Message 1 of 48 (496707) 01-30-2009 2:50 AM

The above mentioned scenario has no foothold in reality, and it certainly has never occured in some distant past especially under the blind guidance of mother nature it would take only a miracle to be able to produce such a mind-bending result.

The above conclusion was reached as a result of the following evidence. For a protobiont to have existed in the oceans of early earth it first had to resist the abrasive conditions of early earth, especially the continued exposure to intense UV radiation, and inescapable encounters with aggressive free radicals such as superoxides.

Radicals are formed as a result of ionisation, they are majorly unstable and are known to attack chemical bonds, in living matter they ricochet wildly and damage cells, they especially devastate cell walls fiddle with RNA as well as enzymes. In the context of early earth which did not have a protective ozone shield radicals must have been as commomn as water vapor iteslf, as such protobionts constantly crossed paths with radicals and were annihilated, their rudimentary membranes stood no chance plus unlike many animals living today they lacked defensive mechansisms like SOD that counters the effects of superoxides.

In the face of such voilent conditions how in the world did this structures survive, if prolonged sunlight exposure is also harmful to the complex cells of eukaryotes with SOD's and in the presence of an ozone layer how then can we even begin to suggest that somehow the protobionts survived and even had the time to evolve RNA and other complex carbon compounds. If you ask me something doesn't add up here.

Edited by Cedre, : Lack of evidence

Edited by Cedre, : edit title

Edited by Cedre, : edit title

Edited by AdminModulous, : Adding white space for readability

Message 2 of 48 (496709) 01-30-2009 3:11 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre 01-30-2009 2:50 AM

Welcome to EvC. It seems you want to discuss the Origin of Life! It is a fascinating topic. Could you provide a source for the particular hypothesis you wish to discuss, and provide a little more detail about what you think it entails as well as the problems you have identified.

That way, others will be better informed as to the nature of your position so that they will be able to correctly debate with you without people talking at cross-purposes.

Further, your thread title is not very descriptive. Most topics in the origin of life forum are either arguments for or against the abiogenetic origin of life. Have a look at Forum Origin of Life to see some ideas. Or perhaps there is an already existing debate there that you can join in on to get a feel for how debate proceeds at this site.

I hope you will enjoy your stay.

Mod

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines. Gotta set a good example.

Message 5 of 48 (496743) 01-30-2009 8:58 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre 01-30-2009 2:50 AM

As will doubtless be pointed out to you by many other posters, Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, nor do problems with such an origin speak to its validity at all.

None-the-less, I and most Scientists would agree that the origin of life occurred through natural process.

It certainly happened, there is no doubt about that, we know for certain that there was no life on Earth 4.6 billion years ago, and there was by 3.5 billion years ago (and probably by 4 billion). The only question is how?

And we don't know. In fact, we're unlikely to ever know; there just isn't sufficient preserved evidence. The best we can hope for is a series of hypothesises that are coherent and plausible and supported by solid lab science and theory.

You mention UV as a problem. My preferred hypothesis for the origins of life is around hydrothermal vents: they provide a good substrate for organic molecules to gather on, a source of suitable chemicals and the heat to form organic compounds from them. And, relevant to your, point: almost no UV energy reaches to the deep oceans.

Message 6 of 48 (496765) 01-30-2009 11:23 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre 01-30-2009 2:50 AM

I hope you enjoy it here.

As has already been mentioned by Mr Jack, please don't refer to origin-of-life issues as problems with the Theory of Evolution. The Origin of Life falls outside of the purview of the ToE, which only concerns itself with the change in already-existing populations over time.

-----

The "membranous droplet" is not currently hypothesized by any Origin-of-Life researchers to "develop RNA." Rather, most Origin-of-Life theories currently under consideration posit that the RNA and lipid membrane are distinct entities produced by separate environmental processes, and that their fates would become intertwined (along with a third entity---proteins) because of the mutual benefit they found in symbiosis.

And, as far as can be seen in life forms today, the cell could adequately be described as a community of symbiotic chemicals that have all carved out their own "niche" in a common environment (DNA would later outcompete RNA in some areas, thus causing RNA to shift its niche somewhat), in a manner analogous to the way ecosystems, machines and even human communities function.

-----

I would also like to point out the bacteria do not have any organelles, yet they still manage to produce RNA. So, the idea of a proto-organism making RNA without organelles is clearly not a problem, anyway.

Darwin loves you.

Message 7 of 48 (497263) 02-03-2009 7:18 AM

Reply to: Message 6 by Blue Jay 01-30-2009 11:23 AM

And we don't know. In fact, we're unlikely to ever know; there just isn't sufficient preserved evidence. The best we can hope for is a series of hypothesises that are coherent and plausible and supported by solid lab science and theory."

It turns out that the best Mr Jack and his colleagues can do and have been doing since 1882 is twiddle with a series of hypothesises. The question that must be asked after such a long period of time has passed is, have scientist ever regarded the likelihood that evolution as a theory may not be as probable as it is presumed by the larger science community? Have they (scientist) ever been plagued by the thought that they might perhaps be wasting expensive time and money trying hard to substantiate and sustain an untrue theory? They wouldn't dare ask such questions because the only alternative that remains afterwards for the cause of life on earth is God.

Mr Jack I fail to understand that in the face of such meager evidence to backup the notion of life emerging devoid of other living matter in vicinty from non-living matter how can you still make the claim;
"It (abiogenesis) certainly happened, there is no doubt about that, we know for certain that there was no life on Earth 4.6 billion years ago, and there was by 3.5 billion years ago (and probably by 4 billion)."

I must wonder is the scientific community afraid to admit the wrongness of this (abiogenesis) hypothesis, because the only other alternative is creation, so they deliberately mislead the masses and kill off their faith in a higher being. I don't know its just a thought.

Message 10 of 48 (497271) 02-03-2009 8:22 AM

Reply to: Message 9 by Cedre 02-03-2009 8:04 AM

You will get plenty, but it would no longer be on-topic in this thread (just like the rest of your message). You should read around a bit and you'll notice that you simply rehashed arguments that have been addressed and refuted, many many many many times before. Nothing new under the sun.

But back to the topic: if you want to disprove evolution by concentrating on our current incomplete understanding of the origin of life, then you are barking up the wrong tree! This disconnect between abiogenesis and evolution is not even a point of contention. The theory of evolution is built upon a variety of evidence that is totally independent of the actual first origin of life. Not a single piece of that evidence is affected whether life originated abiogenetically, whether it was planted by aliens, whether it rained down from space, whether God created it or whether this is all a big dream. The overal picture that leads to the idea of evolution (how the variety of life came about) remains the same regardless. Please calm down and think a minute about this before disagreeing.

Message 11 of 48 (497277) 02-03-2009 9:10 AM

Reply to: Message 9 by Cedre 02-03-2009 8:04 AM

I'd be happy to do so, provided you can tell me precisely what you mean by information. There are multiple different possible metrics for measuring information content, some of them are easily applicable to genetics and some are highly subjective and almost impossible to use meaningfully.

There are several informational metrics by which it is trivial to show examples of increasing information in the genome as a result of mutation and/or natural selection.

Indeed, this isn't how evolution or natural selection work. It has been observed that individuals descended from the same ancestral population may diverge into distinct species, even in experimental populations.

This is simply untrue. Nor is it true to say that only most mutations are harmful. Most mutations are neutral, they change the genetic composure of an organism in such a way as to have no effect on it at all. Either the occur in stretches of DNA where they have no functional effect, due to the region they occur having no functional significance or because the change in the DNA doe not cause any functional change in the gene/region it occurs in, in the case of non-synonymous mutations in protein coding genes they may simply exchange one amino acid for an equivalent amino acid having no functional effect on the protein product.

Harmful mutations certainly do outweigh beneficial mutations but to deny the existence of beneficial mutations requires ignoring a vast body of evidence, not to mention imposing some magical barrier for which there is no evidence to prevent certain specific mutations arising.

Winning the lottery? I admit there is an argument to be made against sudden wealth being generally beneficial but I think you get my point.

This is not true. The most obvious forms of cellular mutation to us, those leading to cancers are obvious precisely because they do this. This doesn't prevents every child from having roughly a hundred de novo mutations which distinguish them genetically from their parents but which do not cause them to become an uncontrollable cancerous growth.

Multiple lines of evidence from paleontology to comparative embryology and genetics.

TTFN,

WK

Message 12 of 48 (497281) 02-03-2009 9:29 AM

Reply to: Message 7 by Cedre 02-03-2009 7:18 AM

Firstly, I'm not a scientist, I did not mean to give that impression and I apologise for doing so.

1882 seems an odd date? Why 1882?

People have been refining and researching all areas of science for decades, some have shown remarkable success, others less so. None-the-less it is simply not true to say that origin-of-life research has not progressed in the last 127 years. At the very least the problems to be solved have been identified and, in fact, credible solutions to many of these problems have yet to be found.

I'm not sure what you see as meagre. We know, with a great degree of certainty life existed on Earth 3.5 billion years ago, and with even more than it exists now. Equally, we know the Earth to be 4.6 billion years ago. Clearly life cannot have existed on the Earth before it was formed, no?

Now if you don't have something at one time, and you do have something at another time, you can say - for certain - that something changed in between. For life, we call that change abiogenesis. That abiogenesis happened is not in question.

As Huntard points out we don't know, for certain, that life first emerged on Earth; it could have come from elsewhere (Panspermia), but Panspermia only pushes the problem to another place and time. Somewhere, somewhen the first living thing had to emerge.

Now, you may protest that we can't be certain that it emerged through naturalistic process. And you'd be right, without knowing how it happened we can't be certain. However, there is a name for finding something and assuming Goddidit - the God of the Gaps. It's not a compliment.

Message 13 of 48 (497283) 02-03-2009 9:33 AM

Reply to: Message 11 by Wounded King 02-03-2009 9:10 AM

We will talk again later.

Message 14 of 48 (497290) 02-03-2009 9:56 AM

Reply to: Message 13 by Cedre 02-03-2009 9:33 AM

Would you be prepared to discuss mutation on another thread? Or would you continue to make vague statements saying that my arguments are wrong but not giving any details. Then again, if your arguments are just going to be cut and pasted from answers in genesis it wouldn't actually be a discussion.

If you are prepared to make your own arguments in your own words, preferably with some actual evidence involved, let me know and I'll start a new thread.

TTFN,

WK

Message 15 of 48 (497292) 02-03-2009 10:41 AM

Reply to: Message 7 by Cedre 02-03-2009 7:18 AM

As paranoid fantasies go, this one is somewhat vitiated by the fact that a large proportion of scientists have faith in God.

However, being scientists, they believe in a God who created this universe, the one we actually live in and which is revealed to us by scientific inquiry, rather than in the silly universe that exists only in the imaginations of creationists.