• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abiogenesis discoveries and research

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually, it’s not about which god did it….
It’s about the extreme complexity of the cells of these organisms. Even the simplest. Such integrated, purposeful cooperation within & between the cells, required an intellect.
That is not what you were discussing. You were attempting to show that the evidence is the same for science and belief and that only the interpretation is different. The unspoken part is that the interpretations are different but equal.

They are not equal interpretation. Essentially, any interpretation that relies on a believed entity, state, or condition without any supporting evidence for what is believed renders it all belief and not science.

Science goes where the evidence leads and attempts are made to eliminate bias which includes the beliefs of the scientists. There is no evidence supporting any believed view is the correct interpretation. Essentially, from the position of reason and science, same evidence, but only the views of science have the support of that evidence.

But that complexity is modern cells that have undergone 3 plus billion years of competition, environmental change and evolution. It is a straw man to claim that modern cells are what would be expected from abiogenesis 3.8 billion years ago. They are not the expectation of the complexity of the first living things.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
New discoveries about natural Peptide formation an important step RNA/DNA formation. The simplicity of the solution is amazing.

Scientists Made a Breakthrough on Life’s Origin and It Could Change Everything​


A new study shows that ingredients for life can form from non-living chemicals on any given beach, and it could help develop new drugs and search for alien life.
y Becky Ferreira
October 3, 2022, 3:39pm

Scientists have achieved a major breakthrough toward unraveling the mystery of how life first arose on Earth and whether it might exist elsewhere in the universe, reports a new study.

A longstanding mystery—perhaps the mystery, existentially speaking—is how life originated from non-living, or abiotic, chemicals. For the first time ever, researchers at Purdue University have shown that peptides, which are strings of amino acids that are crucial building blocks of life, can spontaneously form in droplets of water during rapid reactions that occur when water meets the atmosphere—for example, when a wave hits a rock and throws up a misty spray. This could occur in conditions similar to those that existed on Earth some 4 billion years ago, when life first took hold on our planet.
You may also like

The discovery provides “a plausible route for the formation of the first biopolymers,” which are complex structures produced by living organisms, according to a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The team says the discovery could even speed up the development of novel drugs and medical treatments by providing a new medium for fostering rapid chemical reactions.
“There are a very large number of studies showing peptide formation, but they all use catalysts or modified amino acids to make species unlikely to exist naturally,” said R. Graham Cooks, who serves as the Henry B. Hass Distinguished Professor of Analytical Chemistry at Purdue and senior author of the study, in an email.

Cooks and his colleagues have now shown that peptides readily form in the kinds of chemical systems that existed on ancient Earth, such as sea spray from our planet’s primordial oceans or freshwater dribbling down slopes.

“The most interesting implication is that similar chemistry explains other essential biological polymers, not just peptides,” he noted, adding that his team plans to publish more on this topic soon.

In other words, the new study has opened a rare window into the murky early years on our planet when nonliving compounds somehow assembled themselves into living organisms, a still-unexplained transformation known as abiogenesis. The formation of peptides is an important step in abiogenesis because these structures form the basis of biomolecules such as proteins, which can perform the self-replicating mechanisms that are necessary for life.

The team was able to reconstruct the possible formation of these peptides by running “droplet fusion” experiments that simulate how water droplets collide in the air, which Cooks described as “like two kids with garden hoses spraying each other.”
These experiments show that the surface of the droplets, where water meets air, is a region that can be exceptionally productive at spinning peptides out of the types of amino acids that have been delivered to Earth by meteorites for billions of years. As a result, the experiments offer a possible solution to what’s known as the “water paradox,” a problem that has puzzled scientists in the abiogenesis field for years.
“The water paradox is the contradiction between (i) the very considerable evidence that the chemical reactions leading to life occurred in the prebiotic ocean and (ii) the thermodynamic constraint against exactly these (water loss) reactions occurring in water,” Cooks explained. “Proteins are formed from amino acids by loss of water” and “loss of water in water will not occur because the process will be reversed by the water (thermodynamically forbidden).”

Put another way, peptides need some level of dehydration to form, but that is very hard to accomplish in a hydrated environment like a water droplet. For more than a decade, Cooks and his colleagues have shown that microdroplets have many unique characteristics, including an accelerated reactivity at their surfaces. These air-water interfaces are like a reverse oasis—that is, a dry refuge in the watery world of a droplet—that enables the loss-of-water reactions needed to build peptides out of amino acids.
Getting back into the proper spirit of this thread:


How did life begin? How did chemical reactions on the early Earth create complex, self-replicating structures that developed into living things as we know them?

According to one school of thought, before the current era of DNA-based life, there was a kind of molecule called RNA (or ribonucleic acid). RNA – which is still a crucial component of life today – can replicate itself and catalyse other chemical reactions.

But RNA molecules themselves are made from smaller components called ribonucleotides. How would these building blocks have formed on the early Earth, and then combined into RNA?


Chemists like me are trying to recreate the chain of reactions required to form RNA at the dawn of life, but it's a challenging task. We know whatever chemical reaction created ribonucleotides must have been able to happen in the messy, complicated environment found on our planet billions of years ago.


I have been studying whether "autocatalytic" reactions may have played a part. These are reactions that produce chemicals that encourage the same reaction to happen again, which means they can sustain themselves in a wide range of circumstances.


In our latest work, my colleagues and I have integrated autocatalysis into a well-known chemical pathway for producing the ribonucleotide building blocks, which could have plausibly happened with the simple molecules and complex conditions found on the early Earth.


The formose reaction​

Autocatalytic reactions play crucial roles in biology, from regulating our heartbeats to forming patterns on seashells. In fact, the replication of life itself, where one cell takes in nutrients and energy from the environment to produce two cells, is a particularly complicated example of autocatalysis.


A chemical reaction called the formose reaction, first discovered in 1861, is one of the best examples of an autocatalytic reaction that could have happened on the early Earth.


In essence, the formose reaction starts with one molecule of a simple compound called glycolaldehyde (made of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen) and ends with two. The mechanism relies on a constant supply of another simple compound called formaldehyde.


A reaction between glycolaldehyde and formaldehyde makes a bigger molecule, splitting off fragments that feed back into the reaction and keep it going. However, once the formaldehyde runs out, the reaction stops, and the products start to degrade from complex sugar molecules into tar.


The formose reaction shares some common ingredients with a well-known chemical pathway to make ribonucleotides, known as the Powner–Sutherland pathway. However, until now no one has tried to connect the two – with good reason.


The formose reaction is notorious for being "unselective". This means it produces a lot of useless molecules alongside the actual products you want.


An autocatalytic twist in the pathway to ribonucleotides​

In our study, we tried adding another simple molecule called cyanamide to the formose reaction. This makes it possible for some of the molecules made during the reaction to be "siphoned off" to produce ribonucleotides.


The reaction still does not produce a large quantity of ribonucleotide building blocks. However, the ones it does produce are more stable and less likely to degrade.


What's interesting about our study is the integration of the formose reaction and ribonucleotide production. Previous investigations have studied each separately, which reflects how chemists usually think about making molecules.


Generally speaking, chemists tend to avoid complexity so as to maximise the quantity and purity of a product. However, this reductionist approach can prevent us from investigating dynamic interactions between different chemical pathways.


These interactions, which happen everywhere in the real world outside the lab, are arguably the bridge between chemistry and biology.


Industrial applications​

Autocatalysis also has industrial applications. When you add cyanamide to the formose reaction, another of the products is a compound called 2-aminooxazole, which is used in chemistry research and the production of many pharmaceuticals.


Conventional 2-aminooxazole production often uses cyanamide and glycolaldehyde, the latter of which is expensive. If it can be made using the formose reaction, only a small amount of glycolaldehyde will be needed to kickstart the reaction, cutting costs.

Our lab is currently optimising this procedure in the hope we can manipulate the autocatalytic reaction to make common chemical reactions cheaper and more efficient, and their pharmaceutical products more accessible. Maybe it won't be as big a deal as the creation of life itself, but we think it could still be worthwhile.

Quoc Phuong Tran, PhD Candidate in Prebiotic Chemistry, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
FYI, I t’s how the evidence is interpreted.

For instance, when scientists find organisms of different phenotypes that have the same genes, materialistic scientists claim the genes are ‘shared through inheritance’.

What they don’t consider is that the Creator could have created / duplicated those same genes, utilizing them in different body plans, ie., “according to their kinds.”

But this is an abiogenesis thread, not one on evolution.
What creator are you referring to that has evidence of existing? Answer that and THEN you can challenge science.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I didn't get much action on that thread from the creationists.
I looked at it even before you mentioned it.
And by the way, your regular sarcasm and jokes about those who do not believe in evolution as you do is noted by some. And enjoyed by others, isn't it?
Insofar as the theory of abiogenesis maybe/kind of having been postulated to have come from non-living things -- does not prove that's how life came about -- it does not mean life came about by itself as a chance occurrence as if that's how it all started.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That is not what you were discussing. You were attempting to show that the evidence is the same for science and belief and that only the interpretation is different. The unspoken part is that the interpretations are different but equal.

They are not equal interpretation. Essentially, any interpretation that relies on a believed entity, state, or condition without any supporting evidence for what is believed renders it all belief and not science.

Science goes where the evidence leads and attempts are made to eliminate bias which includes the beliefs of the scientists. There is no evidence supporting any believed view is the correct interpretation. Essentially, from the position of reason and science, same evidence, but only the views of science have the support of that evidence.

But that complexity is modern cells that have undergone 3 plus billion years of competition, environmental change and evolution. It is a straw man to claim that modern cells are what would be expected from abiogenesis 3.8 billion years ago. They are not the expectation of the complexity of the first living things.
You're supposedly the expert. What makes you believe that modern cells have undergone 3 billion years of change, etc. I'm not saying that is NOT true, but where do you get the idea that it is 3 BILLION YEARS? Oh, 3 plus billion years. And, even though for the record I do not agree with SavedByTheLord with everything she says, her questions can be good. So where do you get the 3 plus billion years idea and what happened 3 plus billion years ago. Please try to avoid sarcasm if you will, thank you.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I looked at it even before you mentioned it.
And by the way, your regular sarcasm and jokes about those who do not believe in evolution as you do is noted by some. And enjoyed by others, isn't it?
Those who reject evolution do so due to being exposed to bad religion. It's inexcusable in hte 21st century.
Insofar as the theory of abiogenesis maybe/kind of having been postulated to have come from non-living things -- does not prove that's how life came about -- it does not mean life came about by itself as a chance occurrence as if that's how it all started.
There is no alternative to how life began.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You're supposedly the expert. What makes you believe that modern cells have undergone 3 billion years of change, etc. I'm not saying that is NOT true, but where do you get the idea that it is 3 BILLION YEARS? Oh, 3 plus billion years. And, even though for the record I do not agree with SavedByTheLord with everything she says, her questions can be good. So where do you get the 3 plus billion years idea and what happened 3 plus billion years ago. Please try to avoid sarcasm if you will, thank you.
Because we can date fossils. Once again, in geology we have relative and absolute dating. I am fairly sure that there is an absolute date that can be applied to the oldest evidence for life. I could probably look it up, but would it do any good?

Once life exists evolution is a given because the reproduction process is not perfect.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
That is not what you were discussing. You were attempting to show that the evidence is the same for science and belief and that only the interpretation is different. The unspoken part is that the interpretations are different but equal.

They are not equal interpretation. Essentially, any interpretation that relies on a believed entity, state, or condition without any supporting evidence for what is believed renders it all belief and not science.

Science goes where the evidence leads and attempts are made to eliminate bias which includes the beliefs of the scientists. There is no evidence supporting any believed view is the correct interpretation. Essentially, from the position of reason and science, same evidence, but only the views of science have the support of that evidence.

But that complexity is modern cells that have undergone 3 plus billion years of competition, environmental change and evolution. It is a straw man to claim that modern cells are what would be expected from abiogenesis 3.8 billion years ago. They are not the expectation of the complexity of the first living things.
And what did I say? “Even the simplest.”
How “simple” was it?
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
Because we can date fossils. Once again, in geology we have relative and absolute dating. I am fairly sure that there is an absolute date that can be applied to the oldest evidence for life. I could probably look it up, but would it do any good?

Once life exists evolution is a given because the reproduction process is not perfect.
I'm not sure who you are responding too, but if it is as it appears, telling them the facts for the nth time doesn't seem like it has any effect.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm not sure who you are responding too, but if it is as it appears, telling them the facts for the nth time doesn't seem like it has any effect.
Obviously things were introduced into the experiment. "In our study, we tried adding another simple molecule called cyanamide to the formose reaction. In order for some molecules to produce ribonucleotides, it was necessarily orchestrated by human hands introducing other elements.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
And what did I say? “Even the simplest.”
How “simple” was it?
"Even the simplest" referring to the simplest modern life. There was no indication of another model was being referred to. It doesn't take a genius to see that you are trying to equate views based on evidence as equal in explanatory power to views based on belief. But views based on belief are as many as the grains in a bucket of sand and all have the same evidence. It is a fact. Pretending it is not won't chase that fact away or wish it into the cornfield.

If some Christians claim their faith is so strong and fully in God, then why do you think it appears as if they are deifying the Bible and why do they seem so frightened of science if they believe they hold the superior position? Do you think some of them are forced to out of fear of being shunned by their chosen groups?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Those who reject evolution do so due to being exposed to bad religion. It's inexcusable in hte 21st century.

There is no alternative to how life began.
^^ Now *this*, is what is called a ‘closed mind’.

Regarding your first statement,
Google “astrophysicist Hugh Ross”.

And “Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil”.

I’d post others, but I’m probably wasting my time. Maybe others here will enjoy the information.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
^^ Now *this*, is what is called a ‘closed mind’.

Regarding your first statement,
Google “astrophysicist Hugh Ross”.

And “Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil”.

I’d post others, but I’m probably wasting my time. Maybe others here will enjoy the information.
Why? What would Hugh Ross have to say about this? He is an astrophysicist and his opinion is of far less value than those that work in the fields.

By the way, he is not all that unreasonable. We have talked a few times. Vyskocil is an even worse example. He was not in the hard sciences at all and now appears to have ties with a pseudoscience group that even Hugh Ross laughs at.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
So, once again, your best evidence is some fringey nothing biased site that proposes a God of the gaps.
No. The evidence is that, currently, Dr. Tour has had no takers, to rebuff his argument.
If the evidence is there, as is claimed, then there should be rebuttals all over the place! Lined up!

Isn’t that similar to James Randi’s stance, that there being no challengers, supported his argument?

So many materialists used it as evidence.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
"Even the simplest" referring to the simplest modern life. There was no indication of another model was being referred to. It doesn't take a genius to see that you are trying to equate views based on evidence as equal in explanatory power to views based on belief. But views based on belief are as many as the grains in a bucket of sand and all have the same evidence. It is a fact. Pretending it is not won't chase that fact away or wish it into the cornfield.

If some Christians claim their faith is so strong and fully in God, then why do you think it appears as if they are deifying the Bible and why do they seem so frightened of science if they believe they hold the superior position? Do you think some of them are forced to out of fear of being shunned by their chosen groups?
You didn’t answer my question: how simple was the first cell? Basic requirements.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
^^ Now *this*, is what is called a ‘closed mind’.

Regarding your first statement,
Google “astrophysicist Hugh Ross”.

And “Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil”.

I’d post others, but I’m probably wasting my time. Maybe others here will enjoy the information.
As a scientist that believes in God, I'm a little confused that you would reference scientists with similar beliefs as supporting your position while you have badgered and belittled me for that same thing. It is very confusing. It would seem to be a position in a state of hypocrisy.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
No. The evidence is that, currently, Dr. Tour has had no takers, to rebuff his argument.
If the evidence is there, as is claimed, then there should be rebuttals all over the place! Lined up!

Isn’t that similar to James Randi’s stance, that there being no challengers, supported his argument?

So many materialists used it as evidence.
It's God of the gaps argument from ignorance. Just because you want it to mean something doesn't make that so.

The science continues to advance. Tour isn't the benchmark to measure that advance. It is meaningless showboating that doesn't present anything that supports creationist own views or detracts from the achievements that continue to be made. It is just more of the "we got nothing, so let's attack science".
 
Top