• 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!

For Danmac - Abiogenesis

Runlikethewind

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
Tristesse said:
And I never said he didn't.
Click to expand...
I never meant to imply that you did or put words in your mouth, my apologies. I just meant my comments in a general sense.

Tristesse said:
But by that same logic you can also say that just because there is no need to add that extra element, that does not mean that universe creating pixies exist. Because whether you use god or universe creating pixies, they both have the same amount of evidence.
Click to expand...
I do agree that by the same logic you could say just about anything. But I do not think that each claim would hold equal value. I think there is more reason to believe in a creator God than creator pixies. But that would take us far off the topic of this thread. My point was only that a purely natural, scientific explanation for how life initially emerged on earth does not rule out the influence of any non-physical supernatural force and that the claim that it was God has more support for it than that of pixies. And by support I mean that there is a very large tradition of belief and claims about God as creator whereas I have heard nothing of creator pixies. Not to say that just because a lot of people believe it, it's true; I don't claim that. I just think that alone should give the God claim more weight than the pixie claim But again, to get into that more would take us way off topic.
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
ImmortalFlame said:
Evolution is as true as gravity, atoms and germs.

In fact, it has more evidence in favor of it than any of the above theories. Now, in what way does that fact mean "nothing is safe"? Did you ever stop to think that this ridiculous belief you have about evolution is the sole cause of your rejecting of it - and that therefore you have no rational basis to do so?
Click to expand...

Your in the wrong thread. We are laying the groundwork for evolution in this one. We haven't done that yet, but were working on it.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
Your in the wrong thread. We are laying the groundwork for evolution in this one. We haven't done that yet, but were working on it.
Click to expand...

You're the one who brought up evolution on this thread - but I'd be happy to discuss this point with you over in the "the theory of evolution is supported by the evidence" thread if you'd prefer.
 
Runlikethewind

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
Danmac I have a question for ya. If no natural explanation is sufficient to explain how life first emerged and God was directly responsible for the initial act of creating life, and if we could go back and see this act of creation, what do you think it would look like?
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
ImmortalFlame said:
You're the one who brought up evolution on this thread - but I'd be happy to discuss this point with you over in the "the theory of evolution is supported by the evidence" thread if you'd prefer.
Click to expand...


After we confirm abiogenesis. The baby can't grow until we find out how the baby got here.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
Because we are talking about the beginning of life and how it happened.
Click to expand...

But nobody mentioned God, we're discussing abiogenesis. One moment we were talking about how evolution can be studied separately from abiogenesis and how we can understand and observe evolution without a comprehensive understanding of the origin of life, then you suddenly say "So you don't know, but your certain God didn't do it, right?". Since I never said anything about God or my views of a God whatsoever, you're making a completely unrelated point that has no bearing on what we were discussing.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Danmac said:
The organic molecules he produced were not the organic molecules necessary for life, and they weren't produced in an environment that simulated the primitive Earth's atmosphere,”.

Forgive me for such a long cut and paste, but it explains why your statement is incorrect. I will include the link at the bottom.

There is much more to life than just some amino acids and proteins. For life to begin, all the chemicals have to have a method of reproducing themselves, and passing along genetic information to the offspring. Modern living things use deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to do this. But DNA is a much too complex molecule for it to have originated in the first living cell, and the biologic processes needed to decode it are much too complicated, too. Therefore, evolutionists have been looking for a simpler molecule than DNA that might have the required properties. One such candidate is ribonucleic acid (RNA), which spawned the “RNA world hypothesis.” But Dr. Miller wisely observed,

Numerous problems exist with the current thinking of RNA as the first genetic material. No plausible prebiotic processes have yet been demonstrated to produce the nucleosides or nucleotides or for efficient two-way nonenzymatic replication. 4
The discovery of the catalytic activity of RNA brought the concept of an RNA world into wide acceptance. However, the instability of ribose and other sugars, the great difficulty of prebiotic synthesis of the glycosidic bonds of the necessary nucleotides, and the inability to achieve two-way non-enzymatic template polymerizations have raised serious questions about whether RNA could have been the first genetic material, although there are dissenting opinions. 5
Dr. Miller recognized that the RNA world hypothesis was a non-starter. So, he was looking for another way. In his final paper he said,
One proposal offers peptide nucleic acids (PNA) as a possible precursor to RNA because PNA binds DNA and forms double and triple helical structures that are related to the Watson-Crick helix. 6
Peptide nucleic acid (PNA) is a promising precursor to RNA, consisting of N-(2-aminoethyl)glycine (AEG) and the adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine-N-acetic acids. However, PNA has not yet been demonstrated to be prebiotic. We show here that AEG is produced directly in electric discharge reactions from CH4, N2, NH3, and H2O. … Preliminary experiments suggest that AEG may polymerize rapidly at 100oC to give the polypeptide backbone of PNA. The ease of synthesis of the components of PNA and possibility of polymerization of AEG reinforce the possibility that PNA may have been the first genetic material. 7
He admits that, “PNA has not yet been demonstrated to be prebiotic.” In other words, there is no evidence that PNA existed before life began. But, for PNA to exist, AEG (and adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine) would have had to exist. He was looking for a way to produce AEG naturally as a stepping stone to PNA.
In his 1953 experiment, he used an atmosphere consisting of methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and water vapor. In his last reported experiment he substituted nitrogen for hydrogen. That’s reasonable because today’s atmosphere is 79% nitrogen and 0% hydrogen. If the present really is the key to the past, then it is reasonable to assume life began with nitrogen in the atmosphere (and water vapor, too). But the only place you are likely to find methane and ammonia in the air today is near a diaper pail.
Notice, too, that his simulated atmosphere is still oxygen-free. All origin of life experiments use oxygen-free atmospheres. That, of course, is because oxygen would immediately break down any AEG his experiment produced. The only reason for believing the Earth ever had an oxygen-free environment is because organic compounds could not possibly have originated naturally in the presence of oxygen.
His last experiment showed that a spark in an atmosphere radically different that Earth’s present atmosphere could produce AEG at 100o C (the boiling point of water). He concludes that if AEG existed, it might possibly have helped in the natural formation of PNA, which might somehow have acted sort of like RNA in some sort of unknown replication process. But let us not unfairly put words in his mouth. Here is the concluding paragraph of his last published paper.
Polymerizability and Suitability as the First Genetic Material. The above results show that the components of PNA are likely prebiotic compounds and, under favorable conditions, could be major constituents of the primitive milieu. Still to be worked out are the prebiotic syntheses of the monomers and mechanisms for their polymerization, but prebiotic polymerizations are imposing problems for any potential early genetic system. Our preliminary experiments indicate that AEG polymerizes readily at 100oC to give AEG oligomers and does so much more efficiently than mixtures of -amino acids at higher temperatures. Although PNA also has stability problems of its own, they are highly sequence-dependent and may be alleviated by blocking or acetylating the N terminus. There is also the more difficult problem of PNA replication, which may be complicated by cyclization of the monomers. Nevertheless, this demonstration that the PNA components are prebiotic suggests the possibility that PNA or similar molecules may have been the first genetic material. However, other possibilities need to be considered because there may be other backbones and bases that were more abundant and more efficient for prebiotic replication. 8 Just in case you didn’t follow all that, he found a way to produce AEG which might have allowed PNA to form through a process that is “still to be worked out” in spite of “imposing problems for any potential early genetic system.” But, if it did form naturally it might have disintegrated before it had a chance to replicate because “PNA also has stability problems of its own.” And then, “there is also the more difficult problem of PNA replication.”
So, after all that work, Dr. Miller never found what legend says he did—the building blocks of life. Some might say he wasted his whole life on a wild goose chase, but we would disagree. We say that if there had been a wild goose, Dr. Miller would have caught it. He left behind a wonderful legacy of research showing the insurmountable difficulties that prevent life from arising naturally.
Hopefully, years from now, history will correct the errors of the careless popular press. Dr. Miller should not be celebrated for being “the first to demonstrate that the organic molecules necessary for life could be generated in a laboratory flask simulating the primitive Earth's atmosphere.” He should be celebrated for being the one who most conclusively showed that the organic molecules necessary for life could not have been generated in the primitive Earth's atmosphere through his exhaustive research down every blind alley.
Stanley Miller’s Final Word
Click to expand...
An electrical engineer?
Are you serious?
 
DeitySlayer

DeitySlayer

President of Chindia
Danmac said:
Because we are talking about the beginning of life and how it happened.
Click to expand...

Yes, Danmac, we know how it happened, and God did not do it.

The point that was made is that regardless of whether God did it or not, i.e. whether God created the common-ancestor, or whether it came about by naturalistic means; the origin of life has no bearing on the evolution of life.
 
T

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Danmac said:
I agree. evolution will phase out due to progressivism.
Click to expand...

I know this is hard for you to understand, because the bible asserts claims as absolutes and never changing. But the understanding of science can and will change as our understanding increases. And one thing you have to be comfortable saying is, I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top