Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 7:32 PM
30 online now:
Admin (Percy), dwise1, jar, JonF, ramoss, ringo, Sarah Bellum, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,890 Year: 11,926/19,786 Month: 1,707/2,641 Week: 216/708 Day: 43/40 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

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


Message 2 of 85 (5692)
02-27-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
02-27-2002 4:57 AM


Great post Quetzal, thanx.....

Q)I was under the impression that one of the problems with The Biotic Soup Hypothesis of abogenesis was the low abundance of sugars produced and the lack of long chain fatty acids (in the Urey/Miller experiments). Has anything new cropped up that makes this less of a problem?


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 26 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2002 3:00 AM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 85 (5742)
02-27-2002 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Paul
02-27-2002 8:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
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?

An autocatalytic cycle......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Paul, posted 02-27-2002 8:07 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 9:33 PM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 85 (5748)
02-27-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
02-27-2002 9:33 PM


Try this in 1861 Butlerov described the formose reaction in which a solution of sugars and formaldehyde formed more sugars....

Given that one of the problems with the primordial soup theory is the low ammounts of ribose sugar formed in the Urey-Miller experiments and given that formaldehyde was produced in large quantities in those experiments this would allow an autocatalytic cycle that would bring the concentration up to the required levels.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 9:33 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 10:17 PM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 85 (5761)
02-28-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by TrueCreation
02-27-2002 10:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Try this in 1861 Butlerov described the formose reaction in which a solution of sugars and formaldehyde formed more sugars...."
formaldehyde is the most primative aldehyde, also, I think that it takes a bit more than sugars to get life started off, you must end up with enough cyclic reations to take place in an alotted time before your moledules tend to dissipate. You must have a phase in which there is replication, thus an evolutionary process.

DNA, RNA are Deoxyribonucleic acids and ribonucleuic acids, ribose is a sugar used in the formation of DNA and RNA, a logical consequence of this is that without a sufficient abundance of ribose DNA/RNA can`t be produced....

This means that by generating more ribose this autocatalytic cycle prepares the systen for abiogenesis....

The formaldehyde and the sugar form an auto catalytic cycle which produces more sugar (guess whats being replicated). I`m not saying that this AC cycle is the earliest form of life I`m saying that its the first replication needed to get to a state where abiogenesis could occur....

JPs question was what was the first replicator not the first biological replicator.....

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 10:17 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 85 (5763)
02-28-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by TrueCreation
02-27-2002 11:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I would have to calculate the probability of abiogenesis happening to the degree that is needed, ie, replication by transcription, not to mention all the 'cyclic reactions' needed in the life-time to construct a multe-macro-molecule with this ability within a suitable environment. 10^60,000+ is my best estimate, but hey, if you had eternity to work with I might reduce it to 10^90.

Interesting would you mind posting the mathematics behind your assertion of these probabilities? Or did you just assign them without doing the math?

Also you should note that probabilities take numerical values between 1 (100% occurence) and 0 (0% occurence) I think you may have meant 1 over the numbers you assigned (which were interestingly large by the way).....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 11:45 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 85 (5793)
02-28-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by TrueCreation
02-27-2002 11:45 PM


A little article here about calculating the probability of abiogenesis......

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html#Links

It discusses various problems with the "The probability of abiogenesis is X (where X is vanishingly small)" argument such as:

quote:
Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 11:45 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-28-2002 11:02 AM joz has responded
 Message 47 by Omega Red, posted 09-24-2003 6:29 AM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 85 (5808)
02-28-2002 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mister Pamboli
02-28-2002 11:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
quote:
Originally posted by joz:
I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

Cool - I look forward to that. Will you be covering the impossibility of calculating the probability of a singular event after the fact?


Sorry to disapoint you Mr P but the quote above is from the link I posted not me the rest of the article goes through the problems point by point.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-28-2002 11:02 AM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 85 (5813)
02-28-2002 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by TrueCreation
02-27-2002 6:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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.

I hate to mention this TC but apart from a small percentage of its volume the Earth still is a liquid molten mass.....

We still have an atmosphere...

Just a thought....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 02-27-2002 6:30 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Darwin Storm, posted 02-28-2002 7:46 PM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 85 (5894)
03-01-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Quetzal
03-01-2002 3:00 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
You still have major problems with concentration and getting the nucleic acids to line up properly[/b][/QUOTE]

Q/Doesn`t repeated drying and dillution (as would be experienced on a shoreline) of the biotic soup produce peptide bonded chains that exhibit limited self replication?

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-01-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2002 3:00 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 03-02-2002 4:31 AM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 85 (5899)
03-01-2002 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Quetzal
03-01-2002 4:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
My post is a synopsis of current research, and is part of a substantially longer essay I've been working on.

Any plans to post it here when its complete?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2002 4:11 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 03-02-2002 4:37 AM joz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019