|
3 registered members (AndrewAMD, Grant, Neb),
908
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Biogenesis and creationists
#79509
06/26/06 14:39
06/26/06 14:39
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,935
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,935
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Furthermore, experiments have already shown life cannot start on earth. It simply isn't possible.
Ok, let's start this biogenesis thread with this quote by IrishFarmer. You didn't tell us more about those mysterious experiments, so which experiment have shown that and why is it not possible?
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: jcl]
#79510
06/26/06 21:07
06/26/06 21:07
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Urey-Miller to start. Its been admitted for a long time that he used highly exaggerated conditions and still couldn't get all of the amino acids to start life.
We know that ultraviolet rays would destroy early life. So that's why scientists say it started in water. The best explanation they have is the RNA-world hypothesis, which then means that hydrolysis would pull early life apart.
And that's ignoring that we have never been able to create, naturally, all of the amino acids necessary for life. Furthermore, the amino acids ALWAYS form a racemic mixture (you can't even claim life sorted amino acids because when scientists seperated D and L amino acids, they reformed a racemic mixture). Life doesn't deal with a racemic mixture. Its either left handed or (occasionally) right handed. So even WITH having produced a fraction of the necessary materials, we didn't even get the right kind of necessary materials.
There are forces that pull apart early life even if it somehow overcomes these barriers (namely hydrolysis and ultraviolet rays).
Do I really need to quote experiments, or is this not self evident?
Then the chances of them forming a cell, with a membrane, powerplant, the capability to mature and then reproduce, and all that fun stuff that's necessary for even the simplest life form....I have to wonder why it would even seem possible.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#79511
06/27/06 00:11
06/27/06 00:11
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Urey-Miller to start. Its been admitted for a long time that he used highly exaggerated conditions and still couldn't get all of the amino acids to start life.
We know that ultraviolet rays would destroy early life.
I think you are bit unclear as to what the purpose of the experiment was, and what the conclusions were:
"Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 21 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant....the Miller-Urey experiment, and all subsequent experiments, succeeded in creating right- and left-handed amino acids in roughly a 50/50 ratio."
This is a general description of the results.. I dont how see in any way, shape or form this somehow disproves that life could have arisen this way.
This seems like your usual method of taking good evidence for naturalistic evolution, and twisting it to support your own opposite theory.
PLeas explain yourself.
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#79512
06/27/06 01:10
06/27/06 01:10
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 21 that are used to make proteins in living cells,
So like I said they didn't manage to produce all of the basic building blocks. This just confirms my earlier statement.
And by the way, this failure is still the most cited experiment in the chemistry of biogenesis.
Quote:
succeeded in creating right- and left-handed amino acids in roughly a 50/50 ratio
I like how your source calls this 'succeeding'. It would have been a success if they could have somehow managed to make only left handed amino acids (which are the ONLY amino acids found in life forms, with the rare exception of some exotic sea life). This is a failure. A 50/50 mixture is called racemic, and may as well be a poison to life.
Quote:
This is a general description of the results.. I dont how see in any way, shape or form this somehow disproves that life could have arisen this way.
Your quote basically confirmed everything I've already said. They failed to produce all of the required components, in an exaggerated experiment (the gasses they used are now believed to be too life-friendly). So if subsequent experiments must deal with an atmosphere that makes it even harder to create life, we would expect the results to be even worse. Apparently they are, or textbooks would stop citing the Miller-Urey experiment and they would start to a cite a more successful experiment. And people wouldn't say, "Ok, it can't happen so it must be meteors."
And these are just the initial barriers. Once we have the basic building blocks, they have to somehow assemble in just the right order while avoiding ultra violet rays, hydrolysis, decay, etc.
Quote:
This seems like your usual method of taking good evidence for naturalistic evolution, and twisting it to support your own opposite theory.
I know, its difficult for you to grasp, but I'm here to help. 
Quote:
PLeas explain yourself.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: capanno]
#79516
06/27/06 13:35
06/27/06 13:35
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,134
Netherlands
Joozey
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,134
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Even if they did make life, although the experiment was not even close to what a natural environment would have been like, it would prove only one thing. That it takes intelligence to create life.
If you want to create life in a very short time... indeed.
Click and join the 3dgs irc community!
Room: #3dgs
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Joozey]
#79517
06/27/06 15:35
06/27/06 15:35
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
The purpose of the Urey-Miller experiment was proving that complex amino acids could have formed in the early earth atmosphere just from water and carbon dioxide.
This was not a proof of the origin of life. It was just a final rebuttal of the creationist faith that information gain - complex structures coming out of simple structures - were "impossible".
Actually, the experiment simply shows what is possible when elements are guided by the hand of intelligence. In other words, there was a "creator" (in this case, a scientist) that put together his little world (in this case, the test with the supposed early earth atmospher) and the result was his creation. It is really no more or less simple than that. However, we do so that the experiment proved they were very poor creators as compared to the one that made planet earth .
|
|
|
Re: Biogenesis and creationists
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#79518
06/27/06 17:57
06/27/06 17:57
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
You do have a point: they didnt succeed in creating all 21 amino acids.
Apparently there are 22 amino acids, and its possible that we'll discover more.
Quote:
Given that the first life forms may have been very different from modern cells, you have absolutely no way of knowing that they in fact had all these 21 amino acids.
Neither does anyone. No one has any way of telling for sure exactly how non-life could randomly spring into life. The idea is preposterous to anyone except those unwilling to accept the obvious. But! That's not really a very scientific point, mostly just my opinion.
Anyway, I like the parallel that compares biogenesis with Frakenstein. "The only thing missing is the deformed assistant."
Quote:
In fact, the idea that the very first lifeforms were cells is certainly wrong;
Well, the only credible alternative I've heard to a simple cell is just a strand of RNA. RNA is highly unstable. It will decay at the slightest addition of energy.
Quote:
the they were likely not even as complex as viruses.
Is it just a coincidence that virii require life to already exist in order to reproduce? Let's hope the first lifeform was more complex.
Quote:
Even assuming that all 21 amino acids were absolutely needed for any kind of life to arise, so what? The experiment only lasted a short while, whereas Earth had a millions of years.
Believe me, if they thought they could just wait longer to produce the rest of the amino acids, they would have done it by now.
Quote:
Therefore your conclusion that this experiment disproves abiogenesis is grossly false. Ask any biochemist and I guarentee they will tell you more or less the same thing.
That's because they're waiting the fulfillment of a future prophecy.
But seriously. Isn't it obvious from the conclusions that they failed! Let's say they had produced ALL of the necessary components. They still have the problem of the racemic mixture. I know you guys aren't chemists, so its unfair of me to use an argument like this and ask you to explain how the amino acids couldn't have been filtered, but I'm not trying to corner you. I'm just trying to tell you why I think these experiments prove that life can't form on its own.
Then if they form a basic molecule of DNA, there's the problem of decay. Any unprotected molecule of genetic material will decay very, very quickly. But you need the genetic material in order to form any kind of protective mechanism (like, say, a cell membrane).
Its another version of the chicken and egg problem. You need genetic material to create the protective layer, but you need the protective layer to protect the genetic material.
Quote:
The purpose of the Urey-Miller experiment was proving that complex amino acids could have formed in the early earth atmosphere just from water and carbon dioxide.
It did a good job at that.
Quote:
This was not a proof of the origin of life. It was just a final rebuttal of the creationist faith that information gain - complex structures coming out of simple structures - were "impossible".
Energy was added via the 'lighting bolts' in the spark chamber. After that point, amino acids can combine on their own via peptide bonds. However, if they could somehow randomly organize themselves into information, that information is highly unstable. Any addition of energy is going to break it down. You can't shoot a lightning bolt at RNA to make it become anything else, its just going to fall apart.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/27/06 18:00.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
