Origin of Life research update

[SkyWriting]

as your link noted the attempt Miller did at replication was based on incomplete data about conditions at that point in time. Bada corrected that and....what do you know ...replicated Miller's results. As for results Wikipedia seems to list a good handful.

It's all wild as guesses. This is what everyone figured out, so any serious claims have been abandoned for the last 50 years.

 

[Aussie Pete]

You seem to be a fan. So go ahead

Jim Tour is rather better at it than I am. If you want the short version............

Cells are vastly more complex structures than Darwin and other scientists imagined
The full range of precursor chemicals for life to form do not exist in nature
Chemicals can be formed, but not in the exact same composition as required by simple cells
Even if the exact chemicals were available, there is no mechanism for those chemicals to form something that is alive
Researchers use chemicals that they buy, lab quality and use controlled conditions.
Cells require carbohydrates. Carbohydrates caramelise with time. The time scales envisaged by OOL researchers are far too long for carbohydrates to survive.
Not to mention the problem of chirality.

In the same time that OOL research has been going on, the "H" bomb was invented, Jet aircraft became commonplace, computers shrank from room size to desktop, we have GPS navigation, men walked on the moon, there is a laboratory in space, solar panels, wind turbines, wave generators and life saving medical procedures unheard of in the 50's. The atom has been revealed as vastly more complex than anything I learned at school. What has been achieved in OOL research in that time? Nothing. Zero. And it never will be because the fundamental premise is flawed.

 

[SilverBear]

It's all wild as guesses. This is what everyone figured out, so any serious claims have been abandoned for the last 50 years.

actually the information comes from samples the earths crust from that period. over the past 50 years numerous such samples have been found and analyzed. Even if this were not the case the Miller experiment and the many that followed have shown that it really isn't that difficult to have amino acids spontaneously form from non living materials.

 

[SilverBear]

Jim Tour is rather better at it than I am. If you want the short version............

Cells are vastly more complex structures than Darwin and other scientists imagined

.....so......?

The full range of precursor chemicals for life to form do not exist in nature

the miller experiment and its subsequent replications have produced 43 separate amino acids. Including all the amino acids essential for life. and a number of simple sugars


Formation of nucleobases in a Miller–Urey reducing atmosphere by Martin Ferus, Fabio Pietrucci, Antonino Marco Saitta, Antonín Knížek, Petr Kubelík, Ondřej Ivanek, Violetta Shestivska, and Svatopluk Civiš published in PNAS in 2017 conducted a reconstruction of the original miller experiment and found that RNA had formed

Chemicals can be formed, but not in the exact same composition as required by simple cells

an unsupported assumption

Even if the exact chemicals were available, there is no mechanism for those chemicals to form something that is alive

another unsupported assumption

Researchers use chemicals that they buy, lab quality and use controlled conditions.

......and....?

Cells require carbohydrates. Carbohydrates caramelise with time. The time scales envisaged by OOL researchers are far too long for carbohydrates to survive.

see above

Not to mention the problem of chirality.

[ and what problem is that?

In the same time that OOL research has been going on, the "H" bomb was invented, Jet aircraft became commonplace, computers shrank from room size to desktop, we have GPS navigation, men walked on the moon, there is a laboratory in space, solar panels, wind turbines, wave generators and life saving medical procedures unheard of in the 50's. The atom has been revealed as vastly more complex than anything I learned at school. What has been achieved in OOL research in that time? Nothing. Zero. And it never will be because the fundamental premise is flawed.

i think the spontaneous formation of RNA is a pretty big achievement.

 

[Aussie Pete]

.....so......?

the miller experiment and its subsequent replications have produced 43 separate amino acids. Including all the amino acids essential for life. and a number of simple sugars


Formation of nucleobases in a Miller–Urey reducing atmosphere by Martin Ferus, Fabio Pietrucci, Antonino Marco Saitta, Antonín Knížek, Petr Kubelík, Ondřej Ivanek, Violetta Shestivska, and Svatopluk Civiš published in PNAS in 2017 conducted a reconstruction of the original miller experiment and found that RNA had formed





an unsupported assumption

another unsupported assumption

......and....?

see above

[ and what problem is that?


i think the spontaneous formation of RNA is a pretty big achievement.

Reality: NOTHING has been achieved. Nearly 70 years and no closer.

The conditions for life forming in ancient earth do not include human made chemicals supplied in pristine condition. That's what OOL researchers use. They buy precursor chemicals. I don't accept it, of course, but supposedly there was some kind of chemical soup where miraculously chemicals somehow gathered together and by an unknown mechanism became alive. Hans Christian Anderson could not come up with a better fairy tale.

Francis Crick was not a believer in God. This is what he had to say:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

He was almost right. Life really is a miracle, created by God. Any other argument is not plausible. Sir Fred Hoyle realised this and decided life must have come from outer space. That begs the question where that life came from.

 

[SilverBear]

Reality: NOTHING has been achieved. Nearly 70 years and no closer.

The conditions for life forming in ancient earth do not include human made chemicals supplied in pristine condition. That's what OOL researchers use. They buy precursor chemicals. I don't accept it, of course, but supposedly there was some kind of chemical soup where miraculously chemicals somehow gathered together and by an unknown mechanism became alive. Hans Christian Anderson could not come up with a better fairy tale.

water is water no matter it is in a bottle, coming out of a tap or just hanging out in the ocean.

Francis Crick was not a believer in God. This is what he had to say:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

and he goes on to say: " But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

 

[Aussie Pete]

water is water no matter it is in a bottle, coming out of a tap or just hanging out in the ocean.

and he goes on to say: " But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

Of course he would go on to say that. It is illogical, but what else could he say? If you reject the notion of a Creator, there is no other conclusion. Who would go to an art gallery and say there must have been an explosion in a paint factory? Yet that is what Crick would have us believe, no matter how implausible it was to him.

Try drinking seawater. You will find it vastly different to what comes out of a tap. It's not the water that matters, it's the other constituents. Somehow life is supposed to have arisen in a chemical soup that is toxic to life. Or something. Whatever I've read from OOL researchers relies on the JSH principle - "Just So Happened". A few chemicals, the result of methane and stuff, was hit by lightning (which is incredibly destructive) and somehow sprang into life. That life began to convert CO2 to oxygen and now we have trees and fish and plants and animals......... No. It falls at the first hurdle. Life cannot arise from the inanimate. If it could, how come decomposing animals do not produce life? All the DNA and cell structures exist. Surely they could be revitalised? Or maybe life is not a mixture of chemicals that somehow became animated and were able to reproduce.

 

[SilverBear]

Of course he would go on to say that. It is illogical, but what else could he say?

that was the next sentence in the quote you mined.

If you reject the notion of a Creator, there is no other conclusion. Who would go to an art gallery and say there must have been an explosion in a paint factory? Yet that is what Crick would have us believe, no matter how implausible it was to him.

The explosion in the (blank) quip shows that either the speaker doesn't have a basic foundation in the process going on or chooses to ignore the actual process pretending that it is somehow random

Try drinking seawater. You will find it vastly different to what comes out of a tap.

water is water no mater where it comes from. the difference you are pointing to is the dissolved materials in the sample of water. Scientists use water free from dissolved materials to prevent someone from trying to brush off their findings by claiming they used contaminated water, you strangely enough are trying to brush off the findings of experiments by complaining about the fact that they use uncontaminated water

It's not the water that matters, it's the other constituents. Somehow life is supposed to have arisen in a chemical soup that is toxic to life. Or something. Whatever I've read from OOL researchers relies on the JSH principle - "Just So Happened".

then you have not read anything from the actual researchers.

A few chemicals, the result of methane and stuff, was hit by lightning (which is incredibly destructive) and somehow sprang into life.

and you have obviously never read the chemical analysis of the miller experiment.

That life began to convert CO2 to oxygen

not for about 3 billion years

and now we have trees and fish and plants and animals......... No.

between the development of photosysthesis and the first plant life was another 2.5 billion years

It falls at the first hurdle. Life cannot arise from the inanimate.

yet it happens in experiments. Under a lot of different conditions.

If it could, how come decomposing animals do not produce life?

you do realize the decomposition is a process of the life cycles of various other organisms don't you?

All the DNA and cell structures exist. Surely they could be revitalised? Or maybe life is not a mixture of chemicals that somehow became animated and were able to reproduce.

all the evidence says life is just that.[/quote]

 

[Aussie Pete]

that was the next sentence in the quote you mined.

The explosion in the (blank) quip shows that either the speaker doesn't have a basic foundation in the process going on or chooses to ignore the actual process pretending that it is somehow random



water is water no mater where it comes from. the difference you are pointing to is the dissolved materials in the sample of water. Scientists use water free from dissolved materials to prevent someone from trying to brush off their findings by claiming they used contaminated water, you strangely enough are trying to brush off the findings of experiments by complaining about the fact that they use uncontaminated water

then you have not read anything from the actual researchers.

and you have obviously never read the chemical analysis of the miller experiment.

not for about 3 billion years

between the development of photosysthesis and the first plant life was another 2.5 billion years

yet it happens in experiments. Under a lot of different conditions.

you do realize the decomposition is a process of the life cycles of various other organisms don't you?

all the evidence says life is just that.

[/QUOTE]
You know NOTHING of this stuff. No one does. No one knows time scales. No one knows the age of the earth or the universe for that matter. No one knows if the speed of light has always been constant. No one knows the composition of water at the time life was supposed to emerge. From what I've read, the earth was a kind of hell, bombarded with cosmic rays that destroy life. Or something. The water had to be contaminated or there would be no chemicals to form life. Researchers use pure water to control the experiments. I understand why they do it, but it sure does not reflect the conditions that they presuppose must have been there. It's pointless money pit like a great deal of scientific research.

 

[Aussie Pete]

actually the information comes from samples the earths crust from that period. over the past 50 years numerous such samples have been found and analyzed. Even if this were not the case the Miller experiment and the many that followed have shown that it really isn't that difficult to have amino acids spontaneously form from non living materials.

Amino acids are just a part of the equation. How do you answer the chirality problem?

 

[SilverBear]

You know NOTHING of this stuff. No one does. No one knows time scales.

these things are well known and easily refernced.

No one knows the age of the earth or the universe for that matter.

easily referenced

[No one knows if the speed of light has always been constant.

sure we do.

No one knows the composition of water at the time life was supposed to emerge.

It was H2O

From what I've read, the earth was a kind of hell, bombarded with cosmic rays that destroy life. Or something. The water had to be contaminated or there would be no chemicals to form life. Researchers use pure water to control the experiments.

and what do they put in the water?

I understand why they do it, but it sure does not reflect the conditions that they presuppose must have been there. It's pointless money pit like a great deal of scientific research.

they do it so they have an accurate description of exactly what is going into an experiment.

 

[Aussie Pete]

these things are well known and easily refernced.

easily referenced

sure we do.

It was H2O

and what do they put in the water?

they do it so they have an accurate description of exactly what is going into an experiment.

70 years of wasted time and money. That's all I can see. That is the reality.