AgentOfAllah: You're being very kind to suggest DoctorAlien argues irrationally. That bloke doesn't argue at all, he just copies and pastes a gallimaufry of nonsensical sentences with scientific sounding words from creationist websites for bamboozling effect. It does help to focus on a specific objection of his. Although, this is difficult to do with him in particular, because he tries to inundate you with multiple copy-paste arguments so that you give in out of exasperation. I believe it's called Gish galloping. People with depth don't need to ask a million questions, they just need to ask one that devastates your whole argument.
I do admire your persistence though, and you have done a great deal to expose his shallowness. Alas, in typical DoctorAlien fashion, he's perfectly happy to dwell on the pedantic and spray you with more verbose nonsense, without even attempting to falsify your previous counterarguments.
I would ask you not to waste your time, but seeing that I am also learning from your posts, I will selfishly keep mum!
I discovered he probably does not know science or he is just turning it upside down. But then again, he might not have even read the piece he is even copying and pasting. It seems you have a history with him, as a matter of fact, this is my first time of engaging him. But am I even engaging him at all, or I am engaging the copied articles?
I was dazed that he asked if a cup evolved from a bucket, can you just imagine that level of ignorance? I am too old for his intelligence quotient level.
DoctorAlien: Where did God say He "created other animals differently from man"? Quote that verse and tell me what God meant by saying that He created other animals differently from man.
Read your Bible very well, stop denying the obvious. Although, the bible was written by man. God cannot talk, he does not even exist, albeit saying things. But according to the Bible, God created only man in his image, he didn't claim he created all animals in his image. That alone is a fact that shows that creation is twice as stupid as stupid itself.
DoctorAlien: You ignorant fellow: have you seen God to know that we look more like chimpanzees more than we look like God?
Ignorant? Lol, There's nothing we will not see on Nairaland. So an ignoramus can also call intellectuals ignorant? Wow.
Of course, we cannot see the god that created the physical universe. Can we? Lol
God must look like Chimpanzees, and that's what we are saying. You cannot tell us what we can't see exists. At least we have seen Chimpanzees and we have seen the resemblance. Let your god show himself to prove us wrong.
DoctorAlien: Who even told you that the statement that man was created in God's own image means that man physically resembles God? God is not a physical Being, but a Spirit. Why do you exude this amount of ignorance?
When God created man, it was said that he molded clay and made a physical man, after saying let us create a man in our own image.
God didn't create a spirit man, he created a physical, although it is a lie, but for the sake of argument let's assume it happened.
I bet you are confused and you are trying to twist things in your head again, go on I'm watching.
Ignorance simply means lack of knowledge, and knowledge means all the information, and facts learned.
Now you have conceded that god is a spirit and we cannot see him, so tell me how a spirit can carry sand or wave its hand.
Tell me the facts you have that a spirit exist, and let the whole Nairaland see who is exuding ignorance here.
DoctorAlien: Possibility, if, could have been. Very convincing.
The only observed "organism" that has an RNA-based genome is the RNA virus, and viruses are not really considered living/alive. I wonder what your proof of your claim that RNA could code for life is.
That a bucket can hold water better than a cup does not mean that a cup slowly evolved by natural processes into a bucket. Nor does it mean that the cup came before the bucket. Why would anybody assert same in the case of RNA and DNA?
Viruses are not considered dead either. As a matter of fact, that is another fact that RNA world existed in times past.
It all depends on the environmental conditions available. When viruses invade a living system they become living organisms by carrying out replication and other characteristics of life. This alone gives the possibility of RNA life, and it remains undisputed.
You are going straw man again by comparing non-living things to living things when evolution is concerned.
Let me ask you, sir, how do you do it? How do you decide to argue unintellectually? It bemuses me that you cannot see what's before you. How can you even comprehend a bucket and a cup as beings who can evolve? Your ignorance is legendary sir.
In light of this obvious and amusing ignorance, I come to the conclusion that you are not really worthy of intelligent discussion.
I would be wasting my time going back and forth with you, every part of science you have quoted are not even understood by you. You don't even argue rationally.
One thing that describes stress in this life is arguing/discussing with people who don't know what they are doing.
When you asserted that water makes proteins fall apart was when I noticed I may be having an intellectual intercourse with novice, you further confirmed it when you repeated it.
Let me clear this once and for all for the sake of people who want to learn.
A reaction that eliminates water can proceed forward in the presence of water. Such reaction is an acid and a base reaction. Both acids and bases are always in aqueous solutions. That is the molecules in water, when they react they still produce salt and water. That is if the total volume of water is 10cm3 before the reaction it increases to eg 15cm3 after the reaction.
The same thing goes for the polymerization of amino acids. It proceeds forward in the presence of water.
This is accounted for by the solubility property of proteins. For goodness sake proteins are soluble, and proteins don't break up into amino acids when they are in water as stated by the pseudo-scientist I am discussing with.
If proteins are not soluble, then we are dead. It is very clear that theists are turning science upside down to prove that their imaginary friend and sky daddy exists. They have failed woefully.
DoctorAlien: That some similarity exists when certain aspects of life forms are compared is obvious. The question is: ‘Does the similarity that exists prove that one structure evolved into another and, ultimately, that the complex evolved from the simple?’ The simplest and most obvious explanation for the fact that morphological similarities between bones, sensory organs, lungs, or gills exist among most higher animals is that the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs.
One who reads your "copied" articles will understand vividly that you and the author are lost on the topic of evolution. Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics from one generation to another. Yes, the structures evolved from simple to complex and not otherwise. You have stated logical fallacy in your argument. People like you might never know, by propagating pseudoscience and misleading the unsuspecting.
According to creation, god said he has created other animals differently from man which was created in his own image. We seem to look more like Chimpanzees than we look like God. Homology hence debunks god's claims.
DoctorAlien: All automobile, bicycle and pushcart tyres are round because this design is superior for the function of most tyres. A tyre homology does not prove common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for rolling. Likewise, most vertebrate kidneys are similar structurally because they have a similar physiological role in the body and consequently must be similar in both structure and function.
A tire homology, are you deliberately appearing obtuse again? We are talking about living beings, you are talking about tire. Do tires evolve?
This is the main reason I will stop going back and forth with you. You are resorting to straw man, but it is not your fault, given that this article was copied and pasted. I doubt you even read it to great comprehension .
DoctorAlien: Homology also does not prove that a set of animals is related by descent because both similarities and differences exist for any two animal types, and traits often are chosen by evolutionists only because they seem to provide evidence that two animals are related. The only criterion that was used by Darwinists to select examples of homology was: ‘Does the example support what is assumed to be an evolutionary relationship?’ Other examples are ignored or explained away. This fact is so well recognized, and so many examples exist that contradict the explanation of common descent, that evolutionists have attempted to separate most putative examples of homology into two types: analogy and homology. The division is based on a distinction between similarity due to common ancestry, or homology, and resemblance which is due solely to similarity of function, called analogy. An example is the forelimbs of humans, horses, whales and birds which are judged homologous because
‘they are all constructed on the same pattern, and include similar bones in the same relative positions because these are all derived from the same ancestral bones. The wings of birds and insects, on the other hand, are analogous: they serve the same purpose, but do not constitute modified versions of a structure present in a common ancestor. The wings of birds and bats are homologous in skeletal structure because of descent from the forelimb of a common reptilian ancestor; but they are analogous in terms of their modification for flight—feathers in birds, skin membranes in bats.’16 In other words, if a design similarity supports evolutionary assumptions, it is listed as an homology and is accepted as evidence for evolution. Conversely, if a design similarity does not support evolution, it is called analogy, and the conclusion is drawn that the similarity exists because a certain design is highly functional for a specific body part, and not because of a common ancestor. Many analogous structures are assumed to exist due to convergent evolution, which is defined as the separate evolution of similar structures because of similar environmental demands.17 Convergent evolution also is used to explain similar structures that have formed from different embryo structures or precursors.
Many examples of homology are actually better explained by analogy, and the resemblance that exists is often due to similarity of function and/or design constraints. The forelimbs of humans, whales and birds are similar because they serve similar functions and have similar design constraints. The conclusion that two homologous bones are similar because they are putatively ‘derived from the same ancestral bones’ (as Barr claims) is not based on direct evidence but instead on a priori conclusions demanded by macroevolution. Jones concluded that
“ … the evolutionist argument from homology lacks scientific content. This particular lack has very serious implications; it strikes at the root of all attempts by evolutionists to give homology an objective basis and distinguish homology (similarities due to descent) from analogy (similarities not due to descent). The only way they can recognize analogous variation, especially when due to convergent evolution is by criteria (e.g. genetic or embryological) which we now know do not hold for organs of "unquestionable" homology. The evolutionist concept of homology is now shown to be entirely subjective.”18 Stephen J. Gould suggested that ‘the central task of evolutionary biology is … the separation of homologous from analogous likeness’, and then emphasized that ‘homology is similarity due to descent from a common ancestor, period’.19 The problem with this definition is that without direct knowledge we cannot know ancestry. In answer to the question ‘Can we identify fossil ancestors of species alive today?’, University of Michigan Professor Mark Siddall contends that this is impossible and that the use of stratigraphic data when assembling phylogenies must be based on speculation.20
‘By the late 1970s this "Idol of the Academy", what Pearson has called "ancestor hunting" but which Eldredge aptly named "ancestor worship" had been thoroughly debunked.’20 Huxley understood as far back as 1870 that when dealing with fossils, which are the only evidence we have of past life, one cannot distinguish uncles and nephews from fathers and sons.21 Among the many reasons ancestors cannot be distinguished from sister taxa, as noted by Siddall and others, is that there can be no positive evidence of ancestry, only inferences. Lack of evidence can only allow it as a possibility or an ad hoc postulate.22
Although many similarities exist in almost all animal structures, structural variations are the norm. Often the variations found in the animal world seem to exist solely to produce variety, and not for the purpose of conferring a survival advantage.
Some examples in humans are as follows:
Attached earlobes: The allele for free earlobes is dominant to the recessive a allele for attached earlobes. Tongue rolling: The R allele enables one to roll their tongue into a U shape and is dominant to the r allele (these persons lack this ability). Hitchhiker’ thumb: People who can bend the last joint of their thumb back to an angle of 60 degrees or more have the recessive allele h and those who cannot have the dominant allele, H. Bent little finger: A person with the dominant allele B can lay their hands flat on a table and while relaxed are able to bend the last joint of the little finger toward the fourth finger. Those with the recessive allele b cannot do this. Interlacing fingers: People with the C allele can cross their left thumb over their right thumb when they interlace their fingers. The C allele is dominant over the c allele, which results in the person normally crossing their right thumb over their left. PTC tasting: Those with this the dominant allele T trait can detect a bitter taste in paper impregnated with phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) when they chew on it for a few seconds. Those persons with the recessive allele cannot taste this chemical. Widow’ peak: The W allele (for widow’ peak, a pointed hairline) is dominant to the allele which produces a straight hairline.23 To argue for macroevolution via comparisons according to ‘complexity’ judgments also is problematic because an enormous number of exceptions exist.
The comparative anatomy argument fails completely when an attempt is made to trace all living forms of life (and even fossils) back to their postulated universal common ancestor(s). Few skeleton, muscle and brain counterparts exist in single-celled animals (or in many developmental stages afterward).
No biological or logical requirement exists to vary the design of bones, muscles and nerves needlessly in every living form beyond what is necessary to adapt the animal to its environment. Although variety is universal in the natural world, variety that interferes with the life process or an animal’ survival usually is avoided in animal design. Design constraints severely limit the possible variations in an animal’ anatomy, and excess deviation from the ideal can interfere with the animal’ ability to survive.
The many similarities that exist among members of the animal kingdom is the result of the fact that a single designer created the basic kinds of living ‘systems’, then specially modified each type of life to enable it to survive in its unique environmental niche. Examples of major environments for which organisms must be designed include the air, ground and water. Structures that serve similar purposes under similar conditions and that are nourished by similar foods ought to possess similarity in both design and function. This is illustrated in a critique of Berra’ Corvette analogy cited previously:
“ … Berra’ primary purpose is to show that living organisms are the result of naturalistic evolution rather than intelligent design. Structural similarities among automobiles, however, even similarities between older and newer models (which Berra calls "descent with modification" are due to construction according to pre-existing patterns, i.e., to design. Ironically, therefore, Berra’ analogy shows that even striking similarities are not sufficient to exclude design-based explanations. In order to demonstrate naturalistic evolution, it is necessary to show that the mechanism by which organisms are constructed (unlike the mechanism by which automobiles are constructed) does not involve design.”
Well, if homology does not prove a set of animals is related by descent, then the homology in your family line does not also prove that your parents gave birth to you. Despite that you look like either of your parents, it doesn't prove that your parents are your parents. That's actually the logic of your argument right now. Keep propagating anti-scientific shenanigans, I'm sure your logic has made you understand that your parents are not your actual parents?
The irony is that all your paragraphs keep proving evolution to be valid. If evolution requires more work and study like everything you have posted on this thread, and you still want to adhere to a theory that is explained in one chapter in the Bible, then where does that leave you?
This is highly ridiculous, what's more ridiculous is that yo don't even know a bit of everything you're copying and pasting. You just go there and copy it and paste. You obviously think oh the DNA was created by God. Lol.
Evolution is concise and simple. You have talked about homology, and it goes far more than structure and functions. It runs deep to digestion and other metabolic processes. From bacteria to the most complex animal, humans.
If we did not evolve, then there's no other way possible for humans and bacteria to have the same metabolic activities.
DoctorAlien: Homology is not a proof of evolution. Homology could as well be the "basis" of a common Designer. Meanwhile, who said that "God created humans differently from animals", and what does the person mean by that statement?
Are you defining homology to your own personal taste?
"In biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa. A common example of homologous structures is the forelimbs of vertebrates, where the wings of bats, the arms of primates, the front flippers of whales and the forelegs of dogs and horses are all derived from the same ancestral tetrapod structure. Evolutionary biology explains homologous structures adapted to different purposes as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Homology was explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in 1859, but had been observed before this, from Aristotle onwards, and it was explicitly analysed by Pierre Belon in 1555. The term was applied to biology by the anatomist Richard Owen in 1843." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)
Definitely, it speaks volume when it comes to evolution, in biology and any related study. Stop turning knowledge upside down, it won't help you.
DoctorAlien: Note that the author, writing on the means of storing information, conceded that there have been "proposals for it to be something else(other than DNA) like RNA". But he also wrote that such proposals "have not been shown to be viable." Here are some reasons:
1.The extra oxygen and hydrogen atoms in RNA leave it prone to hydrolysis, a chemical reaction that effectively breaks the RNA molecule in half. Under normal cellular conditions, RNA undergoes hydrolysis almost 100 times faster than DNA, which makes DNA a more stable molecule.
2. In both DNA and RNA, the base cytosine frequently undergoes a spontaneous chemical reaction known as "deamination." The result of deamination is that cytosine changes into uracil, another nucleic acid base. In RNA, which contains both uracil and cytosine bases, natural uracil bases and uracil bases that resulted from deamination of cytosine are indistinguishable. Therefore, the cell cannot "know" whether uracil should be there or not, making it impossible to repair cytosine deamination in RNA. DNA, however, contains thymine instead of uracil. The cell identifies all uracil bases in DNA as having been the result of cytosine deamination and can repair the DNA molecule.
3. The double-stranded nature of DNA, as opposed to the single-stranded nature of RNA, further contributes to the favorability of DNA as the genetic material. The double-helix structure of DNA places bases inside the structure, protecting the genetic information from chemical mutagens -- that is, from chemicals that react with the bases, potentially changing the genetic information. In single-stranded RNA, on the other hand, the bases are exposed and more vulnerable to reaction and degradation.
4. When DNA is replicated, the new double-stranded DNA molecule contains one parent strand -- which serves as the template for replication -- and one daughter strand of newly synthesized DNA. If there is a base mismatch across the strands, as often happens after replication, the cell can identify the correct base pair from the parent DNA strand and repair it accordingly. For example, if at one nucleotide position the parent strand contains a thymine and the daughter strand a cytosine, the cell "knows" to fix the mismatch by following the instructions in the parent strand. The cell will therefore replace the daughter strand's cytosine with an adenosine. Since RNA is single-stranded, it cannot be repaired in this way.
Like I said earlier, the moment you decided to use science to disprove evolution is when you decided to lose this argument.
On point number 1, if RNA is less stable than DNA, does it mean it is not stable at all? Do RNA molecules get hydrolyzed in an instant? If it takes some time, then the possibility is that it could still store information for a particular time, only that DNA is more stable. So in light of this, it doesn't mean RNA cannot code for life.
On point number 2, you talk as if you don't understand how chemical reactions work or as if you don't understand what we are talking about here. Nobody told you that complex animals or complex cells use RNA to store information. On this point, you have simply explained the insufficiency of RNA molecule which I totally agree with. But it still does not explain that RNA cannot sustain life. So RNA world could have existed, in fact, the insufficiency is the basis of evolution, using DNA instead of RNA. You are describing science from a closed-mind point of view, that's your mistake.
On point number 3, I really loved the word FAVOURABILITY as used in that statement. Favourability is the basis of natural selection and hence, evolution. You have said it all. I still don't understand why your mind is closed. It seems you don't understand these concepts, you are just quoting someone's ideas. If you understand science very well, you will see the 100% possiblity of evolution in everything you are posting. I guess FAVOURABILITY is not a familiar concept in creation, is it?
On point number 4, RNA has its own repair mechanism. This point does not also explain that RNA cannot be used to sustain or code for life. RNA and DNA codes for proteins, while DNA additionally codes for more complex molecules and structures. RNA world could have only housed microorganisms and not complex systems like ours. It doesn't give any practical grounds nor disprove that RNA cannot be used to code for life.
DoctorAlien: "The formation of a peptide bond (reaction R1 shown below) is a condensation reaction, eliminating a water molecule for each peptide bond formed, and thus faces both thermodynamic and kinetic constraints in bulk aqueous solution"
"The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment."
This is why the author in the article I quoted wrote that "the formation of proteins of more than a few amino acids is a huge problem for all origin-of-life scenarios (and adding more time does not solve the problem; they just fall apart more)."
You have ignored the fact that polymer formation also requires that the ingredients (monomers) that are joined together are bi-functional. That simply means that the amino acids for making proteins (or sugars for making polysaccharides) have at least two active sites that will allow another amino acid (or sugar) to be joined to each end. A protein-forming amino acid will have at least one amino group (-NH2) and one carboxyl group (-COOH), with the amino group of one amino acid joining to the carboxyl group of another, thus growing the chain. A compound with only one active site (mono-functional) would terminate the formation of the chain. The problem for origin-of-life scenarios is that any proposed chemical reactions that produce some amino acids also produce mono-functional ones that terminate protein formation.
Nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA are based on a sugar-polymer backbone. Again, the presence of some sugars that are mono-functional would terminate the formation of these and the presence of water also drives this reaction in the wrong direction as well (to fall apart).
In fact, I didn't need to read anymore when I saw your first paragraph. If I continue with you sir, I may lose my level because of the level of abuse you have done to science. Enough is enough. You have no knowledge or pseudo knowledge of science.
I ask you again, are you saying what you think science is or you are saying it the way it is.
Condensation reaction produces water as a by-product because hydrogen bonds are formed. It doesn't mean the formation of hydrogen bonds cannot take place in the presence of water.
Are you insinuating that proteins cannot exist in solutions? Please stop this abuse. It won't take you anywhere.
Have you ever heard of anything call RATE? YES, WATER CAN SLOW DOWN THE REACTION, BUT IT WILL NOT STOP, IT WILL ONLY PROCEED AT A LOW RATE.
Before I continue, kindly tell me what you studied in school? You cannot just be picking fake scientific articles online, it's stressful correcting them. Or are you deliberately doing this to prove God exists?
No matter how you see it, we are chemicals, made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and other elements. Without oxygen which is used for combustion, we are nothing, we are non-living things. It is like a non-living machine being powered by energy to make noise.
When a machine is powered by energy, it does work, it makes noise. It does the things you cannot do.
Energy is the sole proprietor of existence. It powers the formation of bonds right from singular cells to complex organisms.
In bacteria, oxygen is used in the same way it is used in man, for combustion of organic molecules.
Bacteria, fungi, protozoa, plants and other animals use all the biomolecules the same way humans use them. Our enzymes are similar and most are identical.
Give a dog rice, it digests it the same way you will digest it.
What could have gone wrong with creation, was it not only humans that were created in God's image? Why do all living things have over 70% similarity molecularly? Molecularity is the basis of life, anything that happens to you is happening molecularly.
Science is vast, it is not studied in a book of about 700 pages. It is more than what we bargained for but we must continue.
Science is fascinating and overwhelming. Because you don't understand it or know it doesn't mean you have to create the "God of the gaps"
We are open to the idea of a God existing, but you have to come forward with concrete evidence for his existence. We need more than faith, we just cannot believe in a fairy God.
a God may exist, but he must have been formed too, he may be immortal but he cannot be a spirit. If he is a spirit, then it would be impossible for him to create this universe. He must be the god of the spirits. And that's not our fucking_ business here on earth.
And you cannot even prove him, hence he does not exist, it's all an illusion.
You don't have to propagate lies and false science to prove God, scientific facts are hard facts. Take it anywhere.
God does not exist.
This world is not an intelligent design.
There is no intelligence anywhere, we are just biochemical machines. That's all.
DoctorAlien: The origin of life is a matter of programming, not just chemistry
The above information would be sufficient to eliminate notions of the naturalistic origin of life, but we have not covered the most important problem, which is the origin of the programming. Life is not based just on polymers but polymers with specific arrangements of the subunits; specific arrangements of amino acids to make functional proteins/enzymes and specific arrangements of nucleic acid bases to make functional DNA and RNA.
As astrobiologist Paul Davies, now director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University, said,
“To explain how life began we need to understand how its unique management of information came about. “The way life manages information involves a logical structure that differs fundamentally from mere complex chemistry. Therefore chemistry alone will not explain life’s origin, any more than a study of silicon, copper and plastic will explain how a computer can execute a program.”19 Davies’ clarity on this point ought not to be a surprise to his fellow evolutionists, given his similarly plain-speaking public utterances for well over a decade previously. E.g. “It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.” And: “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …”.20
Any attempt to explain the origin of life without explaining the origin of the information processing system and the information recorded on the DNA of a living cell is avoiding the issue. We just have to look at the simplest free-living cell possible to see how the origin of the information is an insoluble problem for scenarios that rely on physics and chemistry (that is, no intelligent design allowed).
Sir Karl Popper, one of the most prominent philosophers of science of the 20th century, realized that,
“What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA [ed: we now know that over 100 macromolecular components are needed]. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. “Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.”21
Origin of the DNA code
The coded DNA information storage system as described by Popper cannot arise from chemistry, but demands an intelligent cause.22 If we think of other coding systems, such as the Morse code or a written alphabetical language, where symbols were invented to represent the sounds of speech, such coded systems only arise from intelligence. It is an arbitrary convention that ‘a’ is usually pronounced as in ‘cat’ in English; nothing about the shape of the letter indicates how it should be pronounced. Likewise, there is just no conceivable possibility of explaining the DNA coding system from the laws of physics and chemistry because there is no physical or chemical relationship between the code and what is coded.
Furthermore, if the origin of any DNA code were not a big enough problem, the DNA code turns out to be, of the many millions possible, “at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization: the best of all possible codes.”23 This error minimization in the code is possible because there are potentially 64 ‘codons’24 for 20 amino acids, so that nearly all amino acids have more than one codon (a few common amino acids, such as leucine, have six).25 These multiple codons are sometimes called ‘redundant’, often taken to mean ‘extra to needed’ or ‘superfluous’. However, the extra codons are optimized such that the most likely single-letter mistakes (mutations) in the coding are more likely not to change the amino acid, or at least to change it to a chemically similar one (thus being less disruptive to the structure of the protein manufactured).
The extra codons are also involved in sophisticated control of the amount of protein synthesized, through ‘translation level control’. This control system operates in bacteria and higher organisms.26
There is no way that a coding system can develop in successive stages to be optimized. If any workable coding system did come into existence by some incredible fluke, no significant change in the basic code could thenceforth occur because the code and the decoding system (reading machinery) would have to change at the same time (there are some very minor variations in the basic code in some bacteria, for example, where one of the three normal ‘stop’ codons codes for an extra amino acid to the normal 20). So the optimized code cannot be explained except as another incredible fluke of ‘nature’, right at the supposed beginning of life.
Life cannot be programmed, because it is not static, it is dynamic. As a matter of fact, it is a matter of only Chemistry.
If life was programmed, then the programmer is a slowpoke. The programmer cannot be said to be a genius or a perfect programmer. The programmer must be a person or something that is prone to mistakes? If God is the programmer, then what else can I say?
DoctorAlien: What are the minimum requirements for a cell to live?
A minimal free-living cell that can manufacture its components using chemicals and energy obtained from its surrounding environment and reproduce itself must have:
1. A cell membrane. This separates the cell from the environment. It must be capable of maintaining a different chemical environment inside the cell compared to outside (as above). Without this, life’s chemical processes are not possible.
2. A way of storing the information or specifications that instructs a cell how to make another cell and how to operate moment by moment. The only known means of doing this is DNA and any proposals for it to be something else (such as RNA) have not been shown to be viable—and then there has still to be a way of changing from the other system to DNA, which is the basis of all known life.15
3. A way of reading the information in (2) to make the cell’s components and also control the amount produced and the timing of production. The major components are proteins, which are strings (polymers) of hundreds to thousands of some 20 different amino acids. The only known (or even conceivable) way of making the cell’s proteins from the DNA specifications involves over 100 proteins and other complex co-factors. Involved are
nano-machines such as RNA polymerase (smallest known type has ~4,500 amino acids),
gyrases, which twist/untwist the DNA spiral to enable it to be ‘read’ (again these are very large proteins),
ribosomes, sub-cellular ‘factories’ where proteins are manufactured, and
at least 20 transfer-RNA molecules; these select the right amino acid to be placed in the order specified on the DNA (all cells that we know of have at least 61 because most amino acids are specified by more than one DNA three-letter code). The transfer-RNAs have sophisticated mechanisms for making sure the right amino acid is selected according to the DNA code.
There are also mechanisms to make sure that the proteins made are folded three-dimensionally in the correct way that involve chaperones to protect the proteins from mis-folding, plus chaperonin folding ‘machines’ in which the proteins are helped to fold correctly). All cells have these.
Whew! And that’s just the basics.
A greatly simplified animation of protein synthesis, which includes the action of RNA polymerase, ribosomes, transfer-RNAs, chaperonins, and chaperones. All living cells have this system of protein synthesis. 4. A means of manufacturing the cell’s biochemical needs from the simpler chemicals in the environment. This includes a way of making ATP, the universal energy currency of life. All living cells today have ATP synthase, a phenomenally complex and efficient electric rotary motor to make ATP (or in reverse to create electric currents that drive other reactions and movement both inside and outside the cell).
5. A means of copying the information and passing it on to offspring (reproduction). A recent simulation of one cell division of the simplest known free-living bacterium (which ‘only’ has 525 genes) required 128 desktop computers working together for 10 hours.16
This gives some indication of what needs to happen for the first living cell to live.
This is bulky but as a science ENTHUSIAST, I will try to respond as always.
I am glad you are posting these scientific facts because through them we will see the lies of creationism[size=10pt][/size].
I have bolded some pertinent points you made in your post, kindly check them. According to the facts that you posted yourself, you have stated that all cells have these features, which means all cells are similar. From simple plants to complex plants, and bacteria to human cells.
That exactly is the basis of evolution. And as such is contrary to the number one lie, that God created humans differently from other animals.
RNA and DNA, are self-replication molecules, it will be obtuse to say RNA cannot be responsible for storing information. I suggest you read this article I will be pasting excerpts from. Find the link below.
Even so, the evidence for an RNA world is strong enough that the hypothesis has gained wide acceptance.[1][5][6]
Like DNA, RNA can store and replicate genetic information; like enzymes, it can catalyze (start or accelerate) chemical reactions that are critical for life (then called Ribozyme).[7] One of the most critical components of the cell, ribosome, is composed primarily of RNA. Ribonucleotide moieties in many coenzymes, such as Acetyl-CoA, NADH, FADH and F420, have long been thought to be surviving remnants of covalently bound coenzymes in an RNA world.
DoctorAlien: An interesting project began some years ago to ascertain what could be the minimal cell that could operate in a free-living manner; that is, not dependent on another living organism. However, it did have available a nutrient-rich medium that provided a wealth of complex organic compounds such that the cell did not have to synthesize many of its needed biochemicals. This minimal cell is now known to need over 400 protein and RNA components,17 and of course that means that its DNA needs to be loaded up with the specifications for making these. That is, the DNA needs to have over 400 ‘genes’. We will come back to this later.
Polymer formation (polymerisation)
Life is not just composed of amino acids or sugars but it is loaded with polymers, which are strings, or chains, of simpler compounds joined together. A polysaccharide is a polymer of sugars. A protein is a polymer of amino acids and DNA and RNA are polymers of nucleotides. Polysaccharides are the simplest, where the links in the chain are normally the same sugar compound, such as glucose (making starch in plants or glycogen in animals). Proteins are much more complex, being chains of amino acids where each link in the chain can be one of 20 different amino acids. And there are four different links in DNA and RNA.
Now water is an essential ingredient of living cells; typical bacteria are about 75% water. Being the ‘universal solvent’, water is a necessary carrier for the various components of cells; it is the milieu in which it all happens.
Here is a huge problem for origin-of-life scenarios: when amino acids are joined together, for example, a water molecule is released. This means that in the presence of water, the reaction is pushed in the wrong direction, backwards; that is, proteins will fall apart, not build, unless the water is actively removed. A cell overcomes this by protecting the reaction site from water (inside ribosomes) and providing energy to drive this and the polymer formation. Thus, the formation of proteins of more than a few amino acids is a huge problem for all origin-of-life scenarios (and adding more time does not solve the problem; they just fall apart more).
Polymer formation also requires that the ingredients (monomers) that are joined together are bi-functional. That simply means that the amino acids for making proteins (or sugars for making polysaccharides) have at least two active sites that will allow another amino acid (or sugar) to be joined to each end. A protein-forming amino acid will have at least one amino group (-NH2) and one carboxyl group (-COOH), with the amino group of one amino acid joining to the carboxyl group of another, thus growing the chain. A compound with only one active site (mono-functional) would terminate the formation of the chain. The problem for origin-of-life scenarios is that any proposed chemical reactions that produce some amino acids also produce mono-functional ones that terminate protein formation.18
Nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA are based on a sugar-polymer backbone. Again, the presence of some sugars that are mono-functional would terminate the formation of these and the presence of water also drives this reaction in the wrong direction as well (to fall apart).
I am really surprised, are you trying to prove creation or you are trying to teach us the possibility of evolution.
I must confess, after reading through this post, I keep seeing evolution happening, now read attentively.
The presence of water does not alter chemical reactions such as polymerization, it may only slow it down. Of course, water can be added to water. And of course, this is another justification for evolution and abiogenesis not being a single event, it took billions of years, is that not slow enough for you? Can you compare it to 7 days? Science does not contradict itself, only the holy books do that.
The main reason the formation of proteins or polymerization of amino acids takes place in the ribosomes is to prevent reduction and not to avoid water. Please, stop turning science upside down. Reduction of protein takes place in the cytosol due to the presence of glutathione.
There are free ribosomes which do not contain a phospholipid membrane, water enters these ribosomes and it does not stop the polymerization of amino acids. Get your facts right.
The presence of water does not affect protein synthesis, your assertion is anti-knowledge.
Here is an academic journal of an experiment carried out on the effect of water on protein synthesis on Avena Coleoptiles.
[b]Water stress causes a reduction in hydrostatic pressure and can cause an increase in abscisic acid in plant tissues. To assess the possible role of abscisic acid and hydrostatic pressure in water stress effects, we have compared the effects of water stress, abscisic acid, and an imposed hydrostatic pressure on the rate and pattern of protein synthesis in Avena coleoptiles. Water stress reduces the rate and changes the pattern of protein synthesis as judged by a double labeling ratio technique, Abscisic acid reduces the rate but does not alter the pattern of protein synthesis. Gibberellic acid reverses the abscisic acid-induced but not the stress-induced inhibition of protein synthesis. The effect of hydrostatic pressure depends on the gas used. With a 19: 1 N2-air mixture, the rate of protein synthesis is increased in stressed but not in turgid tissues. An imposed hydrostatic pressure alters the pattern of synthesis in stressed tissues, but does not restore the pattern to that found in turgid tissues. Because of the differences in response, we conclude that water stress does not affect protein synthesis via abscisic acid or reduced hydrostatic pressure.[/b]
As a matter of fact, proteins are not stored in the body, after production, they need to be transported to where they are needed. And this solely depends on water and diffusion gradient. The link below explains the importance of water, and this justifies the reason all living things are made up of mainly water.
I must say, I am discouraged to continue this discussion becuse you are turning science upside down. Saying water stops or disrupts the formation of proteins is a lie, science is not a religion, it is a study of the universe and the natural world, you cannot just come and be posting anti-science facts here just to prove that a spirit exist. Who does that?
missyQween: I am presently in North central, Lol,That Zaria harmattan eh!!!,I need to bring my large coat when coming Hahahahaha, You hate one corner that much ??
Kogi? Why didn't you want to mention it? Lol, is it because of what I said earlier? Please come along with two large coats, I can really use one.
One corner has made a record of my most hated song in the world.
missyQween: Harmattan is getting crazy in the north na,Or You ain't feeling it in Zaria ? You are funny,Trophy ko.Make sure you dance one corner too oo
What part of the North are you presently? And of course, the harmattan here in Zaria is "hot" as usual.
One corner? I can even kill(slap) anybody who plays that song near me
hermosa7: You are so ignorant. I find your ignorance so amusing. I have deliberately continued in this argument with you, not for your sakes, but for the sake of deceived souls who may stumble upon this post somehow. Now that I have achieved that I go my way. At the end of life, you'll know whether there is a God or not. Don't say you weren't warned. Bye, friend.
I am very ignorant of what exactly?
Is it that God said he created evil in Isaiah chapter 45 vs 7 and also said he did not in Genesis 1 vs 31 that I am ignorant of?
Or is it that stealing is bad and helping the poor is good that I am ignorant of?
Let me rephrase the irony you posted up there.
You have seen undeniable and unarguable facts that your god is useless and not needed to be moral and that this your god also declared that he created evil. Then you came to the conclusion that you still don't want to accept the facts, and hence you want to go your way.
It's alright bro, go on. Keep betraying your knowledge and believing in a God who created evil and disaster. It's your life, sir.
Lol, you are already a wanted person, everybody(not all though) wants to relate with you here. The competition is hot, I hope you're twice as hot as the competition?
hermosa7: No hell, no heaven, no judgement, abi? How do you explain morality? Where does the knowledge of good and evil come from? Why does a man have a conscience? Why do we feel good when we do the right thing and bad when we do otherwise?
How do I explain morality? Just what are you asking here? Because I don't really understand what you want.
Do you want me to tell you what morality is? Or you want me to give a justification for it?
Evil and good are two relative terms. But evil and good are judged by the consequences of the action commited. How will you feel if the action you are about to carry out is done to you?
For example, If my laptop is stolen, will I be happy? Hell no, in light of this, stealing another person's laptop is bad.
Again, if I am hungry and I need food, and then you came and give me food. I will be happy. Therefore, giving hungry people food is good to me.
Tell me, do you need a god before you know these things? Hell no.
And of course, if this your god created evil like he declared publicly in the book of Isaiah, then your god is evil. No arguments because he said he was the one who created it.
The question you would ask your god is this, why create evil if he doesn't want it? Is that not a sign of confusion?
hermosa7: Let me tell you what is true about you and other atheists: "When evil persons have gone in a life of sin, and find that they have reason to fear the just judgment of God, they begin at first to wish there were no God to punish them. Then little by little they persuade themselves that there is no God, and look for arguments to back their opinion." (John Bunyan).
So, what's your answer to the obvious problem of YOUR SIN?
How do you know what happens to me and other atheists? How many atheists have you investigated to ascertain these facts? Are you just assuming this illusion to be facts? Did god tell you?
I know atheists who died without giving a fig about your god. How many gods can someone even give a fig about? There are about 5000 valid gods to those who worship them.
I never wished a god does not exist to judge me, I became an atheist when I withdrew from fairy tales. How hard is that for you?
Does it make sense to you that a god who said incest is a sin created just two people to sleep with themselves and their children to multiply 7 billion people?
Does it make sense to you that your loving god made the heart of Pharaoh hard, even though Pharaoh did not know it was god that was doing it to him, and this same god killed him? Does it? Just tell me how grown you are. It's just like a good person giving people poison, that's the greatest contradiction ever.
What is sin in the first place? Eating a pair of fruits? LMAO
John Bunyan the famous baptist preacher before his conversion attempted suicide and was given a vision of hell of which he recounts of a soul there speaking of hell: "Our miseries in this infernal dungeon are of two sorts; what we have lost, and what we undergo. And these I will name under their several heads. First then for what we have lost. Here we have likewise lost the company of saints and angels, and in their place have nothing but tormenting devils. Here we have lost heaven too. The seat of blessedness. There is a deep gulf betwixt us and heaven, so that we are shut out from thence forever. Those everlasting gates that let the blessed into happiness are now for ever shut against us here. To make our wretchedness far yet more wretched, we have lost the hope of ever being in a better state, which renders our condition truly hopeless. The most miserable man upon earth still has hope. And therefore, it is a common proverb there that were it not for hope, the heart would break. Well may our hearts break then since we are both without hope and help. This is what we have lost; which, but to think on, is enough to fear and rend and gnaw upon our miserable souls forever. Yet, oh, that his were all! But we have sense of pain as well as loss. And having showed you what we have lost, I am trying to show you what we undergo. And first, we undergo variety of torments: we are tormented here a thousand, nay, ten thousand different ways. They that are most afflicted upon earth have seldom any more than one malady at a time. But should they have the plague, the gout, the stone, and fever at a time, how miserable would they think themselves? Yet all those are but like the biting of a flea to those intolerable, pungent pains that we endure. Here we have all the loathed variety of hell to grapple with. Here is a fire that is unquenchable to burn us with; a lake of burning brimstone ever choking us; eternal chain to tie us; here is utter darkness to affright us, and a worm of conscience that gnaws upon us everlastingly. And any one of these is worse to bear than all the torments mankind ever felt on earth."
"But as our torments here are various, so are they universal, too, afflicting each part of the body, tormenting the powers of the soul, which renders what we suffer most unsufferable. In those illnesses you men are seized with on earth, though some parts are afflicted, other parts are free. Although your body may be out of order, your head may yet be well; and though your head be ill, your vitals may be free; or though your vitals be affected, your arms and legs may still be clear. But here it is otherwise: each member of the soul and body is at once tormented. The eye is here tormented with the sight of the devil's who do appear in all the horrid shapes and black appearances that sin can give them. The ear is continually tormented with the loud yellings and continual outcries of the damned. The nostrils smothered with sulphurous flames; the tongue with burning blisters; and the whole body rolled in flames of liquid fire. And all the powers and faculties of our souls are here tormented. The imagination, with the thoughts of the present pain; the memory lost with reflecting on what a heaven we have lost, and of those opportunities we had of being saved. Our minds are here tormented with considering how vainly we have spent our precious time, and how we have abused it. Our understanding is tormented in the thoughts of our past pleasures, present pains, and future sorrows, which are to last for ever. And our consciences are tormented with a continual gnawing worm."
"Another thing that makes our misery awful is the extremity of our torments. The fire that burns us is so violent that all the water in the sea can never quench it. The pains we suffer here are so extreme that it is impossible they should be known by any one but those that feel them. Another part of our misery is the ceaselessness of our torments. As various, as universal, and as extremely violent as they are, they are continual, too. Nor have we the least rest from them. If there were any relaxation, it might be some allay. But this makes our condition so deplorable that there is no easing of our torments, but what we suffer now we must for ever suffer. The society or company we have here is another element in our misery. Tormenting devils and tormented souls are all our company; and dreadful shrieks and howlings, under the fierceness of our pain, and fearful oaths, is all our conversation. And here the torments of our fellow sufferers are so far from lessening our misery that they increase our pain. The place in which we suffer is another thing that increases our sufferings. It is the abstract of all misery, a prison, a dungeon, a bottomless pit, a lake of fire and brimstone, a furnace of fire that burns to eternity, the blackness of darkness for ever; and lastly, hell itself. And such a wretched place as this must needs increase our wretchedness. The cruelty of our tormentors is another thing that adds to our torments. Our tormentors are devils in whom there is no pity; but being tormented themselves, do yet take pleasure in tormenting us. All those particulars that I have reckoned up are very grievous; but that which makes them much more grievous is that they shall ever be so; and all our most intolerable sufferings shall last to all eternity. 'Depart from Me ye cursed into everlasting fires' is that which is perpetually sounding in my ears. Oh, that I could reverse that fatal sentence! Oh, that there was but a bare possibility of doing it! Thus have I showed you the miserable situation we are in, and shall be in forever."
This only scares children. Tell you what? I was also scared of the gory details of hell I was told when I was growing up. But now I am a man.
And that is the main problem I have with you theists. You have refused to grow up.
One day, the people who think(who use the brain more) will evolve and leave you people(those who don't think) behind. In fact, it is happening.
Theists irritate me based on the facts that they rejoice that their god has created hell for some human beings. Is that the only way your god can profer a solution?
How about starting from the beginning? like killing satan and returning everything back to normal?
How about making satan disappear and drawing all men to him?
Oh, I forgot, he can't, but why? Because he doesn't exist.
If there is a god with a dogma, then that god is not everything.
If there is a god that does not know how to solve matters without killing and hurting, then that god is evil.
You can rejoice in your illusions of heaven and hell all you want, it doesn't change anything, albeit create a real heaven.
Your god is nonexistent, deal with it with grace and remorse. Do you need more proofs than the ones we have shown and told you?
You don't even know if this your god is a hermaphrodite, do you?
Your indoctrination level is legendarily witless.
What more can I say? There's no heaven, there's no hell. There's no God, there's no Satan. Can't you see?
DoctorAlien: On what premises did you arrive at the conclusion that abiogenesis is true? Can you point out the author's confusion? A natural process is any process existing in or produced by nature(rather than the work of humans). How is abiogenesis a natural process like volcanic activity, which is actually observed?
That is an excerpt from the article anyway. Click on the link I provided to see the full article.
On the premises that Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that Levo and dextro rotatory amino acids can be synthesized, that the Nucleotide bases and the deoxy ribonucleic acids can be synthesized at certain natural conditions, and that the process of Abiogenesis itself is a natural process that took billions of years to complete and not a single event as you and the author above may think.
The volcanic eruption is a consequence of abiogenesis itself, the energy used for Abiogenesis was not shared. Before Abiogenesis, there was no life, so there was sufficient energy for the natural process to proceed, unlike today where a lot of processes make use and transmit energy among themselves.
The author's confusion, which subsequently is your own confusion is that you think abiogenesis was a single event, it was not a single event bro. It was not.
DoctorAlien: I would have loved to paste the whole of this article on the origin of life and abiogenesis, but Nairaland says it's too long. Follow the link below to the article.
How did life begin? The naturalistic origin of life is also known as abiogenesis or sometimes chemical evolution.
The origin of life is a vexing problem for those who insist that life arose through purely natural processes. Some evolutionists try to claim that the origin of life is not a part of evolution. However, probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the origin of life in the chapters on evolution. The University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their ‘Evolution 101’ course, in a section titled “From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life”.1 High-profile defenders of ‘all-things-evolutionary’, such as P.Z. Myers and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of evolution, as does Richard Dawkins.2
A well-known evolutionist of the past, G.A. Kerkut, did make a distinction between the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), which included the origin of life, and the Special Theory of Evolution (STE) that only dealt with the diversification of life (the supposed topic of Darwin’s 1859 book).3
It is only recently that some defenders of evolution have tried to divorce the origin of life from consideration. It’s probably because the hope of finding an answer is rapidly fading, as one scientific discovery after another of sophisticated machinery in even the simplest living cells makes the problem of a naturalistic origin ever more difficult.
So, what do we need to get life? We can break the problem of the origin of life into a number of topics in an attempt to explain to non-scientists what is involved (although it still might be mind-stretching).
How did life begin? Explaining the origin of life by solely physical and chemical processes is proving to be extremely difficult. What is it that we have to obtain to produce a living cell? A living cell is capable of acquiring all the resources it needs from its surroundings and reproducing itself. The first cell had to be free-living; that is, it could not depend on other cells for its survival because other cells did not exist. Parasites cannot be a model for ‘first life’ because they need existing cells to survive. This also rules out viruses and the like as the precursors to life as they must have living cells that they can parasitize to reproduce themselves. Prions, misshaped proteins that cause disease, have nothing to do with the origin of life because they can only ‘replicate’ by causing proteins manufactured by a cell to become misshaped.
The first things needed are the right ingredients. It’s bit like baking a cake; you can’t make a banana cake if you have no bananas or flour.
Getting all the right ingredients
Right here there is a major problem for chemical soup approaches to the origin of life: all the components have to be present in the same location for a living cell to have any possibility of being assembled. But necessary components of life have carbonyl (>C=O) chemical groups that react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds. Such carbonyl-containing molecules include sugars,4 which also form the backbone of DNA and RNA. Living cells have ways of keeping them apart and protecting them to prevent such cross-reactions, or can repair the damage when it occurs, but a chemical soup has no such facility.
Cells are incredibly complex arrangements of simpler chemicals. I am not going to cover every chemical that a first cell would need; it would take a book and some to cover it. I am just going to highlight some of the basic components that have to be present for any origin of life scenario.
a. Amino acids Living things are loaded with proteins; linear strings of amino acids. Enzymes are special proteins that help chemical reactions to happen (catalysts). For example, the enzyme amylase is secreted in our saliva and causes starch molecules from rice, bread, potatoes, etc., to break up into smaller molecules, which can be then be broken down to their constituent glucose molecules. We can’t absorb starch, but we are able to absorb glucose and use it to power our bodies.
Some reactions necessary for life go so slowly without enzymes that they would effectively never produce enough product to be useful, even given billions of years.5
Other proteins form muscles, bone, skin, hair and all manner of the structural parts of cells and bodies. Humans can produce well over 100,000 proteins (possibly millions; nobody really knows exactly how many), whereas a typical bacterium can produce one or two thousand different ones.
Proteins are made up of 20 different amino acids (some microbes have an extra one or two). Amino acids are not simple chemicals and they are not easy to make in the right way without enzymes (which are themselves composed of amino acids);
The 1953 Miller–Urey experiment, which almost every biology textbook still presents, managed to make some amino acids without enzymes. It is often portrayed as explaining ‘the origin of life’, but that is either very ignorant or very deceitful.
Although tiny amounts of some of the right amino acids were made, the conditions set up for the experiment could never have occurred on Earth; for example, any oxygen in the ‘atmosphere’ in the flask would have prevented anything from forming. Furthermore, some of the wrong types of amino acids were produced, as well as other chemicals that would ‘cross-react’, preventing anything useful forming.
The amino acids required for functional proteins could never have been made by anything like this experiment in nature.6 When Stanley Miller repeated the experiment in 1983 with a slightly more realistic mixture of gases, he only got trace amounts of glycine, the simplest of the 20 amino acids needed.7
The origin of the correct mix of amino acids remains an unsolved problem (and see another major problem under ‘handedness’ below).
b. Sugars Some sugars can be made just from chemistry without enzymes (which are only made by cells, remember). However, mechanisms for making sugars without enzymes need an alkaline environment, which is incompatible with the needs for amino acid synthesis.
The chemical reaction that is proposed for the formation of sugars needs the absence of nitrogenous compounds, such as amino acids, because these react with the formaldehyde, the intermediate products, and the sugars, to produce non-biological chemicals.
Ribose, the sugar that forms the backbone of RNA, and in modified form DNA, an essential part of all living cells, is especially problematic. It is an unstable sugar (it has a short half-life, or breaks down quickly) in the real world at near-neutral pH (neither acid nor alkaline).8
c. The components of DNA and RNA How can we get the nucleotides that are the chemical ‘letters’ of DNA and RNA without the help of enzymes from a living cell? The chemical reactions require formaldehyde (H2C=O) to react with hydrogen cyanide (HC≡N). However, formaldehyde and cyanide (especially) are deadly poisons. They would destroy critically important proteins that might have formed!
Cytosine, one of the simpler of the five nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA Figure 3. Cytosine, one of the simpler of the five nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA. In this form of chemical diagram, each unlabelled bend in the ring has a carbon atom at the bend. Cytosine (Figure 3), one of the five essential nucleotide bases of DNA and RNA, is very difficult to make in any realistic pre-biotic scenario and is also very unstable.8
DNA and RNA also have backbones of alternating sugars and phosphate groups. The problems with sugars are discussed above. Phosphates would be precipitated by the abundant calcium ions in sea water or cling strongly onto the surfaces of clay particles. Either scenario would prevent phosphate from being used to make DNA.
d. Lipids Lipids (‘fats’) are essential for the formation of a cell membrane that contains the cell contents, as well as for other cell functions. The cell membrane, comprised of several different complex lipids, is an essential part of a free-living cell that can reproduce itself.
Lipids have much higher energy density than sugars or amino acids, so their formation in any chemical soup is a problem for origin of life scenarios (high energy compounds are thermodynamically much less likely to form than lower energy compounds).
The fatty acids that are the primary component of all cell membranes have been very difficult to produce, even assuming the absence of oxygen (a ‘reducing’ atmosphere). Even if such molecules were produced, ions such as magnesium and calcium, which are themselves necessary for life and have two charges per atom (++, i.e. divalent), would combine with the fatty acids, and precipitate them, making them unavailable.9 This process likewise hinders soap (essentially a fatty acid salt) from being useful for washing in hard water—the same precipitation reaction forms the ‘scum’.
Wikimedia commons/Andrei Lomize A potassium transport channel Figure 4. A potassium transport channel. The red and blue lines show the position of the lipid membrane and the ribbons represent the transporter, which comprises a number of proteins (different colours). To give some idea of the complexity, each loop in each of the spirals is about 4 amino acids. Some popularisers of abiogenesis like to draw diagrams showing a simple hollow sphere of lipid (a ‘vesicle’) that can form under certain conditions in a test-tube. However, such a ‘membrane’ could never lead to a living cell because the cell needs to get things through the cell membrane, in both directions. Such transport into and out of the cell entails very complex protein-lipid complexes known as transport channels, which operate like electro-mechanical pumps. They are specific to the various chemicals that must pass into and out of the cell (a pump that is designed to move water will not necessarily be suitable for pumping oil). Many of these pumps use energy compounds such as ATP to actively drive the movement against the natural gradient. Even when movement is with the gradient, from high to low concentration, it is still facilitated by carrier proteins.
The cell membrane also enables a cell to maintain a stable pH, necessary for enzyme activity, and favourable concentrations of various minerals (such as not too much sodium). This requires transport channels (‘pumps’) that specifically move hydrogen ions (protons) under the control of the cell. These pumps are highly selective.10
Transport across membranes is so important that “20–30% of all genes in most genomes encode membrane proteins”.11 The smallest known genome of a free-living organism, that of the parasite Mycoplasma genitalium, codes for 26 transporters12 amongst its 482 protein-coding genes.
A pure lipid membrane would not allow even the passive movement of the positively-charged ions of mineral nutrients such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, iron, manganese, etc., or the negatively-charged ions such as phosphate, sulfate, etc., into the cell, and they are all essential for life. A pure-lipid membrane would repel such charged ions, which dissolve in water, not lipid. Indeed, a simple fat membrane would prevent the movement of water itself (try mixing a lipid like olive oil with water)!
Membrane transporters would appear to be essential for a viable living cell.
In the 1920s the idea that life began with soapy bubbles (fat globules) was popular (Oparin’s ‘coacervate’ hypothesis) but this pre-dated any knowledge of what life entailed in terms of DNA and protein synthesis, or what membranes have to do. The ideas were naïve in the extreme, but they still get an airing today in YouTube videos showing bubbles of lipid, even dividing, as if this were relevant to explaining the origin of life (see: Self-made cells? Of course not!).
The chirality of typical amino acids Figure 5. The chirality of typical amino acids. ‘R’ represents the carbon-hydrogen side-chain of the amino acid, which varies in length. R=CH3 makes alanine, for example. e. Handedness (chirality) Amino acids, sugars, and many other biochemicals, being 3-dimensional, can usually be in two forms that are mirror images of one another; like your right and left hand are mirror images of each other. This is called handedness or chirality (Figure 5).
Now living things are based on biochemicals that are pure in terms of their chirality (homochiral): left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars, for example. Here’s the rub: chemistry without enzymes (like the Miller–Urey experiment), when it does anything, produces mixtures of amino acids that are both right-and left-handed. It is likewise with the chemical synthesis of sugars (with the formate reaction, for example).13
Origin-of-life researchers have battled with this problem and all sorts of potential solutions have been suggested but the problem remains unsolved.14 Even getting 99% purity, which would require some totally artificial, unlikely mechanism for ‘nature’ to create, doesn’t cut it. Life needs 100% pure left-handed amino acids. The reason for this is that placing a right-handed amino acid in a protein in place of a left-handed one results in the protein having a different 3-dimensional shape. None can be tolerated to get the type of proteins needed for life.
In other words, Abiogenesis is true. I guess you either didn't read the post or you didn't see the author is confused.
Abiogenesis is a natural process, the author was busy talking about artificial processes. How does that explain Abiogenesis?
A natural process is not a supernatural process, nor an artificial process. I am glad you pasted the article. Thanks
hermosa7: "But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." (2 Peter 2:10)
This does not even make sense. Use intelligence bro. Stop quoting a manipulated old piece of book of lies that contains absolute and closed ideas.
hermosa7: I'm not here for people like you. You betray your RELIGION in one thing: Why would you even bother to explain to me and others there's no God, for that's the summary of your arguments? If I know there's no God and all lives just fade out at death, why should I even bother my head what others belief? Your desire to undermine the noble creation story clearly shows you're being used by the illuminatistic powers that control this sinful degenerate world.
Hmmm, this is funny. You are not here for people like me and yet you raised 15 questions you don't have answers to and called evolutionists to answer them. I am an evolutionist, and I have answered the questions. Your questions tend to boldly address evolutionists as confused people and informed them that there is a supernatural power behind everything. What answers were you expecting? Those that will corroborate your illusions?
I do not have a religion, your assertion about betraying a religion does not hold water. And I was only trying to liberate you and others from your mental slavery by explaining evolution to you, just like you asked people like me to do. It's like crying for help.
I am not bothered about what you believe, inasmuch as it entails believing in a fairy spirit up there. It puts me one step ahead of you.
The noble creation has been undermined by the book(bible) who taught you already in the first place by contradicting itself and not conforming to the created(world). It's not my fault, blame the book. You don't have to invent illuminati to further disgrace your faith. The world is sinful and degenerate, yet you cannot just simply disappear to heaven, or commit suicide so you will leave here for those who will remain.
hermosa7: Many people who are far more knowledgeable than you have found truth in God's creation and have since become God's children, having seen the compelling evidence in His creation.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
Many people who are far more knowledgeable than you and those you referred to up there have also found lies in God's supposed creation and don't give a fig about God. There's no point in bringing knowledgeable people here now.
Stephen Hawking is more knowledgeable than the professors in your questions and those in your videos, so what?
I see that the number of fictitious videos you have watched on youtube have deluded you more and more. Keep it up sir.
Of course, Paul the writer of Romans was naive when it comes to the things of the universe and was amazed by the vastness, so he quickly attributed the things he saw to his imaginary friend, just like you are doing. Are you surprised, oh no sorry, I meant I am not surprised.
The video is nothing close to the truth. Visiting Museums does not prove evolution. Evolution does not need to be proved. It is not something that needs to be proved, you need to humbly observe it with your eyes and mind.
Evolution is a change that takes billions of years. It is not a single event.
Evolution at least is more reasonable than creation. At least we can see micro changes in the human race.
Many years ago we were cavemen and today we have evolved into intelligent beings.
You need to understand evolution comprehensively before you can even see it.
Most people who want to uphold creationism are just trying to put down evolution, they can keep trying.
A spirit created human beings, how ridiculous that sounds?
Do we even know if this spirit can carry sand?
How can a spirit who is not physical even mold clay?
It only takes a reasoning and logical mind to understand evolution and not an indoctrinated mind.
bloodofthelamb: INCEST IS A SIN BECAUSE THE LAW OF GOD SAYS SO. BUT THE LAW CANNOT STOP US FROM SINNING.
WHY IS IT SO? IT IS, BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS AND TRANSGRESSORS BY NATURE...
IT IS JUST LIKE YOU MAKING A LAW PROHIBITING BIRDS FROM FLYING, THREATENING THEM WITH DEATH, IF THEY DO... IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO KEEP TO THAT LAW? KNOWING TOO WELL, THAT IT IS AGAINST THEIR NATURE.
MANKIND BY NATURE IS LAWLESS AND MILLIONS OF LAW AND REGULATION CANNOT CHANGE THAT... GOD KNEW IT THAT IS WHY HE SENT HIS SON, SO THAT THROUGH HIM WE MIGHT HAVE A NEW NATURE, THAT WILL ENABLE US WALK IN RIGHTEOUSNESS WITHOUT ANY LAW.
SHALOM!
If incest is a sin, how did God plan the multiplication of humans then if we all came from the same parents? Didn't our ancestors sleep with themselves?
Christianity Etc › Re: Second amendment-> How do you find God, By intuition or by Logic? by Akin1212(op): 3:50pm On Dec 05, 2017
Lol