Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-30-2014 6:54 PM
73 online now:
Cat Sci, GDR, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ramoss, Taq (7 members, 66 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,015 Year: 24,856/28,606 Month: 2,157/1,786 Week: 372/647 Day: 56/51 Hour: 4/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abiogenesis - Or Better Living Through Chemistry
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 85 (5727)
02-27-2002 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
02-27-2002 4:57 AM


quote:
Quetzal:
Conclusion

Regardless of which of the above hypotheses ultimately leads to the creation of self-sustaining biomolecules, all show that life is merely an inherent property of chemical reactions. Any time conditions are appropriate, life (as we know it) should arise. And once we get self-replicating molecules, evolution (heritable variation, random mutation, and natural selection) + time are sufficient to explain the amazing diversity of modern life.

Science has yet to provide evidence for any of these hypotheses beyond reasonable doubt. But since all are “brand new” ideas, the only thing lacking is time… Stay tuned!


John Paul:

quote:

It was concluded in the 1960s that the earth's primitive atmosphere was derived from volcanic outgassing, and consisted of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and trace amounts of hydrogen. With most of the hydrogen being lost to space, there would be nothing to reduce the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, so methane and ammonia could not have been major constituents of the early atmosphere.

The only reason people cling to the reducing atmosphere hypothesis is because it offers the best hope. The rocks don't substantiate that claim though.

We also have no evidence that DNA can form anywhere outside of a living cell, and the cell itself represents IC (irreducible complexity):

Unraveling the DNA Myth

It looks like only life can beget life.

The thing is, these days we can take and mix amino acids at will and in differing environments. Guess what? Nothing resembling the start of life, just a bunch of stirred up amino acids in a flask.

Life isn't just about chemical reactions. How long is it going to take before you realize that?

Approaching Biology from a Different Angle

I do find this all interesting and I hope the research continues, privately funded of course. Proving all these purely natural scenarios (for the origins of life) may be the only way to get people focused on how we really got here.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 02-27-2002 4:57 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 6:30 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 02-27-2002 7:41 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 27 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2002 3:33 AM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2002 3:49 AM John Paul has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 85 (5734)
02-27-2002 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by TrueCreation
02-27-2002 6:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Thought I would reply to this bit that caught my eye, by the way, did you write all of that, or is it an outside article?

"It was concluded in the 1960s that the earth's primitive atmosphere was derived from volcanic outgassing, and consisted of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and trace amounts of hydrogen. With most of the hydrogen being lost to space, there would be nothing to reduce the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, so methane and ammonia could not have been major constituents of the early atmosphere."

--I found it as a bit of a 'possible', inconsistancy with the process of geologic and volcanic cycles within marine geology. Knowing this cycle, gases being volatiles are I believe produced as a consequence of subduction, a basic plate-tectonic phenomenon. Being of such an origin, I would wonder what came first, the atmosphere, or the oceans? Seeing that this process is what it seems is required for an atmosphere to be created, thereby requireing an ocean. Or am I wrong on gases in the earths asthenospheric mantle. Also, if this is the process that is required for gases to be an origination from volcano's, the genesis of the earth itself in the Solar system's evolution may be flawed. That is, the theory that the Earth was once a molten mass. If the earth ever was a liquid molten mass, gasses would easilly escape out of the earth, viscosity being of a much higher magnitude. Anyways, this is just a thought.


John Paul:
Ahh shoot! I remembered to put in in the 'quote' box but I forgot to cite it. Thanks True Creation and my apologies to the board. I took that out of Icons of Evolution pages 19-20 and it was NOT of my origin.

But anyway- volcanic outgassing is a very popular model for the Earth's primative atmosphere. That is in the Nebula hypothesis model of Earth's origins.

Do I agree with it- outgassing forming our alleged primative atmosphere or the nebula hypothesis- No.

You do bring up a valid point. Hopefully it will be discussed.

Again my apologies for not citing the quote.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 6:30 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 9:28 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 85 (5738)
02-27-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
02-27-2002 7:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:

Can you show it's anything more than that? It'll probably take as long as it takes you to show it, JP, before I "realise" it.

Also, no one's saying DNA was the original self replicating molecule.

Mark


John Paul:
Life begets life. That is all but proven. The more we look at life the more we realize how IC it is. The black box has been opened, no longer can we ignore the contents or what they tell us.

Also it is obvious that DNA wasn't the first self-replicating molecule. It is also obvious it wasn't RNA. So what do you suggest?

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 02-27-2002 7:41 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-27-2002 8:26 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 02-27-2002 8:35 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 10 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 9:02 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014