Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2018 2:01 AM
258 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (3 members, 255 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,790 Year: 13,613/29,783 Month: 1,059/1,576 Week: 0/271 Day: 0/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   God's Day 1 Billion Years?
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 61 (339281)
08-11-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
08-06-2006 11:46 AM


Re: Makeup of DNA
"Well, that's what it's like now, to be sure. And remember too that the structure of DNA is universal"

If life has DNA now, what is your proof that it can work without DNA.... It might make your case for time developing from RNA, but it is without proof that life can exist without DNA.

Jim

Edited by jimrlong.com, : Grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2006 11:46 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2006 12:39 AM jimrlong.com has not yet responded

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 61 (339292)
08-11-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
08-11-2006 3:31 PM


From the Miller-Urey experiment
"Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced." http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 3:31 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 4:02 PM jimrlong.com has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15133
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 33 of 61 (339297)
08-11-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jimrlong.com
08-11-2006 3:55 PM


Re: From the Miller-Urey experiment
So you just ignore the subsequent experiments that produced amino acids in other environments? You cling to one half-century-old experiment as the sole defense of your ignorance of chemistry?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 3:55 PM jimrlong.com has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 4:09 PM ringo has responded

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 61 (339301)
08-11-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
08-11-2006 4:02 PM


Re: From the Miller-Urey experiment
I gave my cite with listed website give your cite with website. Then maybe you could relieve some of my ignorance of chemistry. I was only addressing the post using the Miller-Urey experiment cited in the post...

Jim :-)


The Peace of the lord be with you :-)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 4:02 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 4:44 PM jimrlong.com has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Matt P, posted 08-11-2006 6:04 PM jimrlong.com has not yet responded

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 61 (339304)
08-11-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
08-11-2006 3:31 PM


Given enough time the proverbial 747 could be built out of spare parts by wind, but will the jet fly or the cell live?

I was down at the lake the other day watching the canards. None of them were as old as yours

But no less relevent or do you have a non-Creator explination for how the cell came to life....

Oh. and with computer modeling why haven't you found a way these things came together...

Forgive my ignorance but what does this mean: "canards"

Thanks, Jim :-)


The Peace of the lord be with you :-)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 3:31 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15133
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 36 of 61 (339310)
08-11-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jimrlong.com
08-11-2006 4:09 PM


Re: From the Miller-Urey experiment
jimrlong.com writes:

I gave my cite with listed website give your cite with website.

Why don't we start with your own? Your own quote mentions Juan Oro in 1961. And the very next paragraph after your quote begins:

quote:
Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth.

From a quickie Google search:
link

quote:
Subsequent experiments have substituted ultraviolet light or heat as the energy source or have altered the initial abundances of gases. In all such experiments amino acids have been formed in large yield. On the early Earth there was much more energy available in ultraviolet light than in lightning discharges. At long ultraviolet wavelengths, in which methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen are all transparent, but in which the bulk of the solar ultraviolet energy lies, the gas hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a likely ultraviolet absorber.

quote:
... Carl Sagan, and his colleagues made amino acids by long wavelength ultraviolet irradiation of a mixture of methane, ammonia, water, and H2S. The amino acid syntheses, at least in many cases, involve hydrogen cyanide and aldehydes (e.g., formaldehyde) as gaseous intermediaries formed from the initial gases. It is quite remarkable that amino acids, particularly biologically abundant amino acids, can be made so readily under simulated primitive conditions.

Now remind me, what does any of this have to do with the topic?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 4:09 PM jimrlong.com has not yet responded

  
jimrlong.com
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 61 (339323)
08-11-2006 5:38 PM


It has everything to do with the topic
Hebrew Bible: It a drastic contrast in a view of monotheism in a world filled with cultures all having several gods. It had peaceful creation of animals and plants to the violent creation stories in religions at the time. Creation was described in a detail never before put forth. Most of the laws of Moses are how to serve others and love our God, while other cultures required set procedures for appeasing the gods constantly. Unique you might say, but I prefer inspired.

Without a descent explanation about how life started on earth, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. You have given no proof how this would come together and start living. I have to believe that without a Creator, there is no life.

I was willing to take the word of a scientist to the beginning of life and its date. So that is where I came up with 1 Day in God's life might be a billion years. I was told about the inconsistency of the Biblical account and tried to show you the inconsistencies of your account.

Jim


The Peace of the lord be with you :-)
Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 6:11 PM jimrlong.com has not yet responded
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2006 12:43 AM jimrlong.com has not yet responded

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 2671 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 38 of 61 (339329)
08-11-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jimrlong.com
08-11-2006 4:09 PM


Re: From the Miller-Urey experiment
Hi Jim,
Here's a quick overview of papers in the last year and a half that have produced amino acids through experiments not operating in the CH4/NH3 atmosphere. I've excluded anything older than 2005.


Ehrenfreund P, Rasmussen S, Cleaves J, et al.
Experimentally tracing the key steps in the origin of life: The aromatic world
ASTROBIOLOGY 6 (3): 490-520 JUN 2006

Plankensteiner K, Reiner H, Rode BA
Amino acids on the rampant primordial Earth: Electric discharges and the hot salty ocean
MOLECULAR DIVERSITY 10 (1): 3-7 FEB 2006

Orgel LE
Geothermal synthesis and metabolism
ASTROBIOLOGY 6 (2): 297-298 APR 2006

Hazen RM
Genesis: Rocks, minerals, and the geochemical origin of life
ELEMENTS 1 (3): 135-137 JUN 2005

Saladino R, Crestini C, Costanzo G, et al.
On the prebiotic synthesis of nucleobases, nucleotides, oligonucleoticles, Pre-RNA and Pre-DNA molecules
TOPICS IN CURRENT CHEMISTRY 259: 29-68 2005

Pascal R, Boiteau L, Commeyras A
From the prebiotic synthesis of alpha-amino acids towards a primitive translation apparatus for the synthesis of peptides
TOPICS IN CURRENT CHEMISTRY 259: 69-122 2005

Shapiro R
Small molecule interactions were central to the origin of life
QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY 81 (2): 105-125 JUN 2006

Bouchoux G, Guillemin JC, Lemahieu N, et al.
Protonation thermochemistry of aminoacetonitrile
RAPID COMMUNICATIONS IN MASS SPECTROMETRY 20 (8): 1187-1191 2006

Morita M, Harada Y, Iseki K, et al.
Mass spectroscopic approach to amino acids formation processes by UV irradiation to simple organic molecules in aqueous solution
ANALYTICAL SCIENCES 21 (9): 1085-1090 SEP 2005

Saladino R, Crestini C, Neri V, et al.
Synthesis and degradation of nucleic acid components by formamide and cosmic dust analogues
CHEMBIOCHEM 6 (8): 1368-1374 AUG 2005

Nakazawa H, Sekine T, Kakegawa T, et al.
High yield shock synthesis of ammonia from iron, water and nitrogen available on the early Earth
EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS 235 (1-2): 356-360 JUN 30 2005

Plankensteiner K, Reiner H, Rode BM
Prebiotic chemistry: The amino acid and peptide world
CURRENT ORGANIC CHEMISTRY 9 (12): 1107-1114 AUG 2005

Chen QW, Chen CL
The role of inorganic compounds in the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules
CURRENT ORGANIC CHEMISTRY 9 (10): 989-998 JUL 2005

Chyba CF
Atmospheric science - Rethinking Earth's early atmosphere
SCIENCE 308 (5724): 962-963 MAY 13 2005

Tian F, Toon OB, Pavlov AA, et al.
A hydrogen-rich early Earth atmosphere
SCIENCE 308 (5724): 1014-1017 MAY 13 2005


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 4:09 PM jimrlong.com has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15133
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 39 of 61 (339333)
08-11-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jimrlong.com
08-11-2006 5:38 PM


Re: It has everything to do with the topic
jimrlong.com writes:

Hebrew Bible.... Unique you might say, but I prefer inspired.

No, I wouldn't say "unique" at all - Egyptians had monotheism, Hammurabi had his code book..... We have lots of threads on that stuff.

Without a descent explanation about how life started on earth, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Well, atheism is pretty much defined as a lack of faith, so that's no problem. :) We have lots of threads on that too.

You have given no proof how this would come together and start living.

Nothing was ever said about "proof".

All I've done is point out a few of your misconceptions about chemistry. If you have no clue how chemistry works, how can anybody show you that life could arise without a "creator"?

I have to believe that without a Creator, there is no life.

Silly, silly, silly. Just look out the window and "believe" that life exists. How it came to exist is an entirely different question.

I was told about the inconsistency of the Biblical account and tried to show you the inconsistencies of your account.

I haven't given any account. How could there be "inconsistencies"?

I was willing to take the word of a scientist to the beginning of life and its date. So that is where I came up with 1 Day in God's life might be a billion years.

Your mistake is in injecting God into the science.

Whether or not God exists, whether She created the world in six days or watched life form spontaneously over billions of years has nothing to do with science.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 5:38 PM jimrlong.com has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 61 (339907)
08-14-2006 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jimrlong.com
08-11-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Makeup of DNA
It might make your case for time developing from RNA, but it is without proof that life can exist without DNA.

You've never heard of viruses? Or prions? Now, certainly those things now cannot reproduce except in the context of more complicated life; but certainly they bear similarities to whatever chemical protolife was the ancestors of "truly" living things.

Look, Jim. The whole business is much, much more complicated than you seem prepared to deal with. Your grand pronouncements of what is impossible, buoyed by false statements about what Nasa may or may not have said, are meaningless. If you're not prepared to accept abiogenesis, that's fine. It's true that it's a hard field to work in, because time machines don't exist, and molecules don't readily fossilize.

But we're making progress, and eventually that progress will roll right over your nonsense objections and your throwback theology.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 3:34 PM jimrlong.com has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 61 (339908)
08-14-2006 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jimrlong.com
08-11-2006 5:38 PM


Re: It has everything to do with the topic
Hebrew Bible: It a drastic contrast in a view of monotheism in a world filled with cultures all having several gods.

The Hebrew Bible may be many things, but it is not monotheistic. While it is true that the Bible asserts the dominance of only one God to be worshipped, it certainly makes no claim that the gods of the other religions do not exist at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

But that's not on-topic in this thread. This is a science thread, not a theology thread.

I have to believe that without a Creator, there is no life.

We've never observed any Creator creating life. Therefore that conclusion is not a scientific one.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jimrlong.com, posted 08-11-2006 5:38 PM jimrlong.com has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Ben!, posted 08-14-2006 1:59 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 42 of 61 (339911)
08-14-2006 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
08-14-2006 12:43 AM


Re: It has everything to do with the topic
We've never observed any Creator creating life. Therefore that conclusion is not a scientific one.

Since we've never observed anything creating life, no affirmitive conclusion about the origin of life is "scientific."

You're really being sloppy here; we don't need to observe any creator creating life to come to such a scientific conclusion. We just need "overwhelming" evidence indicating that that happened. Evidence, for example, that supports evolution over timescales of millions of years--something else we haven't "observed" in the sense you're using here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2006 12:43 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2006 8:26 AM Ben! has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 61 (339946)
08-14-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Ben!
08-14-2006 1:59 AM


Re: It has everything to do with the topic
You're really being sloppy here; we don't need to observe any creator creating life to come to such a scientific conclusion. We just need "overwhelming" evidence indicating that that happened.

Well, there's no such evidence that a creator even exists.

And my statement isn't sloppy. No model of abiogenesis will ever be accepted until it produces results under laboratory conditions. There isn't any other kind of evidence avaliable; we won't ever have fossils of the chemical precursors to life. That information is lost forever. Observation of experiment is the only potential evidence that could confirm or dismiss any abiogenic model.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Ben!, posted 08-14-2006 1:59 AM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Guido Arbia, posted 10-08-2006 6:30 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 44 of 61 (355129)
10-08-2006 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jimrlong.com
10-24-2005 7:40 PM


An interesting thing happens when you take the approximate number for the Creation of the Earth is 4.7 Billion Years ago and “homo sapiens” at between 130 - 195 Million Years Ago divided by the 5 days given in the Biblical account in Genesis 1, you get approximately 1 Billion Years and the fist life supposedly appeared 1 Billion Years after Earth Creation. So is 1 Billion Years God’s Day? To get a closer number one would need to know how those dates were arrived at and what margin of error they contain.

Dates except “homo sapiens” dates taken from Arizona University:

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html

The word for "Day" in genesis chapter 1 in hebrew is yom. Yom means one single day. This was also combined with the terms for "Evening and morning". If when Moses wrote genesis, he wanted to mean an age, he could have used a variety of different words.

He could have used Yamim, Qedem, or Olam, all of which would have implied an age, but instead he used the world Yom. (The o has a little thingy on top of it.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jimrlong.com, posted 10-24-2005 7:40 PM jimrlong.com has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Guido Arbia, posted 10-08-2006 6:26 AM Guido Arbia has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-08-2006 3:52 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded
 Message 48 by ReverendDG, posted 10-08-2006 4:05 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 45 of 61 (355130)
10-08-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Guido Arbia
10-08-2006 6:23 AM


We've never observed any Creator creating life. Therefore that conclusion is not a scientific one.

We've never observed macro-evolution. Therefore that belief is not a scientific one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Guido Arbia, posted 10-08-2006 6:23 AM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018