Abiogenesis
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
Yahweh, the Miller-Urey experiments didn't prove a thing. They filtered out the amino acids, which wouldn't happen naturally. Also, oxygen present would cause an explosion, so they made sure there was no oxygen in the experiment. The current belief is that the "early atmosphere" was made up of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and hydrogen, not the methane-ammonia mixture they used. If you use the former mixture, the experiment doesn't work.
Post #12
Despite the objections about atmosphere, the Miller-Urey experiment merely showed that organic molecules could arise from inorganic matter. And as these reactions happened in the ocean, outside of the atmosphere. the components may in part have been generated in the air, but the "assembly happened in the ocean. Lost of vulcanich activity for energy input back then as well.
As for the common ancestor, that likely happened much later. certainly, ina chemical soup," reactions and polymerization happens all the time, extracting resources from the environment. The first "ancestor," on the other hand, was likely the first predator, the first polymerized structure that was able to extract the resources from other polymerized structures. New amino acids and polymenrs available right there instead of having to make them from scratch. An enormous advantage. But then, a next potential bottlenect is that of defence. The first predator that itself was not predated would also be in a great advantage, perhaps through a more solid encapsulation in a double lipid membrane, or through tying up the amino acids in RNA like structures that would be hard to take a part and extract.
Lost of speculation here, but perhaps somebody actually know something here?
As for the common ancestor, that likely happened much later. certainly, ina chemical soup," reactions and polymerization happens all the time, extracting resources from the environment. The first "ancestor," on the other hand, was likely the first predator, the first polymerized structure that was able to extract the resources from other polymerized structures. New amino acids and polymenrs available right there instead of having to make them from scratch. An enormous advantage. But then, a next potential bottlenect is that of defence. The first predator that itself was not predated would also be in a great advantage, perhaps through a more solid encapsulation in a double lipid membrane, or through tying up the amino acids in RNA like structures that would be hard to take a part and extract.
Lost of speculation here, but perhaps somebody actually know something here?
Post #14
Hmm, it seems that you are saying that unless the Miller-Urey produced the amino acids needed for any lifefrom today, it is invalid? Certainly, the complexity and necessity of specialized amino acids necessary for organisms living today doesn't have to be the same as the amino acids necessary about 4 bill years ago.axeplayer wrote:it's not so much as where the amino acid came from, but more of where the 200 amino acids that are necessary for even the simplest form of life came from....And where did the amino acid come from?
So yes, it IS significant that conditions that to some extend match conditions 4 bill years ago were able to relatively shortly produce simple amino acids.
-
richGUY2112
- Newbie
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:33 pm
Post #15
Hello,
Personally I believe that first life on earth arrived on an astroid. I believe this because there are organisms on earth that are perfectly capable of surviving a trip through space. They can even adapt to zero oxygen and breath iron (which is what most astroids are made of) as well as thrive in temps that are too cold to naturally occour on earth( i.e. liquid nitrogen). It is the best explanation, IMO, for why they could be adapted to such conditions. Also, it seems logical to me that creatures such as these would eventually end up as an entire ecosystem based on adaptation and evolution. Well theres my 2 bits.
[/u]
Personally I believe that first life on earth arrived on an astroid. I believe this because there are organisms on earth that are perfectly capable of surviving a trip through space. They can even adapt to zero oxygen and breath iron (which is what most astroids are made of) as well as thrive in temps that are too cold to naturally occour on earth( i.e. liquid nitrogen). It is the best explanation, IMO, for why they could be adapted to such conditions. Also, it seems logical to me that creatures such as these would eventually end up as an entire ecosystem based on adaptation and evolution. Well theres my 2 bits.
[/u]Post #16
But it then leaves the question of where they came from?richGUY2112 wrote:Hello,
Personally I believe that first life on earth arrived on an astroid. I believe this because there are organisms on earth that are perfectly capable of surviving a trip through space. They can even adapt to zero oxygen and breath iron (which is what most astroids are made of) as well as thrive in temps that are too cold to naturally occour on earth( i.e. liquid nitrogen). It is the best explanation, IMO, for why they could be adapted to such conditions. Also, it seems logical to me that creatures such as these would eventually end up as an entire ecosystem based on adaptation and evolution. Well theres my 2 bits.
BTW, for extreme life-condition organisms:
http://www.astrobiology.com/extreme.html
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!"
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!"
-
richGUY2112
- Newbie
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:33 pm
Post #17
Steen,
I totally agree and with the recent findings of gas giants orbiting close to suns the potential for life is greatly increased because of the moons they attract. This shows that there could well be clusters of earthlike rocky moons making all kinds o stuff under conditions we cant even dream of. Imagine the ramifications if a gas giant with 23 moons was located in a nice temped zone like earth. Look at the amount of activity on jupiter's moons from its gravity pull, alls you need is some water and bammo, you would have seas churning like no other . water would probably be plentiful because the giant would attract so many comets and such. IMO under conditions like this life would have to happen, chance is barely needed.
I totally agree and with the recent findings of gas giants orbiting close to suns the potential for life is greatly increased because of the moons they attract. This shows that there could well be clusters of earthlike rocky moons making all kinds o stuff under conditions we cant even dream of. Imagine the ramifications if a gas giant with 23 moons was located in a nice temped zone like earth. Look at the amount of activity on jupiter's moons from its gravity pull, alls you need is some water and bammo, you would have seas churning like no other . water would probably be plentiful because the giant would attract so many comets and such. IMO under conditions like this life would have to happen, chance is barely needed.
Post #18
And imagine simultaneous abiogenesis and evolution on multiple such moons? Amazing the diversity and environment implications that could be discovered.
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!"
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!"
Falsification of Abiogenesis
Post #19Evolutionists have distanced themselves from Abiogenesis. The evidence against it is (IMO) overwhelming.
As with so much of evolution, the misinformation on the topics related to the "spontaneous generation of life", also known as "Abiogenesis", have been so often repeated instead of being deleted, especially in school curriculums and textbooks, not to mention sites like these, that science fiction has been, for far too long, masquerading as science.
Let's start with famous "Miller-Urey" experiment and update it from there.
An important pioneer in scientific research on abiogenesis is Alexander I. Oparin. In 1924, he determined what chemicals must be in the earth atmosphere for amino acids to be formed (e.g. methane, hydrogen, and ammonia) and what chemicals ought not to be there that will prohibit the formation of amino acids (e.g. Oxygen). Scientists like A.I. Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane proposed a sequence for life's origins in the 1920's, from complicated molecules in an oily liquid he called coacervate droplets, to the first protocell, to enzymes, to finally genes.
Miller prepared an experiment to observe what complicated molecules' might be produced under Oparin-Haldane's proposed ideal pre-biotic atmosphere. Sure enough, in an assumed atmosphere that was DESIGNED to produce amino acids, it was not at all surprising that amino acids formed:
The Products of the Miller Experiment: Tar 85%
Carboxylic acids not important to life 13.0%
Glycine 1.05%
Alanine 0.85%
Glutamic acid trace
Aspartic acid trace
Valine trace
Leucine trace
Serine trace
Proline trace
Treonine trace
Note: Glycine and Alanine are the two simplest amino acids of the twenty proteinous amino acids found in living creatures.
Miller's results were well received and widely reported by the mass media to be a major confirmation of evolution and of life arising spontaneously without a Creator. It became a valuable weapon in the evolutionists' propaganda arsenal for brain washing and brow beating the public and more so, unwary students, into accepting the legitimacy of Evolution.
The Miller-Urey experiment that produced amino acids under laboratory controlled conditions has been misrepresented in much High school, college and other text books. It is often presented that this experiment demonstrates that amino acids, necessary for life, form naturally in a primitive atmosphere. It is usually further asserted or implied that this experiment demonstrates that abiogenesis is highly probable and that this further demonstrates that evolution (Darwinian) is indeed a fact. Of course such textbooks are nonsense; this experiment demonstrates nothing of the kind. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates the opposite, it revealed the overwhelming difficulties that exist with the view that life can form naturally from non-living chemicals.
The key word above is 'controlled'. Intelligent control is what gets one the outcome they are looking for.
Using a system of glass flasks, Steven Miller attempted to simulate Alexander Oparin's ideal atmospheric conditions. He passed a mixture of H2O, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through an electrical spark discharge. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules made by the reaction. This trap prevented whatever chemicals formed from being destroyed by the energy source used to create them. Eventually, Miller was able to produce the above described mixture, containing the amino acids described above, and the building blocks of proteins.
This was as good as the science ever got for the evolutionists and their hopes for abiogenesis. From now on things get much worse for the Evolutionists. What the public and students have not been told about what science actually knows concerning the 'origin of life'.
To achieve his results, Miller had to use something that material evolutionists 'KNOW' did not exist in the pre-biotic earth: intelligence and mental "know-how". He drew on decades of knowledge of organic chemistry in setting up his experiment. The proportions of the various gases used, the actual apparatus, the position of the electrodes, the intensity of the spark, and the chemical trap, were all carefully adjusted to create maximum yield from the experiment.
Many attempts by Stanley Miller failed to produce any amino acids or other building blocks of life.
In an effort to make his Oparin atmosphere to mimic actual atmospheric conditions, Miller arranged fro his electrical discharge to simulate lightning. After a week of these lightning type electrical discharges in the reaction chamber, the sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a cloudy red. The predominant product was a gummy black substance made up of billions of carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially tar, a common nuisance in organic reactions.
However, no amino acids used by living systems or other building blocks of life, were produced on these first attempts. In his own words, Miller stated "An attempt was made to simulate lightning discharge by building up a large quantity of charge on a condenser until the spark jumped the gap between the electrodes. ... Very few organic compounds were produced and this discharge was not investigated further." from Robert Shapiro: "Origins, A Skeptics Guide ..." P. 103. 1986.
Only by constantly readjusting and fine tuning his apparatus and by using a continuous electrical charge that Miller eventually obtained the amino acids indicated it above. Even when using the same gas mixture and a continuous electrical discharge, Miller did not obtain any positive results until placing the apparatus in a different order. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, noted that with the use of "Intelligence" and "Know How:" on the part of the “origin of life” experimenters to achieve the results they desire prejudiced the results of their "Origin of Life" type experiments:
(P. 102-103)
"another significant factor also influences the products being formed in an experiment of this type, but is less recognized, selection by the experimenter."
"One clear message should emerge from this discussion. A variety of results may be possible from the same general type of experiment. The experimenter, by manipulating apparently unimportant variables, can affect the outcome profoundly. The data that he reports may be valid, but if only these results are communicated, a false impression may arise concerning the universality of the process. This situation was noticed by Creationist writer, Martin Lubenow, who commented: "I am convinced that in every origin of life experiment devised by evolutionists, the intelligence of the experimenter is involved in such a way as to prejudice the experiment.""
Now the science learned from the Miller-Urey negates rather than support Abiogenesis.
(1). The tar tends to fix the amino acids so that they are not that free to Bond. Bonding between amino acids must happen if theses amino acids are to form any kind of molecular structures leading to a replicating life form.
(2). Miller's amino acids, even if they were capable of bonding, are useless as a basis for abiogenesis.
The amino acids formed were racemates. That is, each amino acid was produced in equal quantities of Dextrorotary (Right handed Molecules) and Levorotary (Left handed) molecules. Furthermore, both right and left handed amino acids bond to each other equally well. However, all of life's proteins are made from left-handed amino acid chains. If just a single right handed amino acid molecule binds to a forming three dimensional chain of left handed amino acids, that right handed amino acid is lethal to the formation of the three dimensional chain.
"Without exception, all of Miller's amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous generation of life. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids that form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions. This is scientific fact." (1)
All amino acids that form by natural causes alone are racemized. Even those found on comets are racemized.
Though the above is fatal to any scenario for abiogenesis, science continues to bring more bad news for the evolutionist’s conception of origins.
(3) Oparin's ideal atmosphere of Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, and without Oxygen never existed! We've known for at least the past forty years that the pre-biotic atmosphere had oxygen that is lethal to the formation of life's building blocks, and it had at best, only traces of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen.
(4) Ultra-violet light would have destroyed amino acids formed in the atmosphere, and the chemicals of the ocean would have destroyed life's building blocks that ended up there.
Along the lines of beating a dead horse, the evolutionist’s hopes for establishing abiogenesis gets even more bad news from science:
(5) When amino acids bond together in pre-biotic experiments, they do so in several different ways using several types of links as the molecular bonds. Yet, only the type of link known as the ‘alpha link’ is used in all proteins of living organisms. In origin of life experiments, the alpha link is greatly outnumbered by the other types of links. Even if we greatly favor the evolutionist’s possibilities by allowing for every link in a forming 100 unit polypeptide chain to have a 50-50 chance of being an alpha type link, the probability of getting a 100 unit amino acid chain using only alpha links is 10 to the 30th power to one in a super-ideal mix of only left handed .
(6) There are 20 amino acids exclusively used in all living organisms. These are called proteinous amino acids. There are hundreds of amino acids that are not proteinous. Stephen Gould asked, "Why only a few amino acids in organisms when the [primordial] soup must have contained at least ten times as many." Amino acid molecules can link-up (polymerize) to form polypeptide chains. Those with certain structure and characteristics are called functional proteins. Functional proteins will consist of chains of 90 to 1000 amino acids. In a soup containing proteinous amino acids and 10 times the number of non-proteinous amino acids (which Gould says must have been there) then the probability of getting a functional protein consisting of 100 proteinous amino acids is 10 to the 100th power to one. This is just not going to happen.
(7) Handedness is only one of the hurdles to overcome on the way to life. The real big one is the origin of information, which is fundamentally differently to matter and molecules, even if you could get exclusively left handed molecules. We want to know how books get written, not just how paper and ink are formed. Of course if you can't get paper, you can't write anything on it, but the really critical thing is the message, not the medium.
Information expert Hubert Yockey in 1978, did theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity. Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65, even after assuming the most ideal conditions all amino acids are left handed, all necessary amino acids are present, that only alpha bonds occurred, and all chemicals and/or energy that could neutralize or destroy the amino acids are not present.
Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids in two different proteins. Upon each substitution, the protein sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains, up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other locations their was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One of the proteins they chose was the 92 residue lambda repressor.
Sauer et. al. calculated that:
"... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for
the entire 92 residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in
a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information
that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the
estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda
repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in
10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences."
They achieved similar results with another short protein.
Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a similar result for cytochrome C.
Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A.
Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86,
2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T.
Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316, 1990.
This hard science is a striking confirmation of Professor Yockey's theoretical work and is a major
.
Beyond amino acid bonding, there are other scientific facts that drive more nails into the coffin of the concept abiogenesis.
(8) To make life, we need amino acids, sugars, bases, and phosphates. This gives us several catch 22's. You need formaldehyde to make sugars, but formaldehyde fixes amino acids so that they do not react. Methane polymerizes formaldehyde, but must be present to make amino acids. Amino acids plus bases destroys formaldehyde. Calcium and magnesium in our oceans destroy phosphates; you can't get phosphates in oceans. Energy needed to make amino acids also destroys the amino acids.
R. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, "The Improbability of Pre-biotic Nucleic Acid Synthesis" 14 Origin of Life 565, 1984, relates how experiments like Miller-Urey have very limited significance because of the implausible conditions under which they are conducted:
"Many accounts of the origin of life assume the spontaneous synthesis of a self replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. However, these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and are run under conditions that are not compatible with one another. Any nucleic acid components that were formed in the primitive earth would tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polarization would be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances which would react preferentially with them."
The above is much more than enough to convince all reasonable people that abiogenesis is scientifically unfeasible. Louis Pasteur is correct when he gave us the biogenetic law that states that life only comes from life. It takes intelligence and 'know how' to create life. Non-thoughtful processes can not create life because those processes are controlled by the Laws of Physics and Chemistry and they can not place the necessary boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chemistry to form a living being.
What the laws of chemistry and physics tell us is that the most profound statement ever written on origin of life is: "In the beginning, G-d Created...".
(1) Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith: "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", p. 17, (1981, TWFT Publishers).
As with so much of evolution, the misinformation on the topics related to the "spontaneous generation of life", also known as "Abiogenesis", have been so often repeated instead of being deleted, especially in school curriculums and textbooks, not to mention sites like these, that science fiction has been, for far too long, masquerading as science.
Let's start with famous "Miller-Urey" experiment and update it from there.
An important pioneer in scientific research on abiogenesis is Alexander I. Oparin. In 1924, he determined what chemicals must be in the earth atmosphere for amino acids to be formed (e.g. methane, hydrogen, and ammonia) and what chemicals ought not to be there that will prohibit the formation of amino acids (e.g. Oxygen). Scientists like A.I. Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane proposed a sequence for life's origins in the 1920's, from complicated molecules in an oily liquid he called coacervate droplets, to the first protocell, to enzymes, to finally genes.
Miller prepared an experiment to observe what complicated molecules' might be produced under Oparin-Haldane's proposed ideal pre-biotic atmosphere. Sure enough, in an assumed atmosphere that was DESIGNED to produce amino acids, it was not at all surprising that amino acids formed:
The Products of the Miller Experiment: Tar 85%
Carboxylic acids not important to life 13.0%
Glycine 1.05%
Alanine 0.85%
Glutamic acid trace
Aspartic acid trace
Valine trace
Leucine trace
Serine trace
Proline trace
Treonine trace
Note: Glycine and Alanine are the two simplest amino acids of the twenty proteinous amino acids found in living creatures.
Miller's results were well received and widely reported by the mass media to be a major confirmation of evolution and of life arising spontaneously without a Creator. It became a valuable weapon in the evolutionists' propaganda arsenal for brain washing and brow beating the public and more so, unwary students, into accepting the legitimacy of Evolution.
The Miller-Urey experiment that produced amino acids under laboratory controlled conditions has been misrepresented in much High school, college and other text books. It is often presented that this experiment demonstrates that amino acids, necessary for life, form naturally in a primitive atmosphere. It is usually further asserted or implied that this experiment demonstrates that abiogenesis is highly probable and that this further demonstrates that evolution (Darwinian) is indeed a fact. Of course such textbooks are nonsense; this experiment demonstrates nothing of the kind. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates the opposite, it revealed the overwhelming difficulties that exist with the view that life can form naturally from non-living chemicals.
The key word above is 'controlled'. Intelligent control is what gets one the outcome they are looking for.
Using a system of glass flasks, Steven Miller attempted to simulate Alexander Oparin's ideal atmospheric conditions. He passed a mixture of H2O, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through an electrical spark discharge. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules made by the reaction. This trap prevented whatever chemicals formed from being destroyed by the energy source used to create them. Eventually, Miller was able to produce the above described mixture, containing the amino acids described above, and the building blocks of proteins.
This was as good as the science ever got for the evolutionists and their hopes for abiogenesis. From now on things get much worse for the Evolutionists. What the public and students have not been told about what science actually knows concerning the 'origin of life'.
To achieve his results, Miller had to use something that material evolutionists 'KNOW' did not exist in the pre-biotic earth: intelligence and mental "know-how". He drew on decades of knowledge of organic chemistry in setting up his experiment. The proportions of the various gases used, the actual apparatus, the position of the electrodes, the intensity of the spark, and the chemical trap, were all carefully adjusted to create maximum yield from the experiment.
Many attempts by Stanley Miller failed to produce any amino acids or other building blocks of life.
In an effort to make his Oparin atmosphere to mimic actual atmospheric conditions, Miller arranged fro his electrical discharge to simulate lightning. After a week of these lightning type electrical discharges in the reaction chamber, the sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a cloudy red. The predominant product was a gummy black substance made up of billions of carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially tar, a common nuisance in organic reactions.
However, no amino acids used by living systems or other building blocks of life, were produced on these first attempts. In his own words, Miller stated "An attempt was made to simulate lightning discharge by building up a large quantity of charge on a condenser until the spark jumped the gap between the electrodes. ... Very few organic compounds were produced and this discharge was not investigated further." from Robert Shapiro: "Origins, A Skeptics Guide ..." P. 103. 1986.
Only by constantly readjusting and fine tuning his apparatus and by using a continuous electrical charge that Miller eventually obtained the amino acids indicated it above. Even when using the same gas mixture and a continuous electrical discharge, Miller did not obtain any positive results until placing the apparatus in a different order. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, noted that with the use of "Intelligence" and "Know How:" on the part of the “origin of life” experimenters to achieve the results they desire prejudiced the results of their "Origin of Life" type experiments:
(P. 102-103)
"another significant factor also influences the products being formed in an experiment of this type, but is less recognized, selection by the experimenter."
"One clear message should emerge from this discussion. A variety of results may be possible from the same general type of experiment. The experimenter, by manipulating apparently unimportant variables, can affect the outcome profoundly. The data that he reports may be valid, but if only these results are communicated, a false impression may arise concerning the universality of the process. This situation was noticed by Creationist writer, Martin Lubenow, who commented: "I am convinced that in every origin of life experiment devised by evolutionists, the intelligence of the experimenter is involved in such a way as to prejudice the experiment.""
Now the science learned from the Miller-Urey negates rather than support Abiogenesis.
(1). The tar tends to fix the amino acids so that they are not that free to Bond. Bonding between amino acids must happen if theses amino acids are to form any kind of molecular structures leading to a replicating life form.
(2). Miller's amino acids, even if they were capable of bonding, are useless as a basis for abiogenesis.
The amino acids formed were racemates. That is, each amino acid was produced in equal quantities of Dextrorotary (Right handed Molecules) and Levorotary (Left handed) molecules. Furthermore, both right and left handed amino acids bond to each other equally well. However, all of life's proteins are made from left-handed amino acid chains. If just a single right handed amino acid molecule binds to a forming three dimensional chain of left handed amino acids, that right handed amino acid is lethal to the formation of the three dimensional chain.
"Without exception, all of Miller's amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous generation of life. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids that form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions. This is scientific fact." (1)
All amino acids that form by natural causes alone are racemized. Even those found on comets are racemized.
Though the above is fatal to any scenario for abiogenesis, science continues to bring more bad news for the evolutionist’s conception of origins.
(3) Oparin's ideal atmosphere of Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, and without Oxygen never existed! We've known for at least the past forty years that the pre-biotic atmosphere had oxygen that is lethal to the formation of life's building blocks, and it had at best, only traces of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen.
(4) Ultra-violet light would have destroyed amino acids formed in the atmosphere, and the chemicals of the ocean would have destroyed life's building blocks that ended up there.
Along the lines of beating a dead horse, the evolutionist’s hopes for establishing abiogenesis gets even more bad news from science:
(5) When amino acids bond together in pre-biotic experiments, they do so in several different ways using several types of links as the molecular bonds. Yet, only the type of link known as the ‘alpha link’ is used in all proteins of living organisms. In origin of life experiments, the alpha link is greatly outnumbered by the other types of links. Even if we greatly favor the evolutionist’s possibilities by allowing for every link in a forming 100 unit polypeptide chain to have a 50-50 chance of being an alpha type link, the probability of getting a 100 unit amino acid chain using only alpha links is 10 to the 30th power to one in a super-ideal mix of only left handed .
(6) There are 20 amino acids exclusively used in all living organisms. These are called proteinous amino acids. There are hundreds of amino acids that are not proteinous. Stephen Gould asked, "Why only a few amino acids in organisms when the [primordial] soup must have contained at least ten times as many." Amino acid molecules can link-up (polymerize) to form polypeptide chains. Those with certain structure and characteristics are called functional proteins. Functional proteins will consist of chains of 90 to 1000 amino acids. In a soup containing proteinous amino acids and 10 times the number of non-proteinous amino acids (which Gould says must have been there) then the probability of getting a functional protein consisting of 100 proteinous amino acids is 10 to the 100th power to one. This is just not going to happen.
(7) Handedness is only one of the hurdles to overcome on the way to life. The real big one is the origin of information, which is fundamentally differently to matter and molecules, even if you could get exclusively left handed molecules. We want to know how books get written, not just how paper and ink are formed. Of course if you can't get paper, you can't write anything on it, but the really critical thing is the message, not the medium.
Information expert Hubert Yockey in 1978, did theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity. Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65, even after assuming the most ideal conditions all amino acids are left handed, all necessary amino acids are present, that only alpha bonds occurred, and all chemicals and/or energy that could neutralize or destroy the amino acids are not present.
Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids in two different proteins. Upon each substitution, the protein sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains, up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other locations their was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One of the proteins they chose was the 92 residue lambda repressor.
Sauer et. al. calculated that:
"... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for
the entire 92 residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in
a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information
that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the
estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda
repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in
10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences."
They achieved similar results with another short protein.
Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a similar result for cytochrome C.
Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A.
Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86,
2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T.
Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316, 1990.
This hard science is a striking confirmation of Professor Yockey's theoretical work and is a major
.
Beyond amino acid bonding, there are other scientific facts that drive more nails into the coffin of the concept abiogenesis.
(8) To make life, we need amino acids, sugars, bases, and phosphates. This gives us several catch 22's. You need formaldehyde to make sugars, but formaldehyde fixes amino acids so that they do not react. Methane polymerizes formaldehyde, but must be present to make amino acids. Amino acids plus bases destroys formaldehyde. Calcium and magnesium in our oceans destroy phosphates; you can't get phosphates in oceans. Energy needed to make amino acids also destroys the amino acids.
R. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, "The Improbability of Pre-biotic Nucleic Acid Synthesis" 14 Origin of Life 565, 1984, relates how experiments like Miller-Urey have very limited significance because of the implausible conditions under which they are conducted:
"Many accounts of the origin of life assume the spontaneous synthesis of a self replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. However, these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and are run under conditions that are not compatible with one another. Any nucleic acid components that were formed in the primitive earth would tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polarization would be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances which would react preferentially with them."
The above is much more than enough to convince all reasonable people that abiogenesis is scientifically unfeasible. Louis Pasteur is correct when he gave us the biogenetic law that states that life only comes from life. It takes intelligence and 'know how' to create life. Non-thoughtful processes can not create life because those processes are controlled by the Laws of Physics and Chemistry and they can not place the necessary boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chemistry to form a living being.
What the laws of chemistry and physics tell us is that the most profound statement ever written on origin of life is: "In the beginning, G-d Created...".
(1) Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith: "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", p. 17, (1981, TWFT Publishers).
Post #20
Hi Abiele777!
Are you Bart 007? Or are you John Musselwhite or Arthur Biele (I'll bet that's the one!) Did you get this argument from Tim Thompson? Are you a plagiarist? Will your next post begin like this..."I have just posted a very powerful scientific refutation of abiogenesis."? Do you think that everything that hasn't been adequately explained by science must automatically be attributed to some deity?
Just wondering.
Are you Bart 007? Or are you John Musselwhite or Arthur Biele (I'll bet that's the one!) Did you get this argument from Tim Thompson? Are you a plagiarist? Will your next post begin like this..."I have just posted a very powerful scientific refutation of abiogenesis."? Do you think that everything that hasn't been adequately explained by science must automatically be attributed to some deity?
Just wondering.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
