what was the origin of the tiny machinery that was necessary to produce the first cells and where does/did nature make such tools/machinery?
Nice video. Here's another as one potential answer to your question:
The way you make the incredible machinery of the modern cell is with slightly less complex machinery in slightly older cells, all the way back to the very simple machinery of the oldest cells. Sort of obvious really...
Friend: "With what?" Evolutionist: "With rocks that I will use as hammers..."
The world/universe could not create itself because of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Incorrect - 1LoT is simply an observation of the effect of the principles of statistical mechanics acting in a flat background space-time. They, and the 1LoT are inapplicable in the form you are implying in the region of the T=0 point in Big Bang cosmology space-time.
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed
Incorrect - matter is being created and destroyed at every point of the Universe every moment of time.
We know of nothing in natural world that can create matter
Incorrect - matter fields are constantly creating and destroying quanta of matter. See above.
and no one has ever observed matter being created.
Incorrect - we see this process every day in the particle accelerators in use around the world.
You may be thinking of energy?
Therefore its creation had to be supernatural.
Nope...
Apologies for the OT reply - back to the topic at hand
the author failed to explain the origin of the necessary DNA machinery
I don't think "failed" as that was not his intent. Perhaps we could follow on from his work and look at potential pathways that could lead to the DNA machinery. But first, I take it that you agree that self-replicating protocells could arise in this manner?
We are talking about a firmly established law of science that tells us that matter cannot be created
Could you please then explain the processes of pair creation and pair annihilation? That is where two photons (not matter) combine to create an electron and a positron (both matter), and the reverse process where two particles of matter annihilate to give two photons (commonly referred to as matter/anti-matter annihilation)
You cannot postulate something that you have never observed, nor is testable (the 'Big Bang') against a law that has been repeatedly tested and observed countless times and conclude that 'it isn't applicable'.
Actually, I can It's quite simple to do this when one actually understands the physics behind both statistical mechanics and general relativity.
We've already seen that, in the video we showed you. The question is, can we progress from the rudimentary genetic material of the protocell to RNA/DNA?
"The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed". Wikipedia.
"The Laws of Thermodynamics First law: Energy is conserved; it can be neither created nor destroyed." Purdue University science.
Now how many sources do I have to quote before you realize that you are in error and matter is NOT created anywhere
finding some that say "matter" might help your cause
And just so you know, not even energy is conserved in all cases - but that's a topic for bigger boys...
Not only so but the terminology 'pair creation' is innacurate.
Oh thank Allah for Christians who can show us physicists where we're going wrong
You're a hoot
Edited by cavediver, : You'd think I could spell physicist
at this stage we're more interested in looking at plausibility. Can we agree that we have a workable model of how protocells could have developed in the early earth?
and no scientist has been able to produce the effect in the lab. Therefore the only option left is a supernatural creation of the cell in operable order.
By when did scientists have to produce life in a lab before supernatural creation became the only option left? Was it 50 years ago, 10 years ago, or just yesterday?
In the same way, how long did primative culture have to come up with an explanation for lightning, before supernatural act became the only option left?
The You Tube production was guesswork. No one knows what the supposed first living cell was like or even if it was a eukaryote or a prokaryote.
So, IF we have a scientifically plausible scenario for the creation of the first proto-cells, and potential pathways as to how those proto-cells became the first cells - BUT, we have no proof as to whether this scenario is actually true, THEN is a supernatural creation still the only real option?
Have a nice time posting to the other board members, professor.
Given that you have ignored every difficult question posed to you, it's not going to make much difference You're really not doing any better than in your other thread are you?
None of which even comes close to replicating proteins for life.
Huh? What do you think those polymers are? They are the proto-proteins. And in the video, you can see the early mechanism for replication. The amazing thing is that the early polymers were just random chemicals with no relation to the lipid vesicles that contained them. But evolution kicks in even at this exceptionally early stage, and "useful" polymers, from the perspective of replicating vesicles, simply dominate. Mind-blowing in its simplicity and implication.
The question I'm always asking myself though is this one: Why don't we found any of those proto-cells like that in our oceans ?
It's quite possible that it does happen, but you have to remember that these locations are already teaming with unicellular life, and anything and everything is regarded as food! The one thing that abiogenesis had going for it was the complete lack of active predators
Now, I'm no chemist, but it is also entirely possible that the environmental conditions that were favourable for the development of the lipid vesicles (pH, minerals, organic content, gas concentrations, etc) are not now generally observed - owing to both the vastly different atmospheric conditions, and the post-abiogenetic abundance of life.
at this stage we're more interested in looking at plausibility. Can we agree that we have a workable model of how protocells could have developed in the early earth?
How does the above question score a message rating of 2???
It's a good job that rating is anonymous 'cos I'd hate to look THAT stupid...
™ Version 4.1
(1)
It's quite simple to do this when one actually understands the physics behind both statistical mechanics and general relativity.
You're really not doing any better than in your other thread are you?