The Origin of Life

The_Metatron · **#141** by **The_Metatron** » Apr 30, 2011 7:36 am

The next installment:

The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, in THE ORIGIN OF LIFE - FIVE QUESTIONS WORTH ASKING, wrote:What does the evidence reveal? The answer to the question, Where do babies come from? is well-documented and uncontroversial. Life always comes from preexisting life. However, if we go back far enough in time, is it really possible that this fundamental law was broken? Could life really spontaneously spring from non-living chemicals? What are the chances that such an event could happen?

Researchers have learned that for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together-DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), RNA (ribo nucleic ac id), and proteins. Today, few scientists would assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. What, though, is the probability that RNA or proteins could form by chance?*

• The probability or DNA forming by chance will be discussed in section 3. -Where Did the Instructions Come From"~

So far, we have no evidence contradicting the observations that life always comes from pre-existing life. So far. As has already been discussed in this topic, we do have evidence that it may be possible, but no, we haven't seen it yet. Is this a law, though? Not necessarily an authoritative source, but the article in Wikipedia about the Laws of Science don't list a single one that is biological.

It occurs to me again that up to this point, the authors of this booklet have failed to give a rigorous definition of "life". But, they have no problem at all leaping straight into the next paragraph, setting the stage once more for discussing what is likely to be their quantum particle of life, the cell. The rest of the booklet is mostly concerned with showing how fantastically complicated a living cell is, and how impossible it is for a living cell to just react its way into existence chemically by chance, and how inevitable our defeat is, blah, blah, blah.

Actually, I don't have any significant problem with the second paragraph above. Although, for different reasons than those who wrote it, to be sure.

GenesForLife · **#142** by **GenesForLife** » Apr 30, 2011 7:59 am

There is also further mendacity involved by postulating "chance" which in cretinist circles usually means "uncaused" as opposed to naturally caused but statistically indeterminate, which is the scientific definition. Nobody worth their salt would postulate that life spontaneously popped into existence by "chance", they postulate natural processes that can be analysed in chemistry labs through experimentation.

They fundamentally are setting up a strawman to argue against. One may also note that the "law" of biogenesis is also broken if their mythological account of creation is true. The fact that they shy away from accepting this is hypocritical.

rainbow · **#143** by **rainbow** » Apr 30, 2011 8:58 am

GenesForLife wrote:There is also further mendacity involved by postulating "chance" which in cretinist circles usually means "uncaused" as opposed to naturally caused but statistically indeterminate, which is the scientific definition. Nobody worth their salt would postulate that life spontaneously popped into existence by "chance", they postulate natural processes that can be analysed in chemistry labs through experimentation.

Surely the postulate is that the chemicals required to form the first Replicator were in fact brought together by chance?
How else did they get concentrated up and mixed together?

GenesForLife · **#144** by **GenesForLife** » Apr 30, 2011 9:02 am

rainbow wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:There is also further mendacity involved by postulating "chance" which in cretinist circles usually means "uncaused" as opposed to naturally caused but statistically indeterminate, which is the scientific definition. Nobody worth their salt would postulate that life spontaneously popped into existence by "chance", they postulate natural processes that can be analysed in chemistry labs through experimentation.

Surely the postulate is that the chemicals required to form the first Replicator were in fact brought together by chance?
How else did they get concentrated up and mixed together?

Diffusion or dispersion or convection currents for instance, would be natural processes with a stochastic component, "chance" in this sense is different from the cretinist strawman thereof. Did you even read the first sentence of my post clearly?

:doh:

If convection currents, which can have stochastic components cause rainfall, it is downright equivocation to claim that chance caused rainfall, especially when you tend to synonymise 'chance' with 'random' with having no apparent cause instead of "having a stochastic component" which has causal elements whose effects are probabilistic and not directly deterministic.

byofrcs · **#145** by **byofrcs** » Apr 30, 2011 9:26 am

Well we're pretty confident that the probability of the RNA or proteins forming is about 1 using chemistry.

On the other hand a few dozen different religions claim that their god did it so that makes them only say about 1 in 20 up to 1 in many thousand chances that it was any one god.

The score:
Chemistry ~ 1 (it would be 1 but we're not a religion)
A god ~ 1:20 - 1:5000

We win. Statistics. Lol.

rainbow · **#146** by **rainbow** » Apr 30, 2011 9:42 am

GenesForLife wrote:
rainbow wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:There is also further mendacity involved by postulating "chance" which in cretinist circles usually means "uncaused" as opposed to naturally caused but statistically indeterminate, which is the scientific definition. Nobody worth their salt would postulate that life spontaneously popped into existence by "chance", they postulate natural processes that can be analysed in chemistry labs through experimentation.

Surely the postulate is that the chemicals required to form the first Replicator were in fact brought together by chance?
How else did they get concentrated up and mixed together?

Diffusion or dispersion or convection currents for instance, would be natural processes with a stochastic component, "chance" in this sense is different from the cretinist strawman thereof. Did you even read the first sentence of my post clearly?

If convection currents, which can have stochastic components cause rainfall, it is downright equivocation to claim that chance caused rainfall, especially when you tend to synonymise 'chance' with 'random' with having no apparent cause instead of "having a stochastic component" which has causal elements whose effects are probabilistic and not directly deterministic.

Diffusion and dispersion are the opposite process to concentration, so you're not answering the question.
:doh:

GenesForLife · **#147** by **GenesForLife** » Apr 30, 2011 9:50 am

rainbow wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Surely the postulate is that the chemicals required to form the first Replicator were in fact brought together by chance?
How else did they get concentrated up and mixed together?

Diffusion or dispersion or convection currents for instance, would be natural processes with a stochastic component, "chance" in this sense is different from the cretinist strawman thereof. Did you even read the first sentence of my post clearly?

If convection currents, which can have stochastic components cause rainfall, it is downright equivocation to claim that chance caused rainfall, especially when you tend to synonymise 'chance' with 'random' with having no apparent cause instead of "having a stochastic component" which has causal elements whose effects are probabilistic and not directly deterministic.

Diffusion and dispersion are the opposite process to concentration, so you're not answering the question.

If different reagents disperse into a common reaction medium they are brought together. :roll:

Your question was how they were brought together, not how they were concentrated.

To quote.

Surely the postulate is that the chemicals required to form the first Replicator were in fact brought together by chance? How else did they get concentrated up and mixed together?

The first part of the question is what I answered, as far as the second part is concerned, you are yet to demonstrate a requirement that they had to be somehow concentrated, as opposed to just being in sufficient concentration (which does not imply any requirement for processes that concentrate reagents) in the vicinity of other reagents for the reaction to occur.

Edit - I see that Rumraket has offered examples for natural processes that are capable of concentrating reagents in case concentration was actually mandated.

Rumraket · **#148** by **Rumraket** » Apr 30, 2011 9:51 am

rainbow wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Surely the postulate is that the chemicals required to form the first Replicator were in fact brought together by chance?
How else did they get concentrated up and mixed together?

Diffusion or dispersion or convection currents for instance, would be natural processes with a stochastic component, "chance" in this sense is different from the cretinist strawman thereof. Did you even read the first sentence of my post clearly?

If convection currents, which can have stochastic components cause rainfall, it is downright equivocation to claim that chance caused rainfall, especially when you tend to synonymise 'chance' with 'random' with having no apparent cause instead of "having a stochastic component" which has causal elements whose effects are probabilistic and not directly deterministic.

Diffusion and dispersion are the opposite process to concentration, so you're not answering the question.

This is simply you being intentionally thick. He provided examples of naturally ocurring processes with a stochastic component, which still couldn't accurately be described as "chance" events in the creationist sense. That's the very first thing he wrote. How did you miss it?

There are plenty of concentration enhancing mechanisms on earth, like cycles of evaporation and precipitation in pools on mineral surfaces, mineral-surface adhesion or thermal diffusion and convection currents in mineral pores. These all have the mentioned stochastic components, but still show statistically significant increases in concentration versus dilution, and they work continously over extremely long timescales.

rainbow · **#149** by **rainbow** » Apr 30, 2011 10:10 am

GenesForLife wrote:If different reagents disperse into a common reaction medium they are brought together. Your question was how they were brought together, not how they were concentrated.

To quote.

Surely the postulate is that the chemicals required to form the first Replicator were in fact brought together by chance? How else did they get concentrated up and mixed together?

You missed the word CONCENTRATED. Here I've underlined it for you. :doh:

Do you not believe that concentration is an important component of the rate equation for chemical reactions?
If so, please explain the chemistry involved. It wasn't the Chemistry they tought when I was at University. Have things changed?

GenesForLife · **#150** by **GenesForLife** » Apr 30, 2011 10:56 am

rainbow wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:If different reagents disperse into a common reaction medium they are brought together. Your question was how they were brought together, not how they were concentrated.

To quote.

Surely the postulate is that the chemicals required to form the first Replicator were in fact brought together by chance? How else did they get concentrated up and mixed together?

You missed the word CONCENTRATED. Here I've underlined it for you.

Do you not believe that concentration is an important component of the rate equation for chemical reactions?
If so, please explain the chemistry involved. It wasn't the Chemistry they tought when I was at University. Have things changed?

Wow, how fucking disingenuous can you be? Where the fuck did I say that the concentration of reagents is not important, I asked you to demonstrate that the necessary concentrations for prebiotic chemistry to occur required specific processes that concentrated reagents instead of diluting processes that are per se sufficient to bring them together. It is also blatant discoursive mendacity to equate "concentration" as defined as the quantity per unit volume of solution/reaction environment with concentration as the act of increasing the value thereof.

Also do go back and read my response.

rainbow · **#151** by **rainbow** » Apr 30, 2011 11:22 am

GenesForLife wrote:Wow, how fucking disingenuous can you be?

Not at all. It is quite pertinent to point out that the concentrations required to obtain a significant yield of products is relevant, and the mechanism for obtaining such concentrations is also relevant.
If it didn't happen by chance, then you should be able to explain how the happened by some other mechanism.
Over to you.

theropod · **#152** by **theropod** » Apr 30, 2011 11:32 am

E V A P O R A T I O N

RS

GenesForLife · **#153** by **GenesForLife** » Apr 30, 2011 11:37 am

rainbow wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:Wow, how fucking disingenuous can you be?

Not at all. It is quite pertinent to point out that the concentrations required to obtain a significant yield of products is relevant, and the mechanism for obtaining such concentrations is also relevant.
If it didn't happen by chance, then you should be able to explain how the happened by some other mechanism.
Over to you.

Still indulging in equivocation, I see. Still misrepresenting what I said by equivocating the act of increasing the concentration of a reagent with concentration as defined by the quantity/unit volume of a reagent.

I am asking you to demonstrate that processes that do the former are necessary in scenarios of prebiotic chemistry before one even needs to consider candidates for such processes. I am not claiming that concentration as defined by the latter is irrelevant, which is what you are accusing me of saying and misrepresenting my posts in the process.

I am asking you to demonstrate that the critical concentrations of reagents required can only be achieved with processes that increase the concentration as opposed to those that lower it at a location by redistributing reacting molecules elsewhere, such as diffusion and dispersion. What part of this is incomprehensible to you despite it being clearly explained twice?

You are also fallaciously arguing that anything that isn't described by a candidate process is uncaused, which is how creationists usually define chance, and I have already explained how creationists misrepresent "chance" in the very first line of the very first response that went over your head.

rainbow · **#154** by **rainbow** » Apr 30, 2011 11:37 am

theropod wrote:E V A P O R A T I O N

RS

Nice.
However for evaporation to accur the system needs to be isolated, so how do we get mixing of the right components?
How did it excude the carboxylic acids and amines that would terminate the polymerisation reaction?

rainbow · **#155** by **rainbow** » Apr 30, 2011 11:41 am

GenesForLife wrote:You are also fallaciously arguing that anything that isn't described by a candidate process is uncaused, ...

Strawman. I've never made that argument.

... which is how creationists usually define chance, and I have already explained how creationists misrepresent "chance" in the very first line of the very first response that went over your head.

The equivocation is yours. Is your entire argument that creationists misrepresent the notion of "chance"?

GenesForLife · **#156** by **GenesForLife** » Apr 30, 2011 11:41 am

rainbow wrote:
theropod wrote:E V A P O R A T I O N

RS

Nice.
However for evaporation to accur the system needs to be isolated, so how do we get mixing of the right components?
How did it excude the carboxylic acids and amines that would terminate the polymerisation reaction?

Citation required.

GenesForLife · **#157** by **GenesForLife** » Apr 30, 2011 11:42 am

rainbow wrote:
which is how creationists usually define chance, and I have already explained how creationists misrepresent "chance" in the very first line of the very first response that went over your head.

The equivocation is yours. Is your entire argument that creationists misrepresent the notion of "chance"?

Is that not apparent to you from what I wrote?

rainbow · **#158** by **rainbow** » Apr 30, 2011 11:51 am

GenesForLife wrote:I am asking you to demonstrate that processes that do the former are necessary in scenarios of prebiotic chemistry before one even needs to consider candidates for such processes. I am not claiming that concentration as defined by the latter is irrelevant, which is what you are accusing me of saying and misrepresenting my posts in the process.

If you wish me to demonstrate this, then please specify which scenario you are referring to. If it is the formation of oligopeptides from amino acids formed as a result of Miller-Urey, then it would be trivial to demonstrate that the rate of formation of peptide bonds depends on the concentration of the amino acids.
Is this what you want?

rainbow · **#159** by **rainbow** » Apr 30, 2011 11:54 am

GenesForLife wrote:
rainbow wrote:
theropod wrote:E V A P O R A T I O N

RS

Nice.
However for evaporation to accur the system needs to be isolated, so how do we get mixing of the right components?
How did it excude the carboxylic acids and amines that would terminate the polymerisation reaction?

Citation required.

It is basic chemistry. Do you understand what an amide bond is?
Do you know that a peptide bond is an amide bond?

If you need further information refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond

GenesForLife · **#160** by **GenesForLife** » Apr 30, 2011 12:01 pm

rainbow wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:I am asking you to demonstrate that processes that do the former are necessary in scenarios of prebiotic chemistry before one even needs to consider candidates for such processes. I am not claiming that concentration as defined by the latter is irrelevant, which is what you are accusing me of saying and misrepresenting my posts in the process.

If you wish me to demonstrate this, then please specify which scenario you are referring to. If it is the formation of oligopeptides from amino acids formed as a result of Miller-Urey, then it would be trivial to demonstrate that the rate of formation of peptide bonds depends on the concentration of the amino acids.
Is this what you want?

Still not getting it, are you?

I am not asking you to demonstrate that the kinetics of product formation dependent on concentration, which is rather bloody obvious.

I am asking you to demonstrate that the viable concentrations of the reagents we need will require processes that increase the concentration of those amino acids and whatever is required for bond formation to occur in the reaction environment as opposed to those which can bring reagents together by dispersing it (a diluting process) in a common reaction medium.

And I perfectly do know what a peptide bond is, you condense a terminal carboxylic acid group with an amino group and this makes an amide bond CO-NH2 between peptides. I want you to show that in prebiotic conditions, the yields from the Urey-Miller experiment, for instance, were such that the presence of amines and carboxylic acids acting as competitive inhibitors of peptide polymerization by Carbonyl Sulfide would not allow polymerization to take place, firstly, and secondly that this brings in a need for processes that increase concentration as opposed to those that mix reagents together but do not increase concentration.

The Origin of Life

Question #1 - HOW DID LIFE BEGIN continues...

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Re: The Origin of Life

Who is online