Creation and evolution go hand in hand

It's interesting that they can achieve such high g forces, and that they thought to subject microbes to it.

But: surviving such a test is more or less just a matter of structural integrity. I can imagine materials that would probably survive - say, a man-made polymer - that would not be expected to exist in the cosmos. I would not go so far as to conclude that any organism exists outside of earth, with the exception of meteors (not originating from Earth) which contain some evidence of microbes.

The fact of their structural integrity could be either an accident, or an adaptation to unusual extremes - niches in the deep sea or under rock and sediment, or for an entirely different reason, such as surviving seasonal conditions (such as endospores or encystment).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pressure would assist in holding them together for at atmospheric pressure water would boil blowing the organism apart. They talked about growing an organism at 121 degrees in an autoclave, but did not say what the pressure was.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just looking at this one sentence, could you please expand on your thoughts on this, for I have for some reason struggled with the meaning. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I meant solar power batter charger and a batter efficient smartphone, modern antibiotics, guns, rockets, explosives, etc - anything thats amazing, new and effeicent. But anyway, it would be better to study jesus, like undercover than gather a following.

And what do u mean about my view on evolution?

 

I meant that prion like life forms may have evoled to be virus like and then to bacterialike. These need not exist today just like spinosaurous need not have a living relative today. Its certainly a good initial ramp for abiogenesis. Enormous time would have to required for biochemical and biomolecular pathways as well as dna, Rna etc. And the fact that half of life's all time on earth was single celled or lesser may hint at this possibility.

 

I see what you mean. It is like going to a native tribe and taking their photo. They'll freak. But you end up with a spear rammed down your throat.
You said:
"We aren't headed anywhere. There is no goal as such. Most animals go towards better adaptablity to the environment but since natural selection hardly acts on humans at all today, all we can expect is better immunity to diseases."
That is why I said you were narrow minded.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know if people have got the idea that RNA is simpler than DNA.
It differs very little.

It requires DNA to be made. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_polymerase#RNA_polymerase_in_eukaryotes

This is RNAP, the enzyme that makes RNA, as you can see it is very complex.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

RNA Polymerase

However the very first forms of life came to be, whether on this planet or another, they had to be by necessity very simple in nature.
We ought to be able to work it out, but the most brilliant minds have worked on it and come up with very little.

Presumably, the very first stage will involve simple amino acids,
and a simple substrate or membrane which ensures they mostly combine in the right order,
but vitally, with occasional errors.
If the resulting "wrong" amino acid chain could then alter that substrate,
or make a new substrate to reproduce itself, we would be on our way.

But the following stages. Who knows?

If the Mars vehicle Curiosity comes up with anything, there will no doubt be a worldwide clatter made by Biologists kicking themselves.
Or more likely, knowing scientists, saying "I was thinking of that"

 

How does that go? What are your thoughts here?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, the precursors to complex life, while no longer existing on earth, or perhaps never having existed here, may still exist on Mars.
Mars may provide the solution to one of the ultimate questions.
How did life emerge from its simplest chemicals?

 

How does a religion post live on in science section, when a consciousness in physics thread will get tossed in the cesspool within 4 posts?

 

Creation evolution debate is scientific not religious.
Your consciousness threads are bordering on psuedoscience.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's a bit like if you were to pull and old car to bits and put the parts back together without an instruction manual. It will start if everything is right. But if there is just a couple of things have been missed and or the timings out it won't go. In comparison the cell is probably 1000 times more complex.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ Robbitybob1,

I have no such thread. The closest I came to this topic is the thread I started in religion.

However I disagree with where consciousness threads belong.

So basically to be on sciforums you must agree with Einstein, if you agree with Heisenburg you should be in pseudoscience. You are aware that I want explanations from physics that could explain things like "telepathy". I must admit some of the Heisenburg stuff makes more sense.

and creationism vs science is a religious debate no matter how you sugar-coat it. It all boils down to the existence of god. I see this argument topping at least 3 forums constantly.

 

Yes, it would be a good examination test for an engineer to do it, but the cell is far more complicated.
First thing to do with an engine would be to put all the similar parts together:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cadillac V8 Engine

http://www.camarohomepage.com/zl1/

 

One of the reasons abiogenesis is to hard to reproduce is because we try to start from scratch or with RNA replicators, since this is assumed to be what is needed to link abiogenesis with evolution. However, it may be useful to go somewhere in the middle between these two.

For example, before you can get RNA replicators, you would need something similar to ATP and/or other phosphate based monomers to make RNA. If you already have ATP, before there are RNA replicators, that means you may already have enzyme activity that will make use of the ATP. All you need are -OH groups sticking out. These will scavenge the ATP.

Proteins would have formed before RNA. We can use clays as a basis for animo acid dehydration polymerization into proteins. This simple protein formation mechanism, combined with the eventual need for ATP, before we can make RNA, means many pseudo=enzymes were already semi-active before we had the replicators. Even if these were not specific they will scavenge the ATP.

Years ago, I create a conceptual evolutionary model for proteins and ATP, where you start with a simple random protein, add ATP, to see what will happen to the protein. The question was, will a constant input of ATP energy cause the protein to change shape to lower its free energy? Is there a natural sweet spot it will drift to, with the most efficient -OH group getting more and more ATP. We have a strong ATP potential for change.

The most logical first enzymes would be those that could make use of the free energy within the surrounding water, acting like the precursors of digestive and metabolic enzymes lowering the free energy of reduced compounds. Since these reactants want to move forward, these first enzymes don't need to be all that efficient. Going the other way, or making reduced material is harder and requires more efficiency. The fire of the first metabolism didn't have to be pretty to burn with a smokey flame.

It would also have been easier to form small mRNA sized chunks of RNA before entire genetic RNA, in light of enzyme competition. This suggests small mRNA fragments that replicate, within an active nonspecific enzyme grid that also has protein/RNA composites that look like ribosomes. The formation of RNA replicators would be further down the line. It would need other changes in efficiency; lowered entropy.

One consideration that is often overlooked in abiogenesis is what I call configurational potential. Did you even consider how proteins, formed in a cell, know where to go? This is not random since you don't want ion pumps to go to the DNA. The easiest way to do this in abiogenesis, where all the modern bells and whistles are lacking, would be based on configurational equilibrium. This means they will diffuse in the direction of lowest free energy.

For example, DNA packing proteins, will find their lowest energy spot in the cell by being wrapped in DNA. There is no place in the cell that is lower in energy for these proteins. Even with a abiogenesis cell, there will be protein sweet spots due to configurational potentials created by the diversity of materials. For example, hydrophobic and hydrophilic prefer to segregate. The hierarchy of genetic, to ribosome to protein to a place in the protein grid, follows a configurational hierarchy that would form again since these define free energy minima in light of the rest of the cell.

If you look at a modern cell, the DNA is covered in negative charge due to the phosphate. The ion pumping at the cell membrane results in an internal negative charge; membrane potential. We have a configurational repulsion between the two big guys in the cell. The DNA is not leaving anytime soon due to repulsion. You have your two bookends that will define the modern configurational grid.

We can make use of free diffusion for some things to find an equilibrium, or we can add energy and transport materials to higher potential than their equilibrium, for extra kick. The abiogenesis cell would make use of simple configurational equilibria.

 

I would need to read that a couple of times to get it all.

 

Creation is about a specific aspect of evolution, connected to the differentiation of the modern human mind, that was capable of forming civilization. The time of genesis and civilization is close. There was a sudden change from the prehuman mind that had been before, from the last ice age. Going from migratory family groups into stationary cosmopolitan civilization, was leap way outside the box they had known for 10's of thousands of years.

If someone suggested a minor change to any modern tradition, that is way outside the box, most people tend to get defensive due to fear of novelty. Picture asking people to totally leave their migratory instinctive box, that they had lived in for 10,000 years, and go outside that safe box. The fear and defensiveness would be so strong they would not move. You would need some way to get past their instinctive fear of novelty, so they will move outside their instinctive comfort zone, into a place where there is no clear traditions yet established. In this place outside the box, you can't read about farming since it is still in R&D compared to hunting. Why leave hunting for R&D in dozens of new things? The human reaction today would be to kill the messenger, right? But it still happened, anyway.

The mistake we often make is to assume change is normal for people, even when it is outside their comfort zone and might conflict with all they ever knew. You can force people to move. In terms of the pre humans, at the very least you will need will power to fight that instinctive fear. You also need some ability for abstract thinking to see the goal, at least in theory.

Creation tells us about that transition within the prehuman mind, which resulted in the formation of the modern human mind who would start civilization. When asked to live outside the box, that scary future was formless and void. The spirit of God was brooding over the deep, and he said let there be light; consciousness. It starts to become clear, through inspiration, what needed to be done, in spite of the fear of novelty. The waters above separate from the water below. Or the prehuman instincts start to separate from the new mind so the box of old could separate from the new box. The new box is so little and needs to be made larger so other can migrate there. This will also take will power to fight the fear of novelty.