Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jul 1, 2019.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    When will you understand that as per the above previous post of mine, "theistic" disitinctions, are simply unscientific at best and totally mythical at worst and are obviously excluded when I mentioned 101 times, Abiogenesis as the only scientific answer.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    Still translates into Abiogenesis, no? If cause was not biological it was abiological.

    But as I said, minor point. Abiogenesis is an active area of scientific study.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I see your minor point, yes, but I would simply define as "divine creation myth" as per WIKI..
     
    Write4U likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I already pointed at the peptide string canard, long familiar in creationist bs, because it was mentioned in text here. It's a product of a basic error in applying Darwinian theory.
    As far as the rest of those bs videos: Transcript, or forget it. This is a science based forum, not a junior high playground.
    Your attempted deflection into "style" is noted, and assigned its appropriate category of response - familiar creationist bs. That little two-step (misrepresention -> personal attack) is the format of half of Jan Ardena's posting here on this and related topics, for example.

    Creationists don't make arguments here - they post bait for responses, and attack the responder. The bottom line reason for that seems to be the lack of sound argument behind their assertions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  8. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Your BS. Darwinian theory starts after abiogenesis has somehow created cellular life. Savvy? And as per your modus operandi, simply asserting peptide string growth is a non-issue i.e. 'creationist bs', won't work with me. Cite relevant literature claiming to have clearly solved the problem. And not just random peptide strings - very specific and long arrangements are required for ultimate self-replicating biology to 'emerge'. Which implied teleological mystery bs is just one of many problems for militant materialists like you.
    Cite the mainstream literature solving the problem of homochiral peptide chain magical development to useful enzymatic action. Not with copious human intervention with carefully purified initial reagents reacted in carefully controlled conditions of pH, temp, etc. in some highly sheltered environment, but as a natural process that will for sure progress under realistic prebiotic Earth environments.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Nice post again.....
    Ignoring some of the semantics this thread has generated, only one person so far has had the ignorance to deny that life emerged from non life, and instead imagined some ID bullshit, mainly though argument from incredulity and then god of the gaps, despite that gap forever narrowing.........That person continues on his fruitless crusade.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    The arrogance and stupidity of Creationists and IDers is illustrated in the above video.
     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  10. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Lying as usual. Or are you that forgetful as to not recall at least two of us, just in this thread, qualify as targets of your fool invectives? And what if it was just one here?
    Elsewhere, many far more intelligent and qualified individuals than yourself also don't swallow mainstream materialistic abiogenesis dogma. Regardless, your sure guide is weight of numbers i.e just slavishly follow mainstream everything. I don't and never will subscribe to that kind of mentality.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    https://phys.org/news/2018-07-century-old-life-significant-substantiation.html

    A century-old model for life's origin gets significant substantiation

    In 1924, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin claimed that life on Earth developed through gradual chemical changes of organic molecules, in the "primordial soup" which likely existed on Earth four billion years ago. In his view, the complex combination of lifeless molecules, joining forces within small oily droplets, could assume life faculties—self-replication, selection and evolution. These ideas were received with considerable doubt, still pertaining today.

    Thirty years later, when DNA structure was deciphered, it was realized that this molecule is capable of self-replication, seemingly solving the enigma of life's origin without resort to Oparin's droplets. But critics argued that life requires not only replicators, but also enzyme catalysts to control metabolism. Another 30 years passed before the discovery that RNA, key component in information transfer from DNA to proteins, can also be an enzyme. This is how the concept of "RNA World" was born, whereby life began when the primordial soup gave birth to a ribozyme, which can both replicate and control metabolism.


    more at link.......

    the paper:

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0159


    Abstract
    Life is that which replicates and evolves, but there is no consensus on how life emerged. We advocate a systems protobiology view, whereby the first replicators were assemblies of spontaneously accreting, heterogeneous and mostly non-canonical amphiphiles. This view is substantiated by rigorous chemical kinetics simulations of the graded autocatalysis replication domain (GARD) model, based on the notion that the replication or reproduction of compositional information predated that of sequence information. GARD reveals the emergence of privileged non-equilibrium assemblies (composomes), which portray catalysis-based homeostatic (concentration-preserving) growth. Such a process, along with occasional assembly fission, embodies cell-like reproduction. GARD pre-RNA evolution is evidenced in the selection of different composomes within a sparse fitness landscape, in response to environmental chemical changes. These observations refute claims that GARD assemblies (or other mutually catalytic networks in the metabolism first scenario) cannot evolve. Composomes represent both a genotype and a selectable phenotype, anteceding present-day biology in which the two are mostly separated. Detailed GARD analyses show attractor-like transitions from random assemblies to self-organized composomes, with negative entropy change, thus establishing composomes as dissipative systems—hallmarks of life. We show a preliminary new version of our model, metabolic GARD (M-GARD), in which lipid covalent modifications are orchestrated by non-enzymatic lipid catalysts, themselves compositionally reproduced. M-GARD fills the gap of the lack of true metabolism in basic GARD, and is rewardingly supported by a published experimental instance of a lipid-based mutually catalytic network. Anticipating near-future far-reaching progress of molecular dynamics, M-GARD is slated to quantitatively depict elaborate protocells, with orchestrated reproduction of both lipid bilayer and lumenal content. Finally, a GARD analysis in a whole-planet context offers the potential for estimating the probability of life's emergence. The invigorated GARD scrutiny presented in this review enhances the validity of autocatalytic sets as a bona fide early evolution scenario and provides essential infrastructure for a paradigm shift towards a systems protobiology view of life's

     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yeah sure q-reeus, and the rest of the evils of mainstream science that you refuse to entertain, simply because it conflicts with your sensitivities and mythical beliefs, shown admirably in how quick you are to blow your stack when dare questioned on your nonsense.

    Guess what, keep blowing baby, because the mainstream science will continue!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Another reputable scientist and his views and accounts.....
    https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_oparin.html

    ALEXANDER OPARIN
    (1894 - 1980)<< Back to List of Important Scientists

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Alexander Oparin
    Alexander Oparin was a Russian biochemist, notable for his contributions to the theory of the origin of life on Earth, and particularly for the “primordial soup” theory of the evolution of life from carbon-based molecules. Oparin also devoted considerable effort to enzymology and helped to develop the foundations of industrial biochemistry in the USSR. He received numerous decorations and awards for his work, and has been called “the Darwin of the 20th Century”.

    Alexander (or Aleksandr) Ivanovich Oparin was born on 2 March 1894 in Uglich, Russia. When he was nine years old, his family moved to Moscow because there was no secondary school in their village. He attended Moscow State University, majoring in plant physiology, where he was influenced by K. A. Timiryazev, a Russian plant physiologist who had known the English naturalist Charles Darwin, and Darwin’s work was to greatly influence Oparin’s later ideas. He graduated from the Moscow State University in 1917, and became a professor of biochemistry there in 1927.

    In 1924, Oparin officially put forward his influential theory that life on Earth developed through gradual chemical evolution of carbon-based molecules in a “primordial soup”, at just about the same time as the British biologist J. B. S. Haldane was independently proposing a similar theory. As early as 1922, at a meeting of the Russian Botanical Society, he had first introduced his concept of a primordial organism arising in a brew of already-formed organic compounds. He asserted the following tenets:

    • There is no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter, and the complex combination of manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter.
    • The infant Earth had possessed a strongly reducing atmosphere, containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor, which were the raw materials for the evolution of life.
    • As the molecules grew and increased in complexity, new properties came into being and a new colloidal-chemical order was imposed on the simpler organic chemical relations, determined by the spatial arrangement and mutual relationship of the molecules.
    • Even in this early process, competition, speed of growth, struggle for existence and natural selection determined the form of material organization which has become characteristic of living things.
    • Living organisms are open systems, and so must receive energy and materials from outside themselves, and are not therefore limited by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is applicable only to closed systems in which energy is not replenished).
    Oparin showed how organic chemicals in solution may spontaneously form droplets and layers, and outlined a way in which basic organic chemicals might form into microscopic localized systems (possible precursors of cells) from which primitive living things could develop. He suggested that different types of coacervates might have formed in the Earth's primordial ocean and, subsequently, been subject to a selection process, eventually leading to life.

    He effectively extended Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution backwards in time to explain how simple organic and inorganic materials might have combined into more complex organic compounds, which could then have formed primordial organisms. His proposal that lifedeveloped effectively by chance, through a progression from simple to complex self-duplicating organic compounds, initially met with strong opposition, but has since received experimental support (such as the famous 1953 experiments of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago), and has been accepted as a legitimate hypothesis by the scientific community.

    In 1935, Oparin helped found the A. N. Bakh Institute of Biochemistry (part of the USSR Academy of Sciences). His definitive work, “The Origin of Life”, was first published in 1936. He became a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1939, and a full member in 1946, and he served as director of the Institute of Biochemistry from 1946 until his death. In the 1940s and 1950s, he supported the pseudo-scientific theories of Trofim Lysenko and Olga Lepeshinskaya, seen by some as a cynical effort to “take the party line” and thereby to advance his own career.

    Oparin organized the first international meeting on the origin of life in Moscow in 1957, which was to be followed by other meetings in 1963 and in 1970. He was nominated as a Hero of Socialist Labour in 1969 and, the next year, was elected President of the International Society for the Study of the Origins of Life. He received the Lenin Prize in 1974 and the Lomonosov Gold Medal in 1979 "for outstanding achievements in biochemistry". He was also awarded five Orders of Lenin, the highest decoration bestowed by the Soviet Union.

    Oparin died on 21 April 1980 in Moscow, and was interred in Novodevichy Cemetery in Moscow.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Rather that mentality supported by the science and scientific method, then a mentality controlled by myth, fire and brimstone, conspiracy nonsense and UFO's
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    That is not true. Robert Hazen demonstrates that Darwinian evolution and natural selection begins at the very beginning of chemical bonding in mineral chemistry.

    All carbon based molecules are available for interaction, some more efficiently than others. The best conformation and molecular stability survives to interact with all other carbon based chemistry, includig in the direction of forming biochemicals. And therein lies the crux. The beginning of a competition for efficient self-assembly.

    In a dynamic causal, reactive, hospitable environment, biology and sentience was an inevitable result of purely Darwinian evolutionary functions of dynamical organic chemical reactions, and that aspect of the evolution of the ecosphere of earth as a solar planet, which we call biology.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Before there was biology there was chemistry. Biology is an evolved growth potential from elementary chemistry.
    Not a complicated equation....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Carbon Crystal growth patterns? Crystal Carbon growth patterns?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The mineral tinnunculite crystallized within globs of excrement from the European kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) that had been heated by an underground coal fire.

    https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/beyond-diamonds-search-rare-carbon-crystals
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    https://www.mpg.de/9333399/Origin_of_Life_basetext.pdf

    The origin of life
    Curators: Thomas Henning
    Max Planck Institute for Astronomy
    Andrei Lupas Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology


    The origin of life at a glance The study of the fundamental pathways from non-living matter to life, starting with the build-up of simple organic molecules, over the synthesis of nucleotides and finally to the formation of RNA and DNA - the messenger material for all present life on Earth - is entering a phase where major progress can be expected. In parallel, the discovery of planets outside of the Solar System and the detection of Earth-like planets in regions around other stars where liquid water can exist has opened up a new line of research with the goal to find life elsewhere by tracing biological activity on other planets through the spectroscopy of their atmospheres.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  17. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    This was tested in countless experiments, together with some of Oparin's later ideas that were mentioned earlier. Despite the inital excitement they failed big time. It appears that things are not that simple.

    Of course you will blur the waters by using the usual wild card, the absolute argument:
    "Anything can happen in billion years"

    It is misleading when you argue that its that simple. There must be an unidentified key element (perhaps together with chemical natural selection).

    I know that there is no argument that can convinve you about anything (you are stuck with your ideas and we must deal with that and act accordingly), but if you wanna discuss this with us, please use actual scientific arguments. For example: arginine binds to lysine and the disulfide bonds,...etc or the extra carbon that forms ribulose in AMP, etc, instead of using vague statements that even you don't understand completely, like quasi-intelligence forces statistical blal bla and presto...life, and other coffee shop level arguments.

    PS i am against arguments, not people. I don't have personal issues with anybody here and i am not interested in getting any
     
  18. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    Putting 50 flasks with complex combinations of organic chemicals and other important stuff and exposing them to external energy for a year and then describing the changes we see is a pretty easy and interesting experiment. Its not billions of years, but you will get a good hint about the possibility that a Mercedes-Benz will be eventually formed in one of these flasks within a billion years.
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  19. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I don't agree with that. Evolution by natural selection would seem to work with any sort of replicator, whether cellular or chemical. The ones that replicate most efficiently will have an advantage over the ones that don't. So there will be selective pressures for mods that promote replicative efficiencies. There are lots of rather speculative hypotheses about what the earliest chemical replicators might have been and how they might have originally formed and survived in the conditions prevalent on the early Earth. But there isn't any real consensus at this point. Each hypothesis has its own strengths and weaknesses.

    Of course, getting from chemical replicators to the first cells would still be a huge leap. So I'm personally inclined to think that there were likely a whole succession of pre-biotic (or quasi-biotic) intermediate steps such as coacervates, in which the replicators sheltered in little bubbles where concentrations of reactants could increase to effective levels above the ambient environment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coacervate
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    No, I will identify the oceans of probability using the winning trump card of the absolute argument : "Everything will happen given enough time and space"
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    Just look at the Urey-Miller experiment which yielded a whole menu of organic molecules. Plus the experiment Hazen performed that yielded a black oily goo which self-assembled into cellular structures in water.

    And is that not what happened and IS? The earth is the very experiment which showed that given the universal properties and potentials, it was inevitable that Mercedes-Benz would be formed.

    That is the nature of a deterministic universe. Whatever you see today IS the result of a deterministic processing of universal potentials that started way back with the first chiral chemical interaction.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,970
    Well you just argued against one of the foremost scientists in the field of abiogenesis. I merely quoted his hypotheses.

    So get of your high horse and read what I write without kneejerk comments of your ignorance on my well considered arguments.
    Have you watched the Hazen lecture? Doesn't look like it. If you had you would (hopefully) understand what I was alluding to and you would not look silly throwing ad hominems around.

    p.s. If I am positing my own opinion, I alway qualify it with IMO,...... OK?
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,895
    Argument by authority 'fallacy'.
    We get to argue against authorities.

    Worse:
    'I'm smarter than you' is not a valid argument.
    'This is scientist is smarter than you and therefore, because I invoked him, that's makes me smarter than you, so just stop talking.' is also not a valid argument.

    I'll kindly ask you to take the pill you offered globali: You're the one climbing on that high horse.
     
    dumbest man on earth and globali like this.

Share This Page