Anti-Evolution Theories?

No, this does not follow. We have one example. That is no sufficient to establish a probability.

To be clear, they are not alien. True, they do not employ photosynthesis, but they are still related to all other life on Earth. They still use the same ol' DNA.
True, but it increases the list of planets in the universe which could host life by a few hundreds of trillions. .

This is a pretty humanocentric scare story.
Darkness isn't hostile to many forms of life. In fact, it's an advantage to many.
Poison is relative to the particular metabolism.
Pressure is only an issue for organisms with heterogeneous components, such as lungs and sinuses. Entirely fluid creatures (such as fish) often have no problem with pressure.
etc.
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:
What did you discover?
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:
What did you discover?
Still researching, but something struck me. The use of gold for synthesizing bio-chemical nano particles in labs.
Yep,
Scientists use gold to grow nanoparticles in crystal formation
A few qualities make gold an ideal nanoparticle material, especially for use in the body -- it's malleable, conducts heat and doesn't react with oxygen.
Scientists-use-gold-to-grow-nanoparticles-in-crystal-formation.jpg

For the first time, researchers showed gold can work as a substitute for silver in plasmon-driven synthesis. The use of gold not only made synthesized nanoparticles safe for use in the human body, it also offered scientists new insight into the plasmon-driven synthesis process.
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.
This phenomenon is also seen when excess salt is added to the gold solution. The surface charge of the gold nanoparticle becomes neutral, causing nanoparticles to aggregate. As a result, the solution color changes from red to blue. To minimize aggregation, the versatile surface chemistry of gold nanoparticles allows them to be coated with polymers, small molecules, and biological recognition molecules. This surface modification enables gold nanoparticles to be used extensively in chemical, biological, engineering, and medical applications. Typical properties of gold nanoparticles are presented in Table 1.
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
Gold is an element and is formed in the core of large stars, especially during a nova. On Earth, veins of gold are formed by separation from liquid rock after gravity agglomerates the molecules. It will form long chains within spaces in minerals because of its resistance to combining with lighter elements.
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:
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?
 
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?
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.

Carbon is all around us and in us. It is in DNA, proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. It makes up approximately 20% of the human body. It symbolizes love and commitment in some cultures. It is scratched on paper to express ideas. It is a key ingredient in the fossil fuels used to power our cities and vehicles. Not surprisingly, carbon is also a key ingredient in the emerging field of nanotechnology. Aside from the naturally occurring forms of carbon, graphite and diamond, carbon is also found in the nanostructured forms of fullerenes (or buckyballs) and carbon nanotubes
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.
Self-Assembly in Nature
Molecules in nature are programmed to arrange themselves in certain ways. One of the simplest examples is something called a lipid bilayer. Lipid bilayers make up the membranes of cells. Each lipid is a molecule with a charged end that likes to be in water and a neutral end that is similar to oil.
Lipid.jpg

Lipid
You may have noticed in salad dressing bottles that the oil part likes to stay separate from the water and vinegar part forming two distinct layers. This behavior where the oil likes to stay away from the water is also taking place in a cell membrane.
salad_dressing.jpg

Olive oil does not like to mix with water-based vinegar.1
Since the inside and outside of cells are mostly water, the lipids arrange themselves with their oil-like parts “hiding” on inside and their water-like parts on the outside forming two layers of lipids, or a lipid bilayer. This is just one example of how molecules in nature can self assemble to make a larger functional piece.
bilayer.jpg

Lipid Bilayer - the oily parts hide on the inside of the cell membrane.
Self-Assembly in the Laboratory
Nature is very good at self-assembling complicated structures from less complicated pieces. Scientists would also like to get molecules to self-assemble at the nanoscale to get new and interesting properties. Scientists have made things called self-assembled monolayers (SAMs); these are organized coatings on a surface just one molecule thick. The most common monolayers are made from alkanethiols - molecules that have an oil-like chain with a sulfur atom at one end.

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:
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.
Yes. 'Applications'. i.e. not part of natural biology.

My question remains unchanged:

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?


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."
 
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."

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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.
If we can do it now , here, it can do it elsewhere. That's how rare events happen., among others.
 
If we can do it now , here, it can do it elsewhere. That's how rare events happen., among others.
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.
 
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.
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.

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.
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.
 
This is the definition of non sequitur.
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.
I guess, unless you're a proponent of ID...
Show me what logic you used to come to that conclusion.
 
You are making the claim
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.

Show me what logic you used to come to that conclusion.
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.
 
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.
Oh I see, something like "what happens on earth stays on earth".


I have come to no conclusion.
Then why even present it as an argument?

s 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.
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.
 
Then why even present it as an argument?
Because your logic is flawed. Your conjecture does not follow from your premise.


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?
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.

The reason why we may need to look further out is the fact that gold is not native to earth.
How is that, in any way, relevant to its possible use in biology?

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..
We have zero evidence that this was ever the case.

If I said carbon is necessary for life on earth, would you object to that as well?
No, I wouldn't. because ... wait for it ... waaaaaiiiit ffooooor iiiiit .... we have some fairly good evidence that carbon is necessary for life.
 
Because your logic is flawed. Your conjecture does not follow from your premise.
Did anything I said suggested ID?
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.
Year of 1995: Scientists on board NASA`s Kuiper Airborne Observatory (KAO) discovered the first "natural" laser in space
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.
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.
Glutarimide is a chemical compound featuring a piperidine ring with two ketones attached next to the nitrogen. It is a structural component of cycloheximide, a very potent inhibitor of protein synthesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutarimide
Odd, that you should mention this as gold seems to be a potent facilitator of protein synthesis.
How is that, in any way, relevant to its possible use in biology?
Gold is not used in biology.
It is used to make polymers used in biology.
We have zero evidence that this was ever the case.
We do it in laboratories every day.
No, I wouldn't. because ... wait for it ... waaaaaiiiit ffooooor iiiiit .... we have some fairly good evidence that carbon is necessary for life.
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.
All living organisms store genetic information using the same molecules — DNA and RNA. Written in the genetic code of these molecules is compelling evidence of the shared ancestry of all living things. Evolution of higher life forms requires the development of new genes to support different body plans and types of nutrition. Even so, complex organisms retain many genes that govern core metabolic functions carried over from their primitive past.
http://www.dnaftb.org/40/
 
Last edited:
...do you have any knowledgeable authority to reject my speculative proposition out-of-hand?...
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.
 
Back
Top