Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#21  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 25, 2016 12:05 am

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Since all of the papers in question I have on the subject go into detail as to how they strive to replicate prebiotic Earth conditions, this apologetics fails.


It's not apologetics in the least. It is simply that a controlled experiment - especially one where the experimenter wants to make something happen - is not a plausible replicaiton of prebiotic conditions. The Sutherland lab was criticised in 2009 for using precursors that themselves were too complex to be readily explained and also for failing to reproduce their findings.


Except that most experiments are conducted on the basis that the experimenters don't know in detail what will happen before they set out. Plus, since we're dealing with chemistry here, replicating the known chemistry of the prebiotic Earth, and doing so with a proper degree of fidelity, is frequently necessary if the experiments aren't to fall apart at the start.

Oh, as for Sutherland's lab being "criticised in 2009" for the reasons you state, I think I'd have seen mention of this in the relevant journals, such as Nature, Science or Proceedings of the Royal Academy of London Part B. Since I have his 2009 paper on pyrimidine nucleotides, please tell me which of his starting ingredients were "too complex to be readily explained", given that his lab started with cyanamide, glycoaldehyde and glyceraldehyde. For the record, cyanamide and glycoaldehyde have been detected in interestellar space, and are not particularly complex molecules,viz:

[1] Cynanamide: H2N-CN

[2] Glycoaldehyde: HOCH2-CHO

Cyanamide was detected in the Sagittarius B2 gas cloud as far back as 1975 (the relevant paper being Microwave Detection Of Interstellar Cyanamide by B. E.Turner, H. S. Liszt, H. Kaifu & A. G. Kisliakov, The Astrophysical Journal, 201(2): L149-L152 (1st November 1975), which can be obtained in full here]).

Glycoaldehyde has been detected in interstellar space, as far as 26,000 light years from Earth. One of several papers devoted to the detection of this molecule is this one, viz:

Detection Of The Simplest Sugar, Glycolaldehyde, In A Solar-Type Protostar With ALMA by Jes K. Jørgensen, Cécile Favre, Suzanne E. Bisschop, Tyler L. Bourke, Ewine F. van Dishoeck and Markus Schmalzl, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 757(1): L4-L16 (29th August 2012)

So we have two nice simple molecules, that can by synthesised in interstellar space via ultraviolet photolysis (among other mechanisms), so any suggestion that these starting products are "too complex" won't wash with anyone who has actually paid attention in chemistry class. Especially as considerably more complex and exotic molecules have also been found in interstellar space: a sample paper covering such molecules is this one:

The Chemistry And Prospects For Interstellar Detection Of Some Dicyanoacetylenes And Other Cyanoacetylene-Related Species by Robert Kolos and Zbigniew R. Grabowski, Astrophysics & Space Science, 271: 65-72 (2000)

That paper reveals that molecules as complex as cyanopentacetylene have been detected in interstellar space, which, just for the record, is HC11N. That's a chain of five acetylene groups in a row, with a single hydrogen at one end, and a cyanide group at the other. Even more interestingly, Buckminsterfullerene, C60 and its C70 analogue, have also been found in the interstellar medium.

Glyceraldehyde is another common molecule, is the starting point for both prebiotic and biotic syntheses of the amino acid glycine, and is a precursor for biotic syntheses of alanine.

In the meantime, Sutherland moved on from his 2009 paper, which was already a landmark paper in the field, and demonstrated in 2015 that a wide range of organic molecules implicated in life, can be derived from nothing more complicated than hydrogen cyanide. The relevant paper is this one:

Common Origins Of RNA, Protein And Lipid Precursors In A Cyanosulfidic Protometabolism by Bhavesh H. Patel, Claudia Percivalle, Dougal J. Ritson, Colm D. Duffy & John D. Sutherland, Nature Chemistry, 7: 301-307 (16th March 2015)

Patel et al, 2015 wrote:A minimal cell can be thought of as comprising informational, compartment-forming and metabolic subsystems. To imagine the abiotic assembly of such an overall system, however, places great demands on hypothetical prebiotic chemistry. The perceived differences and incompatibilities between these subsystems have led to the widely held assumption that one or other subsystem must have preceded the others. Here we experimentally investigate the validity of this assumption by examining the assembly of various biomolecular building blocks from prebiotically plausible intermediates and one-carbon feedstock molecules. We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives, and thus that all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry. The key reaction steps are driven by ultraviolet light, use hydrogen sulfide as the reductant and can be accelerated by Cu(I)–Cu(II) photoredox cycling.


So, I'm wondering at this juncture, about the source of some of your assertions, given that I can't find anything even tenuously connected thereto in actual scientific journals. You didn't source these assertions from the usual disreputable suspects such as AiG, did you?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22089
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#22  Postby Wortfish » Dec 25, 2016 12:05 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
So, I'm wondering at this juncture, about the source of some of your assertions, given that I can't find anything even tenuously connected thereto in actual scientific journals. You didn't source these assertions from the usual disreputable suspects such as AiG, did you?


Nope, the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/scien ... ef=science

Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#23  Postby Greyman » Dec 25, 2016 12:47 pm

Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”
So, criticised by a proponent of "metabolism first" theory in a newspaper interview, and criticism answered in the very next paragraph:
Dr. Sutherland replied that the chemical is consumed fastest in the reaction he proposes, and that since it has been detected on Titan there is no reason it should not have been present on the early earth.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 53

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#24  Postby Clive Durdle » Dec 25, 2016 2:11 pm

laklak wrote:I've explained all this to you atheists before but you never listen. See, Noah took every kind on the boat with him. That's actually a lot less animals then you might think. For example, he took a couple of Monkey kind. That's kind of like a monkey. Then God took the two monkeys and made some of their children bigger, to be gorillas, because gorillas are kind of like monkeys. He then stretched the arms of some and make Orangutans, which are again kind of like monkeys. Chimps, howlers, rhesus, all kind of like monkeys. Same happened with donkeys. Donkeys are kind of like horses and horses ore kind of like zebras, right? Hamsters are kind of like gerbils, which are kind of like chinchillas, which are kind of like prairie dogs, which are kind of like meerkats, all the way up to nutrias and capybaras, which are both kind of like all the others. Don't forget beavers, they're kind of like that too. Etc. Etc. Etc., and bingo, 1 trillion species!

Easy peasy for Our Great and Loving Lord! Checkmate, atheists.


So the ark was really small with only mr and mrs last common ancestor on it? No need to take cabbage kinds and smallpox kinds?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4854

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#25  Postby Clive Durdle » Dec 25, 2016 2:22 pm

On the divine spark, that is assumed to come from an eternal god.

Ok, why not cut out the middle man, and go for an eternal universe, continually evolving through big bangs, but this phase of existence is still nothing in eternity, and so the universe really is nothing and we are in the phase change of an extended quantum fluctuation of temporarily being something?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4854

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#26  Postby monkeyboy » Dec 25, 2016 5:45 pm

I'm still baffled as to why the celestial mystery man insists on playing this perverse game of selection for who gets eternal paradise and who gets eternal torture. Makes no sense. Why not just create lots of obedient and loyal drones to sing nice songs about him and generally worship him in the first place?
All this silly shit about talking snakes and hiding in burning bushes and drowning nearly everyone and everything and spurious virgin births and sacrificing himself to please himself and fucking around making bets on how miserable he can make someone before they get pissed off with him etc. What's the point of it all?
Makes far more sense that man just randomly evolved to be top of the whole pile of primordial slime and generally exploits the entire planet, greedily sucking up its resources etc whilst a few of them start to wonder if it might be an idea to cut back on it all a bit. Far more sense than some allegedly intelligent entity planned it to be like this, unless that entity is also completely fucking insane!
Last edited by monkeyboy on Dec 25, 2016 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5475
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#27  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 25, 2016 10:08 pm

Greyman wrote:
Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”
So, criticised by a proponent of "metabolism first" theory in a newspaper interview, and criticism answered in the very next paragraph:
Dr. Sutherland replied that the chemical is consumed fastest in the reaction he proposes, and that since it has been detected on Titan there is no reason it should not have been present on the early earth.


Actually, in the original 2009 paper, this is what Sutherland actually said. First, the abstract:

Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009 wrote:Abstract

At some stage in the origin of life, an informational polymer must have arisen by purely chemical means. According to one version of the ‘RNA world’ hypothesis1–3 this polymer was RNA, but attempts to provide experimental support for this have failed4,5. In particular, although there has been some success demonstrating that ‘activated’ ribonucleotides can polymerize to form RNA6,7, it is far from obvious how such ribonucleotides could have formed from their constituent parts (ribose and nucleobases). Ribose is difficult to form selectively8,9, and the addition of nucleobases to ribose is inefficient in the case of purines10 and does not occur at all in the case of the canonical pyrimidines11. Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates. The starting materials for the synthesis—cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate—are plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules12–15, and the conditions of the synthesis are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models. Although inorganic phosphate is only incorporated into the nucleotides at a late stage of the sequence, its presence from the start is essential as it controls three reactions in the earlier stages by acting as a general acid/base catalyst, a nucleophilic catalyst, a pH buffer and a chemical buffer. For prebiotic reaction sequences, our results highlight the importance of working with mixed chemical systems in which reactants for a particular reaction step can also control other steps.


However, Sutherland and the other authors then move on to the actual meat of their paper, thus:

Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009 wrote:Because they comprise phosphate, ribose and nucleobases, it is tempting to assume that ribonucleotides must have prebiotically assembled from such building blocks. Thus, for example, it has previously been supposed that the activated ribonucleotide β-ribocytidine-2',3'-cyclic phosphate 1 must have been produced by phosphorylation of the ribonucleoside 2, with the latter deriving from the conjoining of the free pyrimidine nucleobase cytosine 3 and the furanose form of ribose 4 (Fig. 1, blue arrows). This mode of assembly is seemingly supported by the facts that cytosine 3 can be synthesized by condensation of cyanoacetaldehyde 5 and urea 6]16 (the hydration products of cyanoacetylene 717, and cyanamide 818, respectively) and pentoses including ribose can be produced by aldol reaction of glyceraldehyde 9 and glycolaldehyde 108,9. The insuperable problem with this approach, however, is that one of the presumed steps, the condensation of ribose 4 and cytosine 3, does not work11. The reasons for this are both kinetic (the N1 lone pair of 3 is unavailable owing to delocalization) and, in water, thermodynamic (the equilibrium constant is such that hydrolysis of 2 to 3 and 4 is favoured over condensation). The same is true for ribosylation of uracil, which has also not been demonstrated. We have considered a large number of alternative ribonucleotide assembly modes, including those that extend back to the same small-molecule precursors as the traditionally assumed route described above19. By systematic experimental investigation of these options, we have discovered a short, highly efficient route to activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides from these same precursors that proceeds by way of alternative intermediates (Fig. 1, green arrows). By contrast with previously investigated routes to ribonucleotides, ours bypasses ribose and the free pyrimidine nucleobases. Mixed nitrogenous–oxygenous chemistry first results in the reaction of cyanamide 8 and glycolaldehyde 10, giving 2-amino-oxazole 11, and this heterocycle then adds to glyceraldehyde 9 to give the pentose amino-oxazolines including the arabinose derivative 12. Reaction of 12 with cyanoacetylene 7 then gives the anhydroarabinonucleoside 13, which subsequently undergoes phosphorylation with rearrangement to furnish β-ribocytidine-2',3'-cyclic phosphate 1. In a subsequent photochemical step, 1 is partly converted to the corresponding uracil derivative, and synthetic co-products are largely destroyed.


So, the steps in the Sutherland et al synthesis consist of:

[1] H2N-CN + HOCH2-CHO → H2N-<-C=N-CH=CH-O-> (cyanamide + glycoaldehyde gives 2-aminooxazole);

In the above, I've denoted a ring by leaving the bonds open at the ends of the ring, starting with the carbon to which the amine is attached, and enclosing the whole in <> characters, to denote that the end bonds are in fact identical, making the whole enclosed structure a ring. At the moment, we don't have a chemistry formula editor embedded in the forum, so this will have to suffice for the moment.

[2] 2-aminooxazole + glyceraldehyde (HO-CH2-CH(OH)-CHO) gives a range of pentose amino-oxazolines;

[3] Reduction of arabinose amino-oxazoline by cyanoacetylene (C2H-CN) gives the anhydroarabinonucleoside;

[4] Phosphorylation of this product gives β-ribocytidine-2',3'-cyclic phosphate;

[5] Photochemical rearrangement gives the uracil ribonucleotide.

The authors then reveal this:

Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009 wrote:We had previously shown that in unbuffered aqueous solution, 2-amino-oxazole 11 adds to glyceraldehyde 9 to give the pentose amino-oxazolines including 12 in excellent overall yield20. Our starting point in the present work was therefore to find a prebiotically plausible synthesis of 11. Constitutionally, 11 is the condensation product of 8 and 10, and although there exists, in the conventional chemical literature, a procedure to bring about this condensation, it requires strongly alkaline conditions21. Because we wanted to generate 11, and then allow it to react with 9, which is unstable to alkali, under the same conditions, neutral-pH reaction conditions had to be found.


So the authors had already demonstrated the plausibility of Step [2] above, and needed first to find how to achieve Step [1] without requiring strongly alkaline conditions. They proceeded thus:

Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009 wrote:We initially investigated the reaction with 8 and 10 in a 1:1 ratio starting at neutral pH in unbuffered aqueous solution. Only a small amount of 11 was produced under these conditions, and 1H NMR spectra were indicative of the formation of a variety of carbonyl addition adducts and other intermediates, for example 14–18 (Fig. 2a, b). The carbonyl addition adducts 14 were presumably formed reversibly, and so did not represent material irretrievably committed to other products, but rather intermediates stalled en route to 11. At low concentrations of hydroxide, it appeared that two additional types of reaction needed to make 11 were very sluggish: intra-adduct attack of the glycolaldehyde-derived hydroxyl group on the cyanamidederived nitrile carbon (for example 14 (n=0) → 15), and C–H deprotonation leading to aromatization (1711).

Denied the opportunity of using hydroxide as a specific base catalyst to accelerate these slow steps, we sought a general base catalyst that could provide the same acceleration, but at neutral pH. Inorganic phosphate seemed to be ideal in this regard because its second pKa value is close to neutrality. Furthermore, as phosphate is ultimately needed in some form to make activated nucleotides, we decided to include it from the start of the assembly sequence. We repeated the earlier reaction of cyanamide 8 and glycolaldehyde 10, but in the presence of 1M phosphate buffer at pH 7.0. 1H NMR analysis revealed that 2-amino-oxazole 11 was produced in >80% yield (75% isolated yield) (Fig. 2c). With an excess of 8 over 10, the synthesis of 11 still takes place in the presence of phosphate, but is followed by slower phosphate addition to residual 8 giving the intermediate adduct 19, which partitions to urea 6 and cyanoguanidine 20 (Fig. 2d).


Lo and behold, the phosphate ions needed for Step [4] above, could also act as a neutral pH catalyst for Step [1]!

Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009 wrote:We then investigated whether the subsequent reaction of 11 with glyceraldehyde 9 would be tolerant to the residual presence of phosphate. In the absence of phosphate, the ribose and arabinose aminooxazolines 21 and 12 are the major products, and the xylose derivative 22 is a minor product (Fig. 3a)20. The lyxose amino-oxazoline 23 is formed in intermediate amounts as an equilibrating mixture of pyranose and furanose isomers. All of the pentose amino-oxazolines have the potential to be converted reversibly into one or other of the 5-substituted 2-amino-oxazoles 24 and 25 by phosphate catalysis (by chemistry similar to that underlying the conversion of 16 to 11), but to differing extents depending on their stability. After one day in the presence of phosphate, all of the amino-oxazolines showed some conversion to the corresponding 5-substituted 2-amino-oxazole (24 or 25), but the lyxose amino-oxazoline 23 proved the least stable and underwent the greatest conversion (Fig. 3b). We then took a crude sample of 11 that had just been prepared from cyanamide 8 and glycolaldehyde 10 in the presence of phosphate, and added glyceraldehyde 9 to it. After overnight incubation, 1H NMR analysis revealed that although all four amino-oxazolines were still formed, the lyxose derivative 23 was selectively depleted and was now a minor product along with the xylose derivative 22 (Fig. 3c). With two of its stereoisomeric relatives now minor products, the path from the arabinose aminooxazoline 12 to ribonucleotides looked clearer. Selective crystallization of ribose amino-oxazoline 21 offers a further means of enriching 12 such that it becomes the major product in solution20,22.


So, after finding the catalysis route needed to produce Step [1] under neutral pH conditions, the authors then checked to see if the catalysis choice would interfere with Step [2], and found, no doubt to their delight, that unwanted stereoisomers were virtually eliminated, leaving them with the desired arabinose aminooxazoline needed to facilitate Step [3].

Moving on, the authors then conducted more experiments, to find out how Step [3] might proceed, and under what conditions:

Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009 wrote:We then proceeded to the second stage of pyrimidine nucleobase assembly. Although our focus was on the chemistry of the key arabinose amino-oxazoline 12, the corresponding chemistry of the ribose aminooxazoline 21 was also studied (Supplementary Information). It had earlier been shown that in unbuffered aqueous solution, 12 reacts with an excess of cyanoacetylene 7 giving β-arabinocytidine 26, (Fig. 4a)23. The yield of 26 was relatively low, however, and we used 1H NMR analysis to determine why. It transpires that the pH rises during the course of the reaction, resulting in hydrolysis of anhydronucleoside intermediates and causing hydroxyl groups to undergo reaction with cyanoacetylene 7 (Supplementary Information). To prevent the rise in pH during the reaction, inorganic phosphate was added as a buffer. When the buffering pH was 6.5, the reactions were extremely clean, with little evidence for anhydronucleoside hydrolysis. Furthermore, excess cyanoacetylene 7 that did not evaporate underwent reaction with phosphate at this pH, giving cyanovinyl phosphate 27 instead of cyanovinylating hydroxyl groups. Using phosphate as a dual-function pH and chemical buffer in this way, the arabinose anhydronucleoside 13 could be produced in extremely high yield from 12


So, those phosphate ions needed for Step 4, not only acted as a neutral catalyst for Step [1], but provided a pH buffer to stabilise Step [3], and prevent cyanoacetylene from engaging in unwanted side reactions!

Moving on, the authors then provide this:

Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009 wrote:Our finding that the reaction of the amino-oxazoline 12 with cyanoacetylene 7 could be controlled, by the pH and chemical buffering action of phosphate, to produce the arabinose anhydronucleoside 13 in excellent yield opened up the possibility of a combined phosphorylation–rearrangement24,25 reaction to convert 13 to the activated ribonucleotide 1. Furthermore, the formation of cyanovinyl phosphate 27, as a co-product in the nucleobase assembly process, extended the range of potential phosphorylating agents for such a process because, in aqueous solution, 27 undergoes reaction with inorganic phosphate to give pyrophosphate17. Accordingly, we investigated the phosphorylation of the anhydronucleoside 13 using both inorganic phosphate and pyrophosphate.


So, even better still, the additional reactions of cyanoacetylene with phosphate ions, provided additional phosphorylating agents for Step [4]!

Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009 wrote:Prebiotic phosphorylation of nucleosides has been demonstrated by heating either in the dry state with urea26 or in formamide solution27. We were particularly attracted by the possibility of using urea 6 in the phosphorylation of 13 because it is a co-product of the chemical system in which 2-amino-oxazole 11 is produced from glycolaldehyde 10 and cyanamide 8, if the latter is initially present in excess (Fig. 2d). After preliminary experiments, and through consideration of the phosphorylation mechanism (Supplementary Information), we found that when 13 was heated with 0.5 equiv. of pyrophosphate in urea containing ammonium salts, 1 was formed as the major product in addition to 28 and 29 (the 5'-phosphate derivatives of 13 and 1, respectively) and small amounts of the hydrolysis product β-arabinocytidine 26 and its 5'-phosphate derivative 30 (Fig. 4b, procedure A; Supplementary Information). Alternatively, 1 was formed in very good yield—along with 29, the hydrolysis products 26 and [/b]30[/b], and the nucleobases cytosine 3 and diaminopyrimidine 31—by heating 13 with inorganic phosphate and urea in formamide solution (Fig. 4b, procedure B; Supplementary Information).


So not only did they find their desired nucleotide popping out of Step [4] (via Step [5]), but they also ended up with additional nucleobases being synthesised alongside their desired nucleotide!

After some deliberation on the likely reaction mechanism, which I'll leave out here, as I've provided a link to the paper previously, the authors then move on to another neat step, as follows:

Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009 wrote:If the products of the phosphorylation reaction in urea were subsequently to dissolve in aqueous medium at neutral pH and incubate for any significant length of time, then any residual anhydronucleoside/ anhydronucleotide would undergo hydrolysis. Assuming such a rehydration, after phosphorylation in urea or urea–formamide mixtures, the major nucleosides/nucleotides that would accompany 1 would be 26, 29 and 30 (in addition to any products ultimately deriving fromthe ribose amino-oxazoline 21 that was a by-product in the synthesis of arabinose amino-oxazoline 12; see Supplementary Information). It is apparent that although 1 would be one of the major products, these coproducts might interfere with any subsequent incorporation of 1 into RNA. Accordingly, we sought a means of selectively destroying these co-products. Furthermore, we also hoped to find a way of converting 1 partly to the corresponding activated uracil nucleotide, β-ribouridine-2',3'-cyclic phosphate 33. It transpires that irradiation achieves both of these goals.

Limited irradiation of aqueous solutions of cytosine nucleosides with ultraviolet light having an emission maximum at 254 nm results in the reversible formation of photohydrates and partial hydrolysis to the corresponding uracil nucleosides28. Prolonged irradiation causes additional chemistry to take place29, and results in the destruction of most pyrimidine nucleosides and nucleotides (for example 26, 30 and the major nucleoside/nucleotide products deriving from ribose amino-oxazoline 21; see Supplementary Information). By contrast, however, we found that prolonged irradiation of β-ribocytidine-29,39- cyclic phosphate 1 causes significant hydrolysis to β-ribouridine- 2',3;-cyclic phosphate 33, with very little destructive photochemistry other than slight nucleobase loss; cytosine 3 and uracil 34 were both detected (Fig. 5). This finding suggests that there must be some protective mechanism functioning with 1 and 33 that does not operate with other pyrimidine nucleosides and nucleotides. Whatever the mechanism (Supplementary Information), the protection against the destructive effects of irradiation provides a means whereby 1 and 33, the two activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides needed for RNA synthesis, can be enriched relative to other end products of the assembly process we have discovered.


Now how's that for a discovery! Apparently, ultraviolet light selectively destroys the unwanted nucleosides, and enhances the production of the ones required for RNA synthesis! Which means that Step [5] above, not only provides the uracil nucleotide sought, but also provides a path for the generation of the cytosine nucleotide as well!

It really doesn't get much better than this, does it? Science, it works - bitches! :mrgreen:
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22089
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#28  Postby Wortfish » Dec 16, 2017 4:42 pm

Calilasseia wrote:

Now how's that for a discovery! Apparently, ultraviolet light selectively destroys the unwanted nucleosides, and enhances the production of the ones required for RNA synthesis! Which means that Step [5] above, not only provides the uracil nucleotide sought, but also provides a path for the generation of the cytosine nucleotide as well!

It really doesn't get much better than this, does it? Science, it works - bitches! :mrgreen:


As has been pointed out by critics many times, the chemistry may be right, but the reasoning and logic is wrong.
“Although as an exercise in chemistry this represents some very elegant work, this has nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth whatsoever......the chances that blind, undirected, inanimate chemistry would go out of its way in multiple steps and use of reagents in just the right sequence to form RNA is highly unlikely."
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/ins ... 71.article

You see, in the wild, complex molecules are always being broken down into simpler constituents. But in the lab, the opposite can be true. Unfortunately, the origin of life happened on the surface of the early earth and not in a 21st century laboratory.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#29  Postby Animavore » Dec 16, 2017 4:52 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:

Now how's that for a discovery! Apparently, ultraviolet light selectively destroys the unwanted nucleosides, and enhances the production of the ones required for RNA synthesis! Which means that Step [5] above, not only provides the uracil nucleotide sought, but also provides a path for the generation of the cytosine nucleotide as well!

It really doesn't get much better than this, does it? Science, it works - bitches! :mrgreen:


As has been pointed out by critics many times, the chemistry may be right, but the reasoning and logic is wrong.
“Although as an exercise in chemistry this represents some very elegant work, this has nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth whatsoever......the chances that blind, undirected, inanimate chemistry would go out of its way in multiple steps and use of reagents in just the right sequence to form RNA is highly unlikely."
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/ins ... 71.article

You see, in the wild, complex molecules are always being broken down into simpler constituents. But in the lab, the opposite can be true. Unfortunately, the origin of life happened on the surface of the early earth and not in a 21st century laboratory.


Quote mine. Continued...

Instead, he advocates the metabolism-first argument: that early self-sustaining autocatalytic chemosynthetic systems associated with amino acids predated RNA.


And continued further...

But Sutherland acknowledges the implications of his research in this debate. ’The RNA world is a very restrictive, hypothetical arrangement and one shouldn’t necessarily interpret our results as just supporting an RNA world,’ explains Sutherland.   ’Our work doesn’t preclude metabolism being important, but it suggests that nucleic acids would be central to any early origin of life idea.’


[underline mine]
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44738
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#30  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 16, 2017 7:03 pm

So this thread was necromanced with a quote mine? Quelle surprise. It's all creationists have to keep propping up their ever more desperate apologetics.

Plus, the natural tendency of scientists to stick with the processes that they themselves are working on, and use that as a basis for critiquing alternatives, doesn't in the least invalidate chemistry from those alternatives that has been demonstrated empirically to work. In short, the critique here consisted of "nice chemical reaction that works, but I don't think it's relevant because I'm working on different chemistry that I think is relevant".

Now that we have a baseline of working chemical reactions to proceed from, my view is that it's entirely possible that the chemical reactions from one alternative hypothesis, could have fed into the reactions from another, and the various alternatives in place, if integrated, could all have propelled each other to the requisite state needed to bootstrap the first protocells. Indeed, I gather that this is precisely Jack Szostak's latest line of attack - find out if RNA synthesis and metabolic hypercycles could have chemically cross-pollinated, so to speak. The moment such a coupling is demonstrated in the laboratory, we've moved on from 'competing hypotheses' to 'cooperating hypotheses', and my view is that this will bear rich fruit if pursued with sufficient diligence.

Of course, even if the relevant scientific researchers succeed in putting together an experiment, that starts with simple molecules at the beginning, and yields viable protocells at the other, creationists will still invent specious excuses to dismiss that work. It's a well-documented part of the aetiology.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22089
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#31  Postby Wortfish » Dec 16, 2017 7:14 pm

Animavore wrote:
Quote mine. Continued...


It wasn't quoted out of context. Shapiro is not a creationist, and has alternative ideas, but his criticism of Sutherland's reasoning (not his methods) is identicial to the criticisms offered by creationists.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#32  Postby Wortfish » Dec 16, 2017 7:18 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
Of course, even if the relevant scientific researchers succeed in putting together an experiment, that starts with simple molecules at the beginning, and yields viable protocells at the other, creationists will still invent specious excuses to dismiss that work. It's a well-documented part of the aetiology.

If the objective of the "experiment" is to generate functioning protocells though a series of choreographed and controlled events, then this can only be regarded as an exercise in intelligent design. It would be better if some of the steps occurred accidentally and without any human supervision. But if abiogenesis is based solely on natural causes and processes, one has to wonder why it has happened only once when what we consider to be "natural" is reproducible and repeatable. Miracles, however, need happen just once.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#33  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2017 7:25 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Quote mine. Continued...


It wasn't quoted out of context.

If you cut out the part where Ani proves that it is, thereby comitting another quote-mine.....

Wortfish wrote: Shapiro is not a creationist, and has alternative ideas, but his criticism of Sutherland's reasoning (not his methods) is identicial to the criticisms offered by creationists.

Completely irrelevant as to whether the statement was out of context or not.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#34  Postby Animavore » Dec 16, 2017 7:55 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Of course, even if the relevant scientific researchers succeed in putting together an experiment, that starts with simple molecules at the beginning, and yields viable protocells at the other, creationists will still invent specious excuses to dismiss that work. It's a well-documented part of the aetiology.

If the objective of the "experiment" is to generate functioning protocells though a series of choreographed and controlled events, then this can only be regarded as an exercise in intelligent design. It would be better if some of the steps occurred accidentally and without any human supervision. But if abiogenesis is based solely on natural causes and processes, one has to wonder why it has happened only once when what we consider to be "natural" is reproducible and repeatable. Miracles, however, need happen just once.

Who says it only happened once? We already know of hundreds of planets out there and don't know what's on them.

But we don't even have to go that far. It's not impossible all types of proto-biotic life existed in the early stages of Earth but our ancestor "won out" and destroyed all the other proto-biotic life.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44738
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#35  Postby Rumraket » Dec 16, 2017 8:00 pm

Wortfish wrote:You see, in the wild, complex molecules are always being broken down into simpler constituents.

You know this is provably false, don't you?

If what you say was really true, only the elemental forms of the entire periodic table would exist in nature. But that isn't the case. Carbonaceous chondrites contain extraordinaly complex organic molecules. Most of them are insolube and probably unrelated to the origin of life. But they're certainly not simple. Here's an example:
1-s2.0-S1631071307002830-gr4.jpg
1-s2.0-S1631071307002830-gr4.jpg (38.23 KiB) Viewed 1636 times


This is a lot more complex than any particular amino acid or monomer of RNA or DNA.
Last edited by Rumraket on Dec 16, 2017 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#36  Postby Rumraket » Dec 16, 2017 8:12 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Of course, even if the relevant scientific researchers succeed in putting together an experiment, that starts with simple molecules at the beginning, and yields viable protocells at the other, creationists will still invent specious excuses to dismiss that work. It's a well-documented part of the aetiology.

If the objective of the "experiment" is to generate functioning protocells though a series of choreographed and controlled events, then this can only be regarded as an exercise in intelligent design. It would be better if some of the steps occurred accidentally and without any human supervision.

Pick any location on Earth, then accurately monitor the temperature, humidity and precipitation, pressure, light levels, fluctuations in concentration of local gases, the slow dissolution of local rocks and minerals into local bodies of water, and so on over a period of 10 days. Now ask, what were the odds before it happened that such a particular sequence of fluctuations would happen?

What were the odds that it would rain as much as it did, in those exact intervals, simultaneously with the temperature changing in the exact way it did, and the local concentrations of O2, CO2, N2 and so on all fluctuated in the particular pattern and magnitude they did?

Realize that there would be no in-principle difference between scientists recreating a hypothetical sequence of physical and chemical circumstances, and one brought about by the natural forces of the environment. They all look a priori unlikely. But it's a large universe, and things that look a priori unlikely happen every day.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#37  Postby theropod » Dec 16, 2017 9:59 pm

For years creotards screamed that man will never create life from raw materials. Now that there is a distinct possibility that we are on the verge of just that the same creotards are now using intelligence design as an out. Never mind that every single attempt to shoehorn ID into observational reality has fallen flat. The intellectual dishonesty, and outright hypocrisy, would be funny if such was not so disgustingly reprehensible. Yes, it is that simple. The self proclaimed morally superior group have become so desperate that lying for Jebus is now standard practice.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#38  Postby pelfdaddy » Dec 16, 2017 10:05 pm

Wortfish, let me see if I have this straight...

Even though observing Nature can only get us started in the process of collecting data, since there are too many variables involved to construct a working hypothesis; and even though laboratory experimentation has proven to be a most effective means of isolating the critical variables so that we can actually learn something; and even though the very thing you claim can NOT happen is SHOWN to happen in the laboratory...

...you are still complaining that the thing you insisted could never be observed HAS been observed, because you are pissed off that "Those guys set things up so that they COULD observe it".

Do I have that right? I mean, even though I forewent my higher education to study the Bible and become a minister, even I can see that what you did right there...

...was straight up dishonest. I won't call you a liar; just a bullshit-ass motherfucker. You should save the elementary apologetics for church, where the trick won't be noticed.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1022
Age: 54
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#39  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 17, 2017 3:25 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Of course, even if the relevant scientific researchers succeed in putting together an experiment, that starts with simple molecules at the beginning, and yields viable protocells at the other, creationists will still invent specious excuses to dismiss that work. It's a well-documented part of the aetiology.


If the objective of the "experiment" is to generate functioning protocells though a series of choreographed and controlled events, then this can only be regarded as an exercise in intelligent design.


Except that your description above is a travesty of the actual research. Which actually consists of "let's put these reactions together and see if they work".

But it's typical of creationist apologetics to misrepresent said research, not to mention peddle the usual duplicitous pairing of responses to the outcome, namely:

[1] If the reactions in the experiment fail to produce a relevant result, claim that this purportedly "proves" testable natural process cannot be responsible for life;

[2] If the reactions in the experiment succeed in producing a relevant result, claim that this purportedly involves "design", when it does nothing of the sort.

What part of "we don't know if it will work when we begin, let's try it and see" equals "design" of the sort creationists routinely pontificate about? Oh that's right, it doesn't, because the sort of "design" creationists routinely pontificate about, involves perfect prior knowledge of the outcome. Except that, oops, scientists have never had this.

Wortfish wrote:It would be better if some of the steps occurred accidentally and without any human supervision.


But if no one is around to observe whether or not the reactions are actually working, what's the fucking point of doing the experiment? That's the whole fucking point of experiments in case you failed to read the memo - try something out, and learn from the outcome!

:picard:

Wortfish wrote:But if abiogenesis is based solely on natural causes and processes, one has to wonder why it has happened only once when what we consider to be "natural" is reproducible and repeatable.


Try because the moment one set of reactions works, and produces viable protocells, those protocells are going to interfere with any subsequent different sets of reactions that might work. At the very least, by consuming the reactants or products as food.

This is why scientists are looking for other venues, to see if life appeared there. So that they have more than one instance to work with. Because the moment any set of chemical reactions succeeds in producing life, the products of that set of reactions will, by definition, shut down any other options.

Wortfish wrote:Miracles, however, need happen just once.


A statement whose fatuous nature will only become even more apparent, the moment life is found on Titan, Enceladus or Europa.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22089
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Creationists reveal how so many species evolved in 4K years.

#40  Postby Shrunk » Dec 17, 2017 5:21 pm

Wortfish wrote:You see, in the wild, complex molecules are always being broken down into simpler constituents.


Wow. I mean, I know you always write stupid shit here. But, just, wow. You've really floored me this time.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest