This can range from UV light which already are creating larger, more complex particles and molecules incosmic clouds, to visible light, but also to heat (a thermal energy) in places which receive no sunlight at all, such as around black smokers in the deep ocean, or deep in the earth's mantle.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmon

    (A little aside; the red panes in cathedral windows are made from gold nano particles.) Curiously, none of the glassblowers had a clue how or why this happens. No one bothered to find out.

    Because of the extraordinary qualities of gold, and it's apparent usefulness when we try to approximate (imitate) certain natural conditions in laboratory settings, is it not an obvious question, that when something works as we expected it, then this is an indication that it may possibly be a part of the original process itself.

    Can we look at this from both sides?
    I am sure there may be critical arguments against this proposition. But off-hand is see no fatal flaw in my proposition that gold may have been instrumental in the abiogenesis of life on earth.

    If we look at it from a perspective that whatever we can do in a laboratory can never approach the: some
    2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions that have taken place on earth alone and before that, at a universal scale an additional 10 billion years of chemical processes.

    I have not heard a logical argument that proves my proposition is a priori false.[/QUOTE]
    This whole post just indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm out of this now.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,122
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2017

Share This Page