Proof of Creationism made by NASA

[BilliardsBall]

No, it is not. If you want to go into the details I have no problem with that. But you have always been the one that refuses to learn the basics of science. I have offered to go over them with you.


And why the personal attack? I did not say that you were an idiot. Why did you make your claim of "faith based" ? That appears to be your weakness not mine. How are you going to prove such a slur?

Faith-based is not an attack. I'm a man of faith. It means "not observed in nature and not duplicable in a lab".

Abiogenesis and Creation are faith-based claims. Yours takes MORE faith than mine:

How could simple amphiphiles, which are molecules containing a nonpolar hydrophobic region and a polar hydrophilic region will self-assemble in aqueous solutions to form distinct structures such as micelles have been available in the prebiotic inventory if there has never been evidence for this? Furthermore, sources of compounds with hydrocarbon chains sufficiently long to form stable membranes are not known.
How could prebiotic mechanisms have transported and concentrated organic compounds to the pools and construction site?
How could membranous vesicles have self-assembled to form complex mixtures of organic compounds and ionic solutes, if science has no solution to this question?
How could there have been a prebiotic route of lipid compositions that could provide a membrane barrier sufficient to maintain proton gradients? Proton gradients are absolutely necessary for the generation of energy.
How to explain that lipid membranes would be useless without membrane proteins but how could membrane proteins have emerged or evolved in the absence of functional membranes?
How did prebiotic processes select hydrocarbon chains which must be in the range of 14 to 18 carbons in length? There was no physical necessity to form carbon chains of the right length nor hindrance to join chains of varying lengths. So they could have been existing of any size on the early earth.
How could there have been an "urge" for prebiotic compounds to add unsaturated cis double bonds near the center of the chain?
How is there a feasible route of prebiotic phospholipid synthesis, to the complex metabolic phospholipid and fatty acid synthesis pathways performed by multiple enzyme-catalyzed steps which had to be fully operational at LUCA?
How would random events start to attach two fatty acids to glycerol by ester or ether bonds rather than just one, necessary for the cell membrane stability?
How would random events start to produce biological membranes which are not composed of pure phospholipids, but instead are mixtures of several phospholipid species, often with a sterol admixture such as cholesterol? There is no feasible prebiotic mechanism to join the right mixtures.
How did unguided events produce the essential characteristic of living cells which is homeostasis, the ability to maintain a steady and more-or-less constant chemical balance in a changing environment? The first forms of life required an effective Ca2+ homeostatic system, which maintained intracellular Ca2+ at comfortably low concentrations—somewhere ∼10,000–20,000 times lower than that in the extracellular milieu. There was no mechanism to generate this gradient.
How was the transition generated from supposedly simple vesicles on the early earth to the ultracomplex membrane synthesis in modern cells, which would have to be extant in the last universal common ancestor, hosting at least over 70 enzymes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would the primitive Earth have generated and maintained organic molecules? All that can be said is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations.
How would prebiotic processes have purified the starting molecules to make RNA and DNA which were grossly impure? They would have been present in complex mixtures that contained a great variety of reactive molecules.
How did the synthesis of the nitrogenic nucleobases in prebiotic environments occur?
How did fortuitous accidents select the five just-right nucleobases to make DNA and RNA, Two purines, and three pyrimidines?
How did unguided random events select purines with two rings, with nine atoms, forming the two rings: 5 carbon atoms and 4 nitrogen atoms, amongst almost unlimited possible configurations?
How did stochastic coincidence select pyrimidines with one ring, with six atoms, forming its ring: 4 carbon atoms and 2 nitrogen atoms, amongst an unfathomable number of possible configurations?
How did random trial and error foresee that this specific atomic arrangement of the nucleobases is required to get the right strength of the hydrogen bond to join the two DNA strands and form Watson–Crick base-pairing?
How did mechanisms without external direction foresee that this specific atomic arrangement would convey one of, if not the best possible genetic system to store information?
How would these functional bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made?
How were high-energy precursors to produce purines and pyrimidines produced in a sufficiently concentrated form and joined to the assembly site?
How could the adenine-uracil interaction function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup" considering that its interaction is weak and nonspecific?
How could sufficient uracil nucleobases accumulate in prebiotic environments in sufficient quantities, if it has a half-life of only 12 years at 100◦C ?
How could the ribose 5 carbon sugar rings which form the RNA and DNA backbone have been selected, if 6 or 4 carbon rings, or even more or less, are equally possible but non-functional?
How would the functional ribose molecules have been separated from the non-functional sugars?
How were the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar selected to be joined together?
How could right-handed configurations of RNA and DNA have been selected in a racemic pool of right and left-handed molecules? Ribose must have been in its D form to adopt functional structures ( The homochirality problem )
How could random events have brought all the 3 parts together and bonded them in the right position ( probably over one million nucleotides would have been required ?)
How could prebiotic reactions have produced functional nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution)
How could prebiotic glycosidic bond formation between nucleosides and the base have occurred if they are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsically unstable?
How could RNA nucleotides have accumulated, if they degrade at warm temperatures in time periods ranging from nineteen days to twelve years? These are extremely short survival rates for the four RNA nucleotide building blocks.
How was phosphate, the third element, concentrated at reasonable concentrations?. (The concentrations in the oceans or lakes would have been very low)
How would prebiotic mechanisms phosphorylate the nucleosides at the correct site (the 5' position) if, in laboratory experiments, the 2' and 3' positions were also phosphorylated?
How could phosphate have been activated somehow? In order to promote the energy dispendious nucleotide polymerization reaction, and (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside had to be possible.
How was the energy supply accomplished to make RNA? In modern cells, energy is consumed to make RNA.
How could a transition from prebiotic to biochemical synthesis have occurred? There are a huge gap and enormous transition that would be still ahead to arrive at a fully functional interlocked and interdependent metabolic network.
How could RNA have formed, if it requires water to make them, but RNA cannot emerge in water and cannot replicate with sufficient fidelity in water without sophisticated repair mechanisms in place?
How would the prebiotic synthesis transition of RNA to the highly regulated cellular metabolic synthesis have occurred? The pyrimidine synthesis pathway requires six regulated steps, seven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.
The starting material for purine biosynthesis is Ribose 5-phosphate, a product of the highly complex pentose phosphate pathway, which uses 12 enzymes. De novo purine synthesis pathway requires ten regulated steps, eleven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.
How would the primitive earth have produced high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines in a sufficiently concentrated form? (for example at least 0.01 M HCN).
How would the bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made? - and the solutions had to be sufficiently concentrated.
How did formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M build up?
How did accumulated formaldehyde oligomerise to sugars?
How did the sugars separate and resolve, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose?

Wow!! So much nonsense. But your first question has been answered. Over fifty years ago. The Miller Urey experiment showed how organic molecules can form naturally.

Just about all of your questions have been answered by chemists in the field.

Meanwhile you have no answers about your god.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You've been debating science here for how many years now, and you still think an event has to be replicated and observed before it can be scientifically studied?

No. But if not observed in nature or in a lab it's scientific CONJECTURE.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As is divine creation.

So I've said multiple times in this thread. Abiogenesis AND Creation are faith-based claims. Now post to respond to a few skeptics, so they can (possibly) learn what we both already know!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, now apply your analogy to abiogenesis. Fail!

How did bases and sugars come together?
How were they induced to react to make nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermo dynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: purine nucleosides have been made by dry phase synthesis, but not even this method has been successful for condensing pyrimidine bases and ribose to give nucleosides
How was joining base and sugar achieved correctly ? It had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar. This junction will fix the pentose sugar as either the a- or fl-anomer of either the furanose or pyranose forms. For nucleic acids it has to be the fl-furanose. (In the dry-phase purine nucleoside syntheses referred to above, all four of these isomers were present with never more than 8 ‘Z, of the correct structure.)
How could phosphate have been present at sufficient concentrations? (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such things
How could phosphate have been activated? — for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate — so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible?
How would only the standard nucleotides, the 5’- hydroxyl of the ribose be phosphorylated? (In solid-state reactions with urea and inorganic phosphates as a phosphorylating agent, this was the dominant species to begin with.
How did the activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) polymerise?. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very difficult to simulate ; but more important, it must have come to take place on pre-existing polynucleotides if the key function of transmitting information to daughter molecules was to be achieved by abiotic means. This has proved difficult too. Orgel & Lohrmann give three main classes of problem.
(i) While it has been shown that adenosine derivatives form stable helical structures with poly(U) — they are in fact triple helixes — and while this enhances the condensation of adenylic acid with either adenosine or another adenylic acid — mainly to di(A) - stable helical structures were not formed when either poly(A) or poly(G) Were used as templates.
(ii) It was difficult to find a suitable means of making the internucleotide bonds. Specially designed water-soluble carbodiimides were used in the experiments described above, but the obvious pre-activated nucleotides — ATP or cyclic 2’,3’-phosphates — were unsatisfactory. Nucleoside 5'-phosphorimidazolides, for example: N/\ n K/N/P-r’o%OHN/\N were more successful, but these now involve further steps and a supply of imidazole, for their synthesis.
(iii) Internucleotide bonds formed on a template are usually a mixture of 2’—5’ and the normal 3’—5’ types. Often the 2’—5’ bonds predominate although it has been found that Zn“, as well as acting as an eflicient catalyst for the templatedirected oligomerisation of guanosine 5’-phosphorimidazolide also leads to a preference for the 3’—5’ bonds.
How could the physical and chemical environment have been at all times suitable — for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations?
How could all reactions have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight? that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals.
If not already activated — for example as the cyclic 2’,3’-phosphate — how were the nucleotides be activated? (for example with polyphosphate) and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration. Alternatively, a suitable coupling agent must now have been fed into the system.
Longer heating gave the nucleoside cyclic 2’,3’-phosphate as the major product although various dinucleotide derivatives and nucleoside polyphosphates are also formed

DNA is more stable than RNA. uracil (U) is replaced in DNA by thymine (T)
At the C2' position of ribose, an oxygen atom is removed by hypercomplex RNR molecular machines. The thymine-uracil exchange is the major chemical difference between DNA and RNA. Before being incorporated into the chromosomes, this essential modification takes place. The synthesis of thymine requires seven enzymes. De novo biosynthesis of thymine is an intricate and energetically expensive process.
All in all, not considering the metabolic pathways and enzymes required to make the precursors to start RNA and DNA synthesis, at least 26 enzymes are required. How did these enzymes emerge, if DNA is required to make them?

Learn how to ask proper if you want answers.

By the way one huge error that you keep making is to ask how modern chemistry occurs in the past. The easy answer is that it didn't. There would not have been modern enzymes that need DNA to make them. Now think really hard does the fact that there were no modern enzymes mean that there were no enzymes at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. But if not observed in nature or in a lab it's scientific CONJECTURE.

Nope.

Sorry, but you keep showing that you are clueless when it comes to the sciences.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course all fossil species "appear whole in the records." What is it you are expecting, exactly?

There is no such thing as "kind" in science. That's a fuzzy Biblical term.
Animals don't reproduce animals that are a different species from themselves. If they did, evolution would be falsified.


Your view of evolution is absurd and inaccurate.

Not really an argument you've made, just insults.

How come five-year-olds know what a kind is but skeptics don't? Cats cannot birth dogs or vice versa because science says they are FINISHED, COMPLETE kinds. Everything in fossils and NOW, BILLIONS of species, shows "complete" in AGREEMENT with scripture.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This dude has no idea what he's talking about.

You get an award for "BEST ANSWER OF THE YEAR". Maybe you can handwave at this next:

Open questions in prebiotic sourcing of hydrocarbons
How would an ensemble of minerals present anywhere on the primitive Earth be capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle? How would a cycle mysteriously organize itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface? How would such a cycle, despite the lack of evidence of its existence, a transition to the “life-like” complexity of the Wood-Ljundahl cycle, or reverse TCA cycle, commonly proposed as the first carbon fixing cycles on earth?

In this work, we emphasize the role of selection during the prebiological stages of evolution and focus on the constraints that are imposed by physical, chemical, and biological laws. The key feature of the scenario is the participation of the UV irradiation both as driving and selecting forces during the earlier stages of evolution.

Ultraviolet radiation was then already considered as an energy source but was not used, since it was difficult to generate radiation of appropriate wavelength with sources available at that time (Miller and Urey 1959). 2 The prebiotic UV environment was exposed to high levels of UV radiation relative to the present day due to lack of UV-shielding O2 and O3. 3. High environmental fluxes of UV–C and UV–B restricting protocyanobacteria to refuges. J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1962) independently proposed the existence of a prebiotic soup in the oceans (Haldane 1954) and suggested that subjecting a mixture of water, carbon dioxide and ammonia to UV light should produce a variety of organic substances. Dauvillier (1947) was one of the first in suggesting UV radiation as an energy source for the synthesis of organic matter. In the words of Sagan & Khare (1971), “the availability of the ultraviolet solar radiation was some 100 times greater that of all the others”. It is a paradox how the molecule responsible for the replication of information has such a large absorption in the damaging UV spectral range. Sagan (1973) suggested the existence of a protecting layer of purines and pyrimidines surrounding the primitive organisms.The decrease in UV surface fluxes was essential for the access of living beings to the land and the subsequent evolution of complex life forms. 4

No prebiotic selection !!
1. Life requires the use of a limited set of complex biomolecules, a universal convention, and unity which is composed of the four basic building blocks of life ( RNA and DNA's, amino acids, phospholipids, and carbohydrates). They are of a very specific complex functional composition and made by cells in extremely sophisticated orchestrated metabolic pathways, which were not extant on the early earth. If abiogenesis were true, these biomolecules had to be prebiotically available and naturally occurring ( in non-enzyme-catalyzed ways by natural means ) and then somehow join in an organized way and form the first living cells. They had to be available in big quantities and concentrated at one specific building site.
2. Making things for a specific purpose, for a distant goal, requires goal-directedness. And that's a big problem for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. There was a potentially unlimited variety of molecules on the prebiotic earth. Competition and selection among them would never have occurred at all, to promote a separation of those molecules that are used in life, from those that are useless. Selection is a scope and powerless mechanism to explain all of the living order, and even the ability to maintain order in the short term and to explain the emergence, overall organization, and long-term persistence of life from non-living precursors. It is an error of false conceptual reduction to suppose that competition and selection will thereby be the source of explanation for all relevant forms of the living order.
3. We know that a) unguided random purposeless events are unlikely to the extreme to make specific purposeful elementary components to build large integrated macromolecular systems, and b) intelligence has goal-directedness. Bricks do not form from clay by themselves, and then line up to make walls. Someone made them. Phospholipids do not form from glycerol, a phosphate group, and two fatty acid chains by themselves, and line up to make cell membranes. Someone made them. That is God.

If a machine has to be made out of certain components, then the components have to be made first.'

Molecules have nothing to gain by becoming the building blocks of life. They are "happy" to lay on the ground or float in the prebiotic ocean and that's it. Being incredulous that they would concentrate at one building site in the right mixture, and in the right complex form, that would permit them to complexify in an orderly manner and assembly into complex highly efficient molecular machines and self-replicating cell factories, is not only justified but warranted and sound reasoning. That fact alone destroys materialism & naturalism. Being credulous towards such a scenario means to stick to blind belief. And claiming that "we don't know (yet), but science is working on it, but the expectation is that the explanation will be a naturalistic one ( No God required) is a materialism of the gaps argument.

A Few Experimental Suggestions Using Minerals to Obtain Peptides with a High Concentration of L-Amino Acids and Protein Amino Acids 10 December 2020
The prebiotic seas contained L- and D-amino acids, and non-Polar AAs and Polar AAs, and minerals could adsorb all these molecules. Besides amino acids, other molecules could be found in the primitive seas that competed for mineral adsorption sites. Here, we have a huge problem that could be a double-edged sword for prebiotic chemistry. On the one hand, this may lead to more complex prebiotic chemistry, due to the large variety of species, which could mean more possibilities for the formation of different and more complex molecules. On the other hand, this complex mixture of molecules may not lead to the formation of any important molecule or biopolymer in high concentration to be used for molecular evolution. Schwartz, in his article “Intractable mixtures and the origin of life”, has already addressed this problem, denominating this mixture the “gunk”. 5

Intractable Mixtures and the Origin of Life 2007
A problem which is familiar to organic chemists is the production of unwanted byproducts in synthetic reactions. For prebiotic chemistry, where the goal is often the simulation of conditions on the prebiotic Earth and the modeling of a spontaneous reaction, it is not surprising – but nevertheless frustrating – that the unwanted products may consume most of the starting material and lead to nothing more than an intractable mixture, or -gunk.. The most well-known examples of the phenomenon can be summarized quickly: Although the Miller –Urey reaction produces an impressive set of amino acids and other biologically significant compounds, a large fraction of the starting material goes into a brown, tar-like residue that remains uncharacterized; i.e., gunk. While 15% of the carbon can be traced to specific organic molecules, the rest seems to be largely intractable

Even if we focus only on the soluble products, we still have to deal with an extremely complex mixture of compounds. The carbonaceous chondrites, which represent an alternative source of starting material for prebiotic chemistry on Earth, and must have added enormous quantities of organic material to the Earth at the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB), do not offer a solution to the problem just referred to. The organic material present in carbonaceous meteorites is a mixture of such complexity that much ingenuity has gone into the design of suitable extraction methods, to isolate the most important classes of soluble (or solubilized) components for analysis.

Whatever the exact nature of an RNA precursor which may have become the first selfreplicating molecule, how could the chemical homogeneity which seems necessary to permit this kind of mechanism to even come into existence have been achieved? What mechanism would have selected for the incorporation of only threose, or ribose, or any particular building block, into short oligomers which might later have undergone chemically selective oligomerization? Virtually all model prebiotic syntheses produce mixtures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I've said multiple times in this thread. Abiogenesis AND Creation are faith-based claims. Now post to respond to a few skeptics, so they can (possibly) learn what we both already know!

Nope. One of them is. The other is evidence based.

Can you get over your fear of learning?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really an argument you've made, just insults.

How come five-year-olds know what a kind is but skeptics don't? Cats cannot birth dogs or vice versa because science says they are FINISHED, COMPLETE kinds. Everything in fossils and NOW, BILLIONS of species, shows "complete" in AGREEMENT with scripture.

They don't. You don't know what a kind is. You only know how to use poor language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You get an award for "BEST ANSWER OF THE YEAR". Maybe you can handwave at this next:

Open questions in prebiotic sourcing of hydrocarbons
How would an ensemble of minerals present anywhere on the primitive Earth be capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle? How would a cycle mysteriously organize itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface? How would such a cycle, despite the lack of evidence of its existence, a transition to the “life-like” complexity of the Wood-Ljundahl cycle, or reverse TCA cycle, commonly proposed as the first carbon fixing cycles on earth?

In this work, we emphasize the role of selection during the prebiological stages of evolution and focus on the constraints that are imposed by physical, chemical, and biological laws. The key feature of the scenario is the participation of the UV irradiation both as driving and selecting forces during the earlier stages of evolution.

Ultraviolet radiation was then already considered as an energy source but was not used, since it was difficult to generate radiation of appropriate wavelength with sources available at that time (Miller and Urey 1959). 2 The prebiotic UV environment was exposed to high levels of UV radiation relative to the present day due to lack of UV-shielding O2 and O3. 3. High environmental fluxes of UV–C and UV–B restricting protocyanobacteria to refuges. J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1962) independently proposed the existence of a prebiotic soup in the oceans (Haldane 1954) and suggested that subjecting a mixture of water, carbon dioxide and ammonia to UV light should produce a variety of organic substances. Dauvillier (1947) was one of the first in suggesting UV radiation as an energy source for the synthesis of organic matter. In the words of Sagan & Khare (1971), “the availability of the ultraviolet solar radiation was some 100 times greater that of all the others”. It is a paradox how the molecule responsible for the replication of information has such a large absorption in the damaging UV spectral range. Sagan (1973) suggested the existence of a protecting layer of purines and pyrimidines surrounding the primitive organisms.The decrease in UV surface fluxes was essential for the access of living beings to the land and the subsequent evolution of complex life forms. 4

No prebiotic selection !!
1. Life requires the use of a limited set of complex biomolecules, a universal convention, and unity which is composed of the four basic building blocks of life ( RNA and DNA's, amino acids, phospholipids, and carbohydrates). They are of a very specific complex functional composition and made by cells in extremely sophisticated orchestrated metabolic pathways, which were not extant on the early earth. If abiogenesis were true, these biomolecules had to be prebiotically available and naturally occurring ( in non-enzyme-catalyzed ways by natural means ) and then somehow join in an organized way and form the first living cells. They had to be available in big quantities and concentrated at one specific building site.
2. Making things for a specific purpose, for a distant goal, requires goal-directedness. And that's a big problem for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. There was a potentially unlimited variety of molecules on the prebiotic earth. Competition and selection among them would never have occurred at all, to promote a separation of those molecules that are used in life, from those that are useless. Selection is a scope and powerless mechanism to explain all of the living order, and even the ability to maintain order in the short term and to explain the emergence, overall organization, and long-term persistence of life from non-living precursors. It is an error of false conceptual reduction to suppose that competition and selection will thereby be the source of explanation for all relevant forms of the living order.
3. We know that a) unguided random purposeless events are unlikely to the extreme to make specific purposeful elementary components to build large integrated macromolecular systems, and b) intelligence has goal-directedness. Bricks do not form from clay by themselves, and then line up to make walls. Someone made them. Phospholipids do not form from glycerol, a phosphate group, and two fatty acid chains by themselves, and line up to make cell membranes. Someone made them. That is God.

If a machine has to be made out of certain components, then the components have to be made first.'

Molecules have nothing to gain by becoming the building blocks of life. They are "happy" to lay on the ground or float in the prebiotic ocean and that's it. Being incredulous that they would concentrate at one building site in the right mixture, and in the right complex form, that would permit them to complexify in an orderly manner and assembly into complex highly efficient molecular machines and self-replicating cell factories, is not only justified but warranted and sound reasoning. That fact alone destroys materialism & naturalism. Being credulous towards such a scenario means to stick to blind belief. And claiming that "we don't know (yet), but science is working on it, but the expectation is that the explanation will be a naturalistic one ( No God required) is a materialism of the gaps argument.

A Few Experimental Suggestions Using Minerals to Obtain Peptides with a High Concentration of L-Amino Acids and Protein Amino Acids 10 December 2020
The prebiotic seas contained L- and D-amino acids, and non-Polar AAs and Polar AAs, and minerals could adsorb all these molecules. Besides amino acids, other molecules could be found in the primitive seas that competed for mineral adsorption sites. Here, we have a huge problem that could be a double-edged sword for prebiotic chemistry. On the one hand, this may lead to more complex prebiotic chemistry, due to the large variety of species, which could mean more possibilities for the formation of different and more complex molecules. On the other hand, this complex mixture of molecules may not lead to the formation of any important molecule or biopolymer in high concentration to be used for molecular evolution. Schwartz, in his article “Intractable mixtures and the origin of life”, has already addressed this problem, denominating this mixture the “gunk”. 5

Intractable Mixtures and the Origin of Life 2007
A problem which is familiar to organic chemists is the production of unwanted byproducts in synthetic reactions. For prebiotic chemistry, where the goal is often the simulation of conditions on the prebiotic Earth and the modeling of a spontaneous reaction, it is not surprising – but nevertheless frustrating – that the unwanted products may consume most of the starting material and lead to nothing more than an intractable mixture, or -gunk.. The most well-known examples of the phenomenon can be summarized quickly: Although the Miller –Urey reaction produces an impressive set of amino acids and other biologically significant compounds, a large fraction of the starting material goes into a brown, tar-like residue that remains uncharacterized; i.e., gunk. While 15% of the carbon can be traced to specific organic molecules, the rest seems to be largely intractable

Even if we focus only on the soluble products, we still have to deal with an extremely complex mixture of compounds. The carbonaceous chondrites, which represent an alternative source of starting material for prebiotic chemistry on Earth, and must have added enormous quantities of organic material to the Earth at the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB), do not offer a solution to the problem just referred to. The organic material present in carbonaceous meteorites is a mixture of such complexity that much ingenuity has gone into the design of suitable extraction methods, to isolate the most important classes of soluble (or solubilized) components for analysis.

Whatever the exact nature of an RNA precursor which may have become the first selfreplicating molecule, how could the chemical homogeneity which seems necessary to permit this kind of mechanism to even come into existence have been achieved? What mechanism would have selected for the incorporation of only threose, or ribose, or any particular building block, into short oligomers which might later have undergone chemically selective oligomerization? Virtually all model prebiotic syntheses produce mixtures.

That looks like the idiocy and ignorance of the known liar James Tour. I don't have a printed refutation, but I do have videos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Faith-based is not an attack. I'm a man of faith. It means "not observed in nature and not duplicable in a lab".

Abiogenesis and Creation are faith-based claims. Yours takes MORE faith than mine:

How could simple amphiphiles, which are molecules containing a nonpolar hydrophobic region and a polar hydrophilic region will self-assemble in aqueous solutions to form distinct structures such as micelles have been available in the prebiotic inventory if there has never been evidence for this? Furthermore, sources of compounds with hydrocarbon chains sufficiently long to form stable membranes are not known.
How could prebiotic mechanisms have transported and concentrated organic compounds to the pools and construction site?
How could membranous vesicles have self-assembled to form complex mixtures of organic compounds and ionic solutes, if science has no solution to this question?
How could there have been a prebiotic route of lipid compositions that could provide a membrane barrier sufficient to maintain proton gradients? Proton gradients are absolutely necessary for the generation of energy.
How to explain that lipid membranes would be useless without membrane proteins but how could membrane proteins have emerged or evolved in the absence of functional membranes?
How did prebiotic processes select hydrocarbon chains which must be in the range of 14 to 18 carbons in length? There was no physical necessity to form carbon chains of the right length nor hindrance to join chains of varying lengths. So they could have been existing of any size on the early earth.
How could there have been an "urge" for prebiotic compounds to add unsaturated cis double bonds near the center of the chain?
How is there a feasible route of prebiotic phospholipid synthesis, to the complex metabolic phospholipid and fatty acid synthesis pathways performed by multiple enzyme-catalyzed steps which had to be fully operational at LUCA?
How would random events start to attach two fatty acids to glycerol by ester or ether bonds rather than just one, necessary for the cell membrane stability?
How would random events start to produce biological membranes which are not composed of pure phospholipids, but instead are mixtures of several phospholipid species, often with a sterol admixture such as cholesterol? There is no feasible prebiotic mechanism to join the right mixtures.
How did unguided events produce the essential characteristic of living cells which is homeostasis, the ability to maintain a steady and more-or-less constant chemical balance in a changing environment? The first forms of life required an effective Ca2+ homeostatic system, which maintained intracellular Ca2+ at comfortably low concentrations—somewhere ∼10,000–20,000 times lower than that in the extracellular milieu. There was no mechanism to generate this gradient.
How was the transition generated from supposedly simple vesicles on the early earth to the ultracomplex membrane synthesis in modern cells, which would have to be extant in the last universal common ancestor, hosting at least over 70 enzymes?

It is an attack. It is a false claim where you say that others are being as irrational as you are.

And why do you think that the first life would have to have seventy enzymes? I know what mistake you made. You don't know how you blew it again.

 

[metis]

So I've said multiple times in this thread. Abiogenesis AND Creation are faith-based claims. Now post to respond to a few skeptics, so they can (possibly) learn what we both already know!

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis whereas Creation is a claim, thus they are not the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis whereas Creation is a claim, thus they are not the same.

He is braking forum rules by quoting a known liar. James Tour is a well respected organic chemistry professor. He is also very religious and hates the idea of abiogenesis. In one of his church lectures he lied about Nobel Prize winner Jack Szostak so badly that he had to make a mealy mouthed apology to him.

Meanwhile he kept making false claims about the science that he does not understand. I can post videos where he is refuted by another chemist who used to be a professor, and this is also outside his area of expertise, but he knows it. But he does know enough who to interview. He gets experts in the field to refute Tour's lectures.

 

[Jose Fly]

No. But if not observed in nature or in a lab it's scientific CONJECTURE.

No it's not. For example, no one has directly observed the earth making an entire orbit around the sun, nor has it been replicated in the lab. Yet no sane person thinks of it as "scientific conjecture".

So as I noted, not only are you wrong on a very fundamental level, the fact that you make such a basic error despite years and years of attempting to debate science here, is quite an indictment.

Simply put, if you truly believe what you wrote above then you have no business lecturing others about science.

 

[Tiberius]

Perfectly plausible? Then why is it neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a controlled environment? That's why it's conjecture/just-so stories and not science fact.

It doesn't happen again because there's no role for it to take. The first time, there was nothing else to compete with it. Today,. there's all sorts of life forms that would compete with it, and they all have several billion years head start.

 

[Tiberius]

You misunderstand me. It's not for me to convince you, you are hardened, closed, and biblically speaking, you must repent to trust God's knowledge of your volition. But we can start with things like:

Open questions in prebiotic chemistry to explain the origin of the four basic building blocks of life

Abiogenesis is mathematically impossible

1. Life requires the use of a limited set of complex biomolecules, a universal convention, and unity which is composed of the four basic building blocks of life ( RNA and DNA's, amino acids, phospholipids, and carbohydrates). They are of a very specific complex functional composition and made by cells in extremely sophisticated orchestrated metabolic pathways, which were not extant on the early earth. If abiogenesis were true, these biomolecules had to be prebiotically available and naturally occurring ( in non-enzyme-catalyzed ways by natural means ) and then somehow join in an organized way and form the first living cells. They had to be available in big quantities and concentrated at one specific building site.
2. Making things for a specific purpose, for a distant goal, requires goal-directedness. And that's a big problem for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. There was a potentially unlimited variety of molecules on the prebiotic earth. Competition and selection among them would never have occurred at all, to promote a separation of those molecules that are used in life, from those that are useless. Selection is a scope and powerless mechanism to explain all of the living order, and even the ability to maintain order in the short term and to explain the emergence, overall organization, and long-term persistence of life from non-living precursors. It is an error of false conceptual reduction to suppose that competition and selection will thereby be the source of explanation for all relevant forms of the living order.
3. We know that a) unguided random purposeless events are unlikely to the extreme to make specific purposeful elementary components to build large integrated macromolecular systems, and b) intelligence has goal-directedness. Bricks do not form from clay by themselves, and then line up to make walls. Someone made them. Phospholipids do not form from glycerol, a phosphate group, and two fatty acid chains by themselves, and line up to make cell membranes. Someone made them. That is God.

RNA & DNA: It's prebiotic synthesis: Impossible !! Part 1

RNA & DNA: It's prebiotic synthesis: Impossible !! Part 2

How would the primitive Earth have generated and maintained organic molecules? All that can be said is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations.
How would prebiotic processes have purified the starting molecules to make RNA and DNA which were grossly impure? They would have been present in complex mixtures that contained a great variety of reactive molecules.
How did the synthesis of the nitrogenic nucleobases in prebiotic environments occur?
How did fortuitous accidents select the five just-right nucleobases to make DNA and RNA, Two purines, and three pyrimidines?
How did unguided random events select purines with two rings, with nine atoms, forming the two rings: 5 carbon atoms and 4 nitrogen atoms, amongst almost unlimited possible configurations?
How did stochastic coincidence select pyrimidines with one ring, with six atoms, forming its ring: 4 carbon atoms and 2 nitrogen atoms, amongst an unfathomable number of possible configurations?
How did random trial and error foresee that this specific atomic arrangement of the nucleobases is required to get the right strength of the hydrogen bond to join the two DNA strands and form Watson–Crick base-pairing?
How did mechanisms without external direction foresee that this specific atomic arrangement would convey one of, if not the best possible genetic system to store information?
How would these functional bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made?
How were high-energy precursors to produce purines and pyrimidines produced in a sufficiently concentrated form and joined to the assembly site?
How could the adenine-uracil interaction function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup" considering that its interaction is weak and nonspecific?
How could sufficient uracil nucleobases accumulate in prebiotic environments in sufficient quantities, if it has a half-life of only 12 years at 100◦C ?
How could the ribose 5 carbon sugar rings which form the RNA and DNA backbone have been selected, if 6 or 4 carbon rings, or even more or less, are equally possible but non-functional?
How would the functional ribose molecules have been separated from the non-functional sugars?
How were the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar selected to be joined together?
How could right-handed configurations of RNA and DNA have been selected in a racemic pool of right and left-handed molecules? Ribose must have been in its D form to adopt functional structures ( The homochirality problem )
How could random events have brought all the 3 parts together and bonded them in the right position ( probably over one million nucleotides would have been required ?)
How could prebiotic reactions have produced functional nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution)
How could prebiotic glycosidic bond formation between nucleosides and the base have occurred if they are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsically unstable?
How could RNA nucleotides have accumulated, if they degrade at warm temperatures in time periods ranging from nineteen days to twelve years? These are extremely short survival rates for the four RNA nucleotide building blocks.
How was phosphate, the third element, concentrated at reasonable concentrations?. (The concentrations in the oceans or lakes would have been very low)
How would prebiotic mechanisms phosphorylate the nucleosides at the correct site (the 5' position) if, in laboratory experiments, the 2' and 3' positions were also phosphorylated?
How could phosphate have been activated somehow? In order to promote the energy dispendious nucleotide polymerization reaction, and (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside had to be possible.
How was the energy supply accomplished to make RNA? In modern cells, energy is consumed to make RNA.
How could a transition from prebiotic to biochemical synthesis have occurred? There are a huge gap and enormous transition that would be still ahead to arrive at a fully functional interlocked and interdependent metabolic network.
How could RNA have formed, if it requires water to make them, but RNA cannot emerge in water and cannot replicate with sufficient fidelity in water without sophisticated repair mechanisms in place?
How would the prebiotic synthesis transition of RNA to the highly regulated cellular metabolic synthesis have occurred? The pyrimidine synthesis pathway requires six regulated steps, seven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.
The starting material for purine biosynthesis is Ribose 5-phosphate, a product of the highly complex pentose phosphate pathway, which uses 12 enzymes. De novo purine synthesis pathway requires ten regulated steps, eleven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.
How would the primitive earth have produced high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines in a sufficiently concentrated form? (for example at least 0.01 M HCN).
How would the bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made? - and the solutions had to be sufficiently concentrated.
How did formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M build up?
How did accumulated formaldehyde oligomerise to sugars?
How did the sugars separate and resolve, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose?
How did bases and sugars come together?
How were they induced to react to make nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermo dynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: purine nucleosides have been made by dry phase synthesis, but not even this method has been successful for condensing pyrimidine bases and ribose to give nucleosides
How was joining base and sugar achieved correctly ? It had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar. This junction will fix the pentose sugar as either the a- or fl-anomer of either the furanose or pyranose forms. For nucleic acids it has to be the fl-furanose. (In the dry-phase purine nucleoside syntheses referred to above, all four of these isomers were present with never more than 8 ‘Z, of the correct structure.)
How could phosphate have been present at sufficient concentrations? (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such things
How could phosphate have been activated? — for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate — so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible?
How would only the standard nucleotides, the 5’- hydroxyl of the ribose be phosphorylated? (In solid-state reactions with urea and inorganic phosphates as a phosphorylating agent, this was the dominant species to begin with.
How did the activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) polymerise?. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very


DNA is more stable than RNA. uracil (U) is replaced in DNA by thymine (T)
At the C2' position of ribose, an oxygen atom is removed by hypercomplex RNR molecular machines. The thymine-uracil exchange is the major chemical difference between DNA and RNA. Before being incorporated into the chromosomes, this essential modification takes place. The synthesis of thymine requires seven enzymes. De novo biosynthesis of thymine is an intricate and energetically expensive process.
All in all, not considering the metabolic pathways and enzymes required to make the precursors to start RNA and DNA synthesis, at least 26 enzymes are required. How did these enzymes emerge, if DNA is required to make them?



WHEN YOU HANDWAVE AT THE ABOVE you prove my point.

I urge you to consider the truth with more care, PLEASE.

And, pray tell, what qualifications does this Otangelo Grasso have that leave him qualified to speak as an authority in biochemsitry?

None, that's what.

Going to him to get information about evolution and biochemistry makes about as much sense as going to your plumber to get information about cancer treatments.

If you want me to take your scientific arguments seriously, make sure they are presented by people who actually know what they are talking about, not just someone who you agree with because they are telling you what you want to hear.

 

[Tiberius]

How would the primitive Earth have generated and maintained organic molecules? All that can be said is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations.

If you actually knew anything about this topic, you'd know that organic molecules are just anything that contains carbon.

How would prebiotic processes have purified the starting molecules to make RNA and DNA which were grossly impure? They would have been present in complex mixtures that contained a great variety of reactive molecules.

Who says it started with DNA or RNA? The example I presented as a possible start didn't require either of them.

How did the synthesis of the nitrogenic nucleobases in prebiotic environments occur?

Who said the beginning of life required that?

How did fortuitous accidents select the five just-right nucleobases to make DNA and RNA, Two purines, and three pyrimidines?

You know evolution isn't random, right? How do you expect me to take you seriously when you make such basic errors?

How did unguided random events select purines with two rings, with nine atoms, forming the two rings: 5 carbon atoms and 4 nitrogen atoms, amongst almost unlimited possible configurations?

Again, evolution isn't random.

How did stochastic coincidence select pyrimidines with one ring, with six atoms, forming its ring: 4 carbon atoms and 2 nitrogen atoms, amongst an unfathomable number of possible configurations?

Again, evolution isn't random.

How did random trial and error foresee that this specific atomic arrangement of the nucleobases is required to get the right strength of the hydrogen bond to join the two DNA strands and form Watson–Crick base-pairing?

Again, evolution isn't random.

How did mechanisms without external direction foresee that this specific atomic arrangement would convey one of, if not the best possible genetic system to store information?

Again, evolution isn't random.

How would these functional bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How were high-energy precursors to produce purines and pyrimidines produced in a sufficiently concentrated form and joined to the assembly site?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How could the adenine-uracil interaction function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup" considering that its interaction is weak and nonspecific?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How could sufficient uracil nucleobases accumulate in prebiotic environments in sufficient quantities, if it has a half-life of only 12 years at 100◦C ?

Was it at a temperature of 100 degrees C the whole time? I can't think of many places on earth that naturally reach such a temperature.

How could the ribose 5 carbon sugar rings which form the RNA and DNA backbone have been selected, if 6 or 4 carbon rings, or even more or less, are equally possible but non-functional?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How would the functional ribose molecules have been separated from the non-functional sugars?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How were the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar selected to be joined together?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How could right-handed configurations of RNA and DNA have been selected in a racemic pool of right and left-handed molecules? Ribose must have been in its D form to adopt functional structures ( The homochirality problem )

Evolution

How could random events have brought all the 3 parts together and bonded them in the right position ( probably over one million nucleotides would have been required ?)

Again, evolution isn't random.

How could prebiotic reactions have produced functional nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution)

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How could prebiotic glycosidic bond formation between nucleosides and the base have occurred if they are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsically unstable?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How could RNA nucleotides have accumulated, if they degrade at warm temperatures in time periods ranging from nineteen days to twelve years? These are extremely short survival rates for the four RNA nucleotide building blocks.

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How was phosphate, the third element, concentrated at reasonable concentrations?. (The concentrations in the oceans or lakes would have been very low)

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How would prebiotic mechanisms phosphorylate the nucleosides at the correct site (the 5' position) if, in laboratory experiments, the 2' and 3' positions were also phosphorylated?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How could phosphate have been activated somehow? In order to promote the energy dispendious nucleotide polymerization reaction, and (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside had to be possible.

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How was the energy supply accomplished to make RNA? In modern cells, energy is consumed to make RNA.

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How could a transition from prebiotic to biochemical synthesis have occurred? There are a huge gap and enormous transition that would be still ahead to arrive at a fully functional interlocked and interdependent metabolic network.

Evolution.

How could RNA have formed, if it requires water to make them, but RNA cannot emerge in water and cannot replicate with sufficient fidelity in water without sophisticated repair mechanisms in place?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How would the prebiotic synthesis transition of RNA to the highly regulated cellular metabolic synthesis have occurred? The pyrimidine synthesis pathway requires six regulated steps, seven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

The starting material for purine biosynthesis is Ribose 5-phosphate, a product of the highly complex pentose phosphate pathway, which uses 12 enzymes. De novo purine synthesis pathway requires ten regulated steps, eleven enzymes, and energy in the form of ATP.

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

And you're just regurgitating stuff you don't understand to sound important. You have no idea what you're actually talking about. Like in the sitcom Frasier, where Daphne says, "You'd eat a worm if I gave it a French name!"

So go on, tell me. Describe for me the De novo purine synthesis pathway.

How would the primitive earth have produced high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines in a sufficiently concentrated form? (for example at least 0.01 M HCN).

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How would the bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made? - and the solutions had to be sufficiently concentrated.

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How did formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M build up?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How did accumulated formaldehyde oligomerise to sugars?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

How did the sugars separate and resolve, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose?

Who said that that was needed for the first life forms?

You are only displaying your complete lack of understanding of what I was talking about.

 

[Tiberius]

How did bases and sugars come together?
How were they induced to react to make nucleosides? (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermo dynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: purine nucleosides have been made by dry phase synthesis, but not even this method has been successful for condensing pyrimidine bases and ribose to give nucleosides
How was joining base and sugar achieved correctly ? It had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar. This junction will fix the pentose sugar as either the a- or fl-anomer of either the furanose or pyranose forms. For nucleic acids it has to be the fl-furanose. (In the dry-phase purine nucleoside syntheses referred to above, all four of these isomers were present with never more than 8 ‘Z, of the correct structure.)
How could phosphate have been present at sufficient concentrations? (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such things
How could phosphate have been activated? — for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate — so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible?
How would only the standard nucleotides, the 5’- hydroxyl of the ribose be phosphorylated? (In solid-state reactions with urea and inorganic phosphates as a phosphorylating agent, this was the dominant species to begin with.
How did the activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) polymerise?. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very difficult to simulate ; but more important, it must have come to take place on pre-existing polynucleotides if the key function of transmitting information to daughter molecules was to be achieved by abiotic means. This has proved difficult too. Orgel & Lohrmann give three main classes of problem.
(i) While it has been shown that adenosine derivatives form stable helical structures with poly(U) — they are in fact triple helixes — and while this enhances the condensation of adenylic acid with either adenosine or another adenylic acid — mainly to di(A) - stable helical structures were not formed when either poly(A) or poly(G) Were used as templates.
(ii) It was difficult to find a suitable means of making the internucleotide bonds. Specially designed water-soluble carbodiimides were used in the experiments described above, but the obvious pre-activated nucleotides — ATP or cyclic 2’,3’-phosphates — were unsatisfactory. Nucleoside 5'-phosphorimidazolides, for example: N/\ n K/N/P-r’o%OHN/\N were more successful, but these now involve further steps and a supply of imidazole, for their synthesis.
(iii) Internucleotide bonds formed on a template are usually a mixture of 2’—5’ and the normal 3’—5’ types. Often the 2’—5’ bonds predominate although it has been found that Zn“, as well as acting as an eflicient catalyst for the templatedirected oligomerisation of guanosine 5’-phosphorimidazolide also leads to a preference for the 3’—5’ bonds.
How could the physical and chemical environment have been at all times suitable — for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations?
How could all reactions have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight? that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals.
If not already activated — for example as the cyclic 2’,3’-phosphate — how were the nucleotides be activated? (for example with polyphosphate) and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration. Alternatively, a suitable coupling agent must now have been fed into the system.
Longer heating gave the nucleoside cyclic 2’,3’-phosphate as the major product although various dinucleotide derivatives and nucleoside polyphosphates are also formed

DNA is more stable than RNA. uracil (U) is replaced in DNA by thymine (T)
At the C2' position of ribose, an oxygen atom is removed by hypercomplex RNR molecular machines. The thymine-uracil exchange is the major chemical difference between DNA and RNA. Before being incorporated into the chromosomes, this essential modification takes place. The synthesis of thymine requires seven enzymes. De novo biosynthesis of thymine is an intricate and energetically expensive process.
All in all, not considering the metabolic pathways and enzymes required to make the precursors to start RNA and DNA synthesis, at least 26 enzymes are required. How did these enzymes emerge, if DNA is required to make them?

More regurgitated garbage that you don't understand.

Of course, if you really think this is a valid argument against evolution, why don't you submit it to science journals and get your Nobel Prize?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope. One of them is. The other is evidence based.

Can you get over your fear of learning?

Why are you being nasty? I wouldn't address my worst enemy the way you do. What is your fear or trauma that causes you to be so rude, may I ask?