New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02

quote
-----------------------------------------------------------
cell came first and was later filled with living molecules.
-----------------------------------------------------------Interesting idea, but where did the living molecules come from? The entire cell is alive. Even the outer membrane, the cellular wall, is a complex system of ion pumps, chlorine gates, and ID tags. How could this have evolved?

That's true John, good point :-) . But just think of the intricate machinary of the cell. You have power plants, garbage disposal systems, protein factories, ER, messenger cells, transportation systems, and much more. It seems fairly unlikely that all these would combine together in just the right way to create the cellular life. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. ;-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

Very little of which you actually need... at least is the form it currently exists.

​

Open the hood of your car. Half of what is in there isn't necessary. That is, an engine can be built without many of those components or with more simple versions of some components. You have to think about such possibilities when you think about cell origins and complexity.

---

True, but those components are in the car for a purpose. They aren't in there to look good. If you remove them, the car will not be as efficient. The cell is far more complex then the car engine though. Remove the ribosomes, and no more protein is manufactured. Remove the ER, and there is no base for the ribosomes to rest on. Remove the cytoskeleton, and the cell cannot transport proteins. Remove the golgi complex, and no proteins can be packaged for transport. Remove the lysomes, and proteins cannot be recycled. Remove the cell membrane, and the cell ceases to exist. All of these components had to be there at once for the cell to function correctlly.{Fixed quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-16-2003]

Good point about the Prokaryotes John. But if the first cell was so simple, how did it evolve into a more complex cell? Evolution needs a lot of genetic information, which does not seem to arise by natural processes. Also, how did the RNA arise? You mentioned that it would not matter if a car was less efficient and that the first cars were quite simple. True, but intelligent design --in the form of people--designed more complex and more efficient cars. The simple cars didn't evolve into more complex models. Also, a less efficient cell or organism would be eliminated by natural selection, survival of the fittest. Hope I got this all right. ;-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

​

There is no clear answer to this right now, but there are answers to how some of the parts may have arose. Chloroplasts, for example, look to have been seperate organisms that developed a symbiotic relationship with another organism and eventually lost its ability to survive and reproduce outside its symbiotic partner. Mitochondria are the same. Look up endosymbiont theory.

---

There are many problems with the endosymbiont theory. A good look at them is found at http://aig.gospelcom.net/docs2/4341_endosymbiont.asp Hope this helps. :-)

Here is another website about the issue. The endosymboint theory seems to state that prokaryotes were ingested by other species to form eukaryotic cells. Am I right? ;-)http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/...te/articles/eukary.html

===================================
everyone takes endosymbiosis seriously
===================================This is a sweeping claim. Not everybody excepts the endosymbiosis theory at all. Some biochemists like Behe disagree with it.=============================================
The first organisms were extremely simple--microscopic droplets of water containing a few genes and enzymes surrounded by a membrane.
=============================================Wait, this doesn't explain "how" the first organisms evolved! Genes are composed of highly complex DNA, which cannot be "evolved" step by step. Any little error in the DNA, and the cell is damaged or destroyed. Also, where did the DNA come from?=============================================
Although such a scenario may seem far-fetched, we know that similar partnerships exist today. For example, the unusual ciliate Paramecium bursaria is host to many unicellular green algae in the genus Chlorella.
=============================================I agree, it does seem far-fetched. The paramecium bursaria is just an example of symbiosis occuring today. the organism is not evolving into another complex organism. The algae is just living inside the paramecium, just as bacteria lives in humans. Also, this doesn't explain how the paramecium could swallow another cell, and become more complex.A Prokaryotic cell is not as simple as most people think however. All cellular life has to contain the following characteristics.All cells have a CELL MEMBRANE that separates the CHAOS outside a cell from the high degree of organization within the cell. A cell without a cell membrane is not a cell.All cellular life contains DNA as its genetic material. All cells contain several varieties of RNA molecules and PROTEINS, most of the latter are enzymes.All cells are composed of the same basic chemicals: carbohydrates, proteins, nucleic acids, minerals, fats and vitamins.All cells regulate the flow of nutrients and wastes that enter and leave the cell.All cells reproduce and are the result of reproduction.All cells require a supply of energy .All cells are highly regulated by elaborate sensing systems (chemical "noses") that allow them to be aware of every reaction that is occurring within them and many of the environmental conditions around them; this information is continually PROCESSED to make metabolic decisions.These are just the minimal requirements for life! Anyway, hope this helps. ;-)

I'm sorry if I was confusing John. I should have indicated where I got the quotes from. Again, sorry :-).
======================================================
DNA is nothing but atoms held together by chemical bonds. What do you mean where did it come from?
======================================================Again, I should have been more clear. I was in a hurry when I wrote the post. DNA is comprised of an enormous amount of bases. The bases must pair up with each other in a precise way. If they do not, the cell is defective, and would be eliminated by natural selection, the survival of the fittest. It is unlikely that natural processes, through trial and error matched up the bases. Say that some bases DID form in the "early earth". If they paired up incorrectly, then the cell is defective, and the process must begin again.===============================
the host cell contains enzymes that would break down the symbiont-- ie. digest it. This is clearly false. We have a living example, which I provided.
==============================Did I say this? I forget.========================
Which is just what the endosymbiont theory proposes. How is this a problem?
========================Well, bacteria in our bodies doesn't mean that we're evolving into another species. It just means that the bacteria is using us for a host. The alge is in the same position. It is living inside the other cell. This is an example of symbiosis, not the endosymbiont theory. There is quite a difference between the example of one cell swallowing another and becoming more complex, and the example of a cell swallowing some algae.===========================
But what is the point? With your list of cell requirements you are making the same mistake you first made, which is to assume that early life worked like modern life. The assumption is not justifiable.
==========================But how can we prove that "early life" was different?Anyway, the big problem is not if a Prokaryotic cell could swallow another prokaryotic cell and become more complex. The big issue is where did the first prokaryotic cells come from? How did they evolve. Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory.

=====================
are you sure he disagrees with it?
=====================On page 189 of "Darwin's Black Box", Behe writes, "...Can symbiosis explain the origin of complex biochemical systems? Clearly it cannot... Neither Margulis not anyone else has offered a detailed explanation of how the preexisting cells originated."This is the big problem with the theory.[This message has been edited by thousands_not_billions, 01-13-2003]

Here is the full quote."...Can symbiosis explain the origin of complex biochemical systems? Clearly it cannot. The essence of symbiosis is the joining of two separate cells or two separate systems, both of which are already functioning. In the mitochondrion scenario, one preexisting viable cell entered a symbiotic relationship with another such cell. Neither Margulis not anyone else has offered a detailed explanation of how the preexisting cells originated."================================
Falsifications of theory stem from evidence, not lack of evidence. The difficulty of the puzzle of abiogenesis stems from lack of evidence, not from the presence of falsifying evidence. You have no evidence supporting your claim of a "big problem with the theory."
================================
But is their even evidence that we have not discovered that proves abiogenesis. You can't claim that the evidence does exist somewhere, as it might not. What I am saying is that where did the first cells come from. How did the chemicals automatically join themselves in the precise way, how did the complexity of even a prokariotic cell evolve? Even prokaryotes have DNA in the nucleoid. And DNA is so precise, that it is hard to believe that it evolved naturally.

==========================
hmmmm... I don't think the pairing up is much of a problem. They snap together like lego.
==========================Not quite as simple :-). True, the bases snap together, but if the wrong bases snap together, this causes all sorts of problems. There are four bases in DNA; cyosine, Adenine, guanine, and thymine. The adenine pairs up with the cyosine, and guanine pairs up with thymine. At least I think that's the way it goes. If the bases get out of wack, then the cell is mutated.==================================
more like RNA which is not a paired base molecule.
==================================True. But RNA is complex as well. It has all the bases of DNA, but has uracil instead of thymine. But, RNA, is transcribed from DNA, which means that DNA had to come first.==================================
It isn't matching the bases. In all sincerity, you aren't going to be able to make much of an argument until you up your basic knowledge of this sort of thing.
==================================I understand that my knowledge of biochemistry is fairly limited. I am 16 and have just finished the first year of biology, so I don't know everything. I signed up on the forums to engage in scientific discussion and to learn some things about science. Please bear with any scientific mistakes I make. I'm still learning. ;-)=======================
You wouldn't start with cells, just bare molecules that happen to replicate themselves. It may sound strange but some molecules do replicate themselves.
=======================But where did the chemicals come from to form molecules. And wouldn't any molecules that did start to form in the "early earth" be destroyed by the harsh conditions?=========================
I don't know that we can right now. We may never be able to prove it. But to insist that things 4 billion years ago are exactly what they are today is still unjustifiable. You are basically claiming that cells are the bottom line when in fact we don't know what the bottom line is.
=========================Which means that we probably never will know. I don't believe that things were the same 4 billion years ago, as I don't believe in the 4 billion years. I believe that things were the same 6000 years ago at Creation.===============================
Just curious, do you insist that everything be answered scientifically before you believe it?
===============================I want to have scientific evidence for most things. Some things I have to accept by faith, like Creation, which cannot be proven by science. But neither can evolution be proven by science.To clear up any missunderstanding, I have outlined by objections to the endosymbinot theory.I: How did the first prokaryotic cellular life form to swallow other cellular life?II: How did the DNA in the first prokaryote form?III: If a prokaryote ate another prokaryote, how could the internal prokaryote develop into mitochondria etc.?IV: The theory states that genomes from the captured prokaryote traveled to the nucleus which was formed by the captured prokaryote. How could they enter the nucleus, when only RNA can travel out through the nucleus and DNA cannot travel in?V: The host cell would destroy any DNA which would be passed to it from the host cell. Bacteria contain enzymes which destroy DNA.

====================
The wrong bases can't snap together due to the bonding properties of the chemicals involved. Maybe you are talking about REPLICATION? Copying errors can and do occur during replication. This is not a base pairing problem. It involves much more complicated sequences of reactions.================Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember from Biology that they said that a mutation was caused by the incorrect bases matching up during replication.=========================
Exploding stars for the most part. Fusion reactions synthesize the heavier elements from lighter elements.
=========================Where did the matter come from to form the stars?============================
The whole planet is made of molecules, but you mean organic molecules, yes? The snippy answer is "obviously those molecules were not destroyed as we are here talking about it." The more detailed answer is that we don't know what the conditions were nor do we know what the first molecules were, so making a pronouncement of what they could or could not endure is impossible.
==============================
Yea, organic molecules. It's easy to say that "we're here, so molecules were not destroyed. But consider that we're here because of Special Creation?=============================
Stick around. There are more holes in that theory than you can imagine.
============================Hmm. What holes?===============================
As I suspected. Don't you feel a sinking feeling in your gut when you demand other people provide evidence but accept your own ideas uncritically?
===============================I knew this was coming ;-) But a lot of evidence points to a young earth and creation. Much more then the "evidence" that points to evolution. But evolution is passed off as science. Science is testable, and has evidence pointing to it. Evolution has neither. Evolution is unproven scientifically. Both creation and evolution have to be accepted by faith, as nobody was there to see the first organic molecules form or to see God create. I can be sure of creation, as that's what God's word the Bible says.=====================
How did a lump of dirt manage to grow internal organs?
=====================Easy. It didn't. ;-)====================
Viruses manage this all the time. You, in fact, carry viral and bacterial genes that have been passed along parent to child for who knows how long.But such transfers of DNA happen quite frequently. This has been documented. Viruses manage it. Bacteria trade genes all the time even between species and genera. You may object, but it happens nontheless.
=========================No, I don't object that viruses and bacteria exchange DNA. But viruses have special ID tags that fool the cell into accepting them. Once inside, they reprogram the cells internal structure. And bacteria do swap nuclear material in a form of sexual reproducation. But the DNA is from both bacteria of the same kind, and so is not destroyed. Anyway, that's my two cents.

==============
Like I said, it is the order of the bases not the pairing.
=============But they have to pair up in the correct order. ;-)==================
From energy. e=mc Where did the energy come from? I don't really know.
==================
I don't think that anybody really knows. That's what the superstring theory is working on I think.=================
Which myth? There are thousands.
=================For one thing, the only "myth" is evolution. I believe the Biblical account of Creation.
a: God created in 6 ordinary 24 hour days
b: Noah's flood was an actual global event.====================
There are tree ring sequences reaching back 9000 years
==================
Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis ===============
Radiometric dating gives 4.5 or so billion years
===============
Radiometric dating is flawed! We have no way of knowing how much of an iosotope was in a mineral to begin with. That's just a guess, which can easily be wrong.
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis
After Mt. St. Helens erruption, they did some tests on a block of volcanic rock and guess what? The results were that the rock was about 1,000,000 years old! The erruption only occured 23 ago.==================
There is a varve sequence in Japan dating back 40,000 years.
==================Again, if dating is wrong, then the dates are wrong!===============
Bits and pieces of the continents show signs of having been in contact. Given the rates of movement we can estimate when they were connected. This points to millions of years of movement, not thousands of years.
===============During the flood, rapid subduction carried the continents apart.RUNAWAY SUBDUCTION AS THE DRIVING MECHANISM FOR THE GENESIS FLOOD | The Institute for Creation Research (technical) Missing Link | Answers in Genesis ==================
6000 years ago there were millions of humans, not two.
==================Evidence?================
5000 years ago we see the rise of civilization in Sumer. They didn't notice the flood.
================Ancient chronologies are often out, sometimes by 1000 years.=================
Such as? I have yet to see anything remotely convincing.
=================There's plenty, if you look for it. Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis ===================
You mean better than observed speciation many times over?
===================Rapid speciation is part of the Creationist model as well! No Creationist denies speciation. It is not evolution.===================
There is a reason most biologists accept evolution. That reason is that there is overwhelming evidence for the theory.
===================You can't see evidence for a young world. I really can't see evidence for evolution.===================
Interesting. Did anyone see God write the Bible? Did anyone see creation?
==================God wrote the Bible by inspiring great and holy men of old, who wrote as they were directed by Him. Neither Creation or evolution can be proven scientifically, though evolution can be disproven scientifically. Please note however, that science can prove a young earth.==============
You need to read your Bible.
===============I do. Every day. The dirt had no power in itself to become life. Life was created when God breathed into man, which he had created, and "man became a living soul".===============
So you accept that it can happen now, but do not accept that it could happen in the past? This makes no sense.
===============No please. What I am pointing out is that viruses can inject DNA into other cells, as they have ID tags to fool the cell into taking them. The first prokaryote did not have these.Also, a group of protists, the Archezoa, have no mitochondria. But they have genes that code for mitochondrial proteins. The diversity of mitochondrial genes among the eukaryotes, would imply that endosymbiosis occured more then once, making it even more improbable.==========================
And what is this about DNA being destroyed?
==========================Forign DNA in an organism is destroyed.

Dear John.First. I would like to clear up any ill feelings that might have been created. This is my first debate, and I am liable to make mistakes. But everybody does while learning. If you think that I am coming across from a arrogant position, please inform me of this, and I will try and correct this. Please accept my apologies if this is the case. I don't know everything about creation/evolution, but I am learning. That is why I signed up to these forums.=====================
Superstring theory is an attempt to rectify the incompatibilities between quantum theory and relativity.
=====================Right mate. It is. But the string theory is used to try and explain the big bang isn't it? Please correct me if I am wrong.===============
So the Vedas do not contain myths? Or the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Wow.....
===============I should have been more specific. I was not talking about the old pagan legands. I was talking about the creation/evolution issue. The only myth there is evolution. Of course, I believe that the Book of the Dead, and Gilgamesh are myths. ==================
Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory.
==================True. I did say that. But let me explain. First, Neither Creation or Evolution can be proved by science, as no body was there to see it happen. I believe that the evidence points towards a young earth, suggesting the Biblical account of Creation. But I cannot prove that Creation occured scientifically. Some things have to be accepted by faith. Evolution is classed as "science". For my scientific knowledge, I like to have evidence. Both of us accept some things by faith. In fact, everybody does.=======================
And it left no evidence at all. You can't be serious.
=======================I am serious. Features like coal beds, and the Grand Canyon are evidence of a world wide Flood. Also, reading secular geological texts gives me the impression that they say that many landforms were formed by water. They offer other explanations, but couldn't it have been water from Noah's flood?====================
Why do you think I care about AIGs statement of faith? It tells me they are apologists not scientists. Why does this help your case?
====================I'm so sorry John. I posted the wrong link Forgive me. Here's the link
Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis But that brings up apologists. Why can't a scientist be an apologist and a scientist? Newton was both.======================
You must mean that you are guessing about how the process works. Yes, that could easily be wrong.Here, learn something.
======================Interesting article. I'll read it all. But here are some articles that might help to answer some questions Radiometric Dating | Answers in Genesis ====================
Do you know what a varve is? It is a predictable layering of sediment. You count the layers and you get years.
====================Yes. They say that the Green River valves take one year each to form, and there are thousands of valves there, so that disproves young earth. But in the Flood, millions of tons of sediment was scraped and layed down all over the earth. This can explain the layers.=========================
There is no known mechanism that could generate this much power
=========================The Flood====================
2) The enormous energy released to do this would bake the planet many times over.
====================Intense volcanic activity could provide the mechanism for propelling the continents.===================
Egypt. Sumer. China. The Olmec. The evidence that there were millions of us is that there are massive civilizations and near civilizations all over the globe around 6000 years ago. It isn't hard to figure out.
===================Sure these cultures existed. But as I said, ancient dates are often way out, sometimes by thousands of years.===================
Meaning what? The Sumerians were around 5000 years ago. What was out by a thousand years?
===================The 5000 years. Maybe the dates were out by more then thousands of years.================
And it is all non-sense. Do you think I am unaware of AIG?
===============Not for a moment did I think that. AiG is well known. But in what way is it nonsense?=================
So one species can 'speciate' into several but this isn't evolution? LOL.....
=================No, this is not evolution. New species can, and do, arise. But what we need is evidence of one species evolving through millions of years into a new, advanced organism. Like a dinosaur evoluting into a bird.=====================
Yes, it could be disproven but it hasn't been in over 150 years. Why do you think that is?
=====================In my opinion, it has been disproved many times.=====================
So magic is an OK explaination? What happened to:
=====================Like I said. Science cannot explain origins. Creationists themselves say that you cannot prove Creation, but you can see great evidence pointing to it. I can't run a test and say. "Look, that proves Creation" but I can look at the world and say "Look, this proves a young earth and that implies Creation".=====================
And you know what these prokaryotes had? Maybe you could share with us? Basically, you've just made this up. Fess up.
=====================Well. The prokaryotes did not have ID tags. This is just logical reasoning. I did make this up, but it makes sense. Viruses infect by fooling the cell into taking them in. But if the prokaryotes did not have the ID tags, then the cell would reject them.==================
Your source? It would be a lot easier if you would cite some sources.
==================Private email from Dr. Jay Wile.================
Numerous organelles were aquired this way.
================But if it is hard to accept it happening once, which it is, then it is much harder accepting it happening dozens of times.====================
You have been shown that this is not always true
====================Perhaps you were refering to what you said earlier================
Are not modern symbionts and parasites successful at avoiding the immune systems of the hosts?
================They are, as they ID tags confuse the cell.Anyway John, I hope that this thread will not create any hard feeling between us. I am here to learn and to take advice. ------------------
Now Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen.

=================
Yes, of course it gave a weird date. This also is touched upon in the article I gave you.
=================Mount Saint Helens is not the only example of potassium argon dating errors. Here are a few more.a: Basalt Lava Flow in Hawaii formed back around 1800 dated at 1.6 plus or minus 0.16 million years old.b: Mt. Etna basalt. Formed in 1792. Dated at 0.25 plus or minus 0.08 million years old.c: Mt. Lassen plagioclase. Formed in 1915. Dated at 0.11 plus or minus 0.3 million years old.d: Sunset Crater basalt. Formed 1064 to 1065. Dated at 0.27 plus or minus 0.9 million years.