Abiogenesis and Evolution

Barbarian observes:
I did ask you what issues I hadn't addressed, but you haven't yet told me.

If you didn't want an answer, why did you complain that I haven't given you one?

If you were serious, all you need to do is tell me what you'd like me to answer, and I'll be pleased to do it.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disciples of Jesus Christ would NEVER have believed that the earth was created in over 6 days and that the Flood never happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent point Helen. (And obvious for Bible "believing" followers of Christ as you point out.)

Is this the part where we "observe" that NT Christians were "Bible Believers"?

Is this the part where we "observe" that the OT was their "text"?

Is this the part where we see the "details" of the Genesis account affirmed in God's Spoken summary of Exodus 20:8-11?

Is this where we see the "details" appealed to by Paul regarding the fact that Adam was created first and Eve was tempted?

Is this the part where we observe the "details" appealed to in Rev 14:6-7 of God's creating everyhthing on the planet.

Is this where we observe the "details" referenced in Hebrews 4 - that God did create the world in 6 literal days?

Is this the part where we observe that 7 literal "Evenings and mornings" seven rotations of the planet, 7 sequences of night followed by day - are explicitly given to the Bible "believing" people of God in the book of Genesis?

Or are you talking about "something else"?

Bob

 

Abiogenesis and the Murchison meteorite.

The Gallation wrote:

The Miller-Urey did not at all demonstration that abiogenesis was possible. It demonstrated that amino acids could be formed naturally. Unfortunately, most of the amino acids formed were not biologically active, produced a highly racemized mixture of mostly tar, and are totally incapable of the process of abiogenesis except in the Kipling-like "just-so" stories of the evolutionists. Also, considering the finds that there was probably oxygen on the early earth which would completely destroy the experiment, the proposed atmospheric conditions are probably an inaccurate and meaningless model of primordial earth.

As to the Murchison meteorite data spins, I discuss them beginning in the third paragraph down.

It may also be technically true, in a most narrow sense, that,"it remains true that abiogenesis is not required by evolutionary theory". But, if naturalistic biological evolutionary theory requires there be no creator, then no creator can be allowed to be introduced into the chemical evolution of molecules to cells. However, if it is impossible for life to arise spontaneously (or at least be so highly improbable as to practically be impossible) then the case for a supernatural creator remains as a reasonable cause which is both necessary and sufficient to create life from raw chemicals. Without the naturalistic certainty that the unaided chemical evolution of cellular life is possible and even probable, the case for naturalistic biological evolution also becomes much more cloudy. Once miracles of any form are given even a slight nod of acceptance, the "nose of the camel is inside the tent" so-to-speak and the rest of the beast is soon to follow. Once the miraculous is admitted, then the interaction of the intelligent creator with His creation can no longer be denied and the meaning of all the extrapolated DNA ancestral trees, the meaning of the fossil record, etc. all become questionable and "natural history" metamorphasizes into a semi-theological metaphysical field where the interpretation of the data must consider possible miraculous discontinuities as the supernatural would be admitted as an inherent part of reality. The possibility of a full blown creation with a necessary appearance of age would suddenly become a real possibility. Therefore naturalists who see the limits of reality as equivalent to the limitations of science, scientific methods and philosophy (with their interaction limited to the natural world) will continue to oppose any suggestion of a supernatural creator at any level. This is in spite of the mounting evidence that the naturalistic origin of life is impossible and therefore the implication of Intelligent Design is a reasonable alternative. Naturalists will not only continue to cling to any evidence that seems to skew the numbers in their direction but will continue to denounce any challenge to their faith with shrill cries of subterfuge and dishonesty. Yet the data against naturalism exists in their own reports and writtings if one would only look for it behind the spin.

Abiogenesis is the hypothetical process of naturalistic chemical evolution of living cells arising from raw chemicals without the aid of any supernatural creator. But, in spite of the hype, chemical evolutionists have not been able to solve why there is a preference for all the organisms on Earth to form their structural and enzymatic proteins from just one of the two possible types of amino acid building blocks. All amino acids, the subunits of proteins, exist in two mirror-image shapes except the simplest amino acid, the molecule glycine, which contains no asymmetric carbon atoms. Their chemical compositions are identical but they differ like your left hand differs from your right. The left-handed amino acids are also known as the lavorotary forms or the L-forms. The right-handed amino acids are also known as dextorotary forms or D-forms. The forces of chemical bonding of either the right or left-handed amino acid to another amino acid of either type is identical. Therefore, when amino acids are created in a laboratory, the batch is invariably racemized, that is it contains equal numbers of left- and right-handed molecules. There are also D- and L-forms of amino acids created which are not found in life (only 22 amino acids are used by living organisms with 20 of those generally common). When chains of amino acids do form, the chains are also racemized and are biologically inactive. So why and how did life favor the left-handed form if the naturalistic scenario is true? If life originated naturally from nonliving chemicals, there seems to be no convincing reason for one amino acid form to be selected and not the other. Nor are the naturalistic processes understood or even imagined which could maintained a purity of the selected amino acid form to form biologically active un racemized proteins and enzymes. And these are just part of the problems with naturalistic origin-of-life hypotheses, but this is what I will limit my discussion to here.

But hope springs eternal in the minds of naturalists. The Murchison meteorite is a "carbonaceous chondrite" remnant of what is generally believed to be a spent comet. It is so named because it fell to Earth near Murchison, Australia (about 80 miles north of Melbourne) in 1969. It is considered important because it is generally believed that the comet's origin was contemporaneous with our solar system and because of the presence of excess L-forms of amino acids present on the meteorite. These excessive L-forms help propel the hope and faith of naturalistic chemical evolutionists towards the rather unwarranted conclusion that conditions in space favor the asymmetrical production of amino acids significantly enough towards the L-forms exclusively required to seed the production of bio actively proteins and enzymes found in living organisms. Therefore the Murchison meteorite offers strong evidence that even if the proper building blocks of life could not form on earth they could have formed in space and "seeded" the formation of life on earth. So, the Murchison meteorite comes to the rescue of naturalists! Or does it?

In 1997, the Murchison meteorite was analyzed. It contained 80 amino acids, but only 8 of which are used by contemporary proteins. In other words, there were 72 biologically inactive amino acids found in the meteor as compared to only 8 biologically active ones. Contemporary proteins use about 20 amino acids, therefore less than half, only about 42%, of the necessary amino acids are even present. Of the 72 biologically inactive amino acids, 55 (almost 69% of the total amino acids accounted for) have NO terrestrial counterparts. Is this really supposed to impress someone? There was also the presence of about 500 organic compounds, including a few nucleic bases, but most of the compounds are not biologically significant (a point which can be found but is not emphasized in the writtings and announcements of the pro-naturalistic camp).

One of the pieces of data that is stressed in the reports is than an excess of about 9% of the L-form for isovaline and "-methyl-iso leucin e",non-protein amino acids, which cannot result from biological contamination and cannot racemize easily, were found in the Murchison meteorite. This supposedly is part of the strong evidence that the amino acids formed in space and there was a tendency of the space-formed amino acids to prefer the L-form. That there does seem to be evidence for amino acid formation in the interstellar medium of space is not questioned here. Nor is it questioned that something, whether the crystalline structure of the meteorite or the theorized selective and rotational influence cosmic radiation, has a preferential tendency on the amino acids so that the L-forms appear in excess over the D-forms. The question is whether or not the data indicates the preference to be significant enough to seed life and whether or not the anti-biological compound evidence is suppressed. The point of this particular data is to exclude the possibility of biological contamination skewing the results favoring the excess L-forms of amino acids. But, in doing so, that also means that these molecules (both the D- and the L- forms) are excluded from being significant to the necessary chemicals to create life. There is also a question of the significance of a 9% excess of an L-form regardless of whether or not the molecule was one which is used in life. In other words there is an excess of ONLY 9% of the L-form over the D-form. Looking at this statistic in its most favorable light, that still means that only a maximum of 59% of the molecules were L-form which is NOT significant enough to produce non-racemized polypeptide chains of amino acids that would hopefully, somehow, spontaneously form into a working protein. Proteins may be polypeptide chains but not all polypeptide chains are proteins... in fact the vast majority are not - another fact that is glossed over in the naturalistic literature.

Norvaline and -amino -n-butyric acid, their C-hydrogen analogs which can easily racemize, were found as racemic mixtures (equal mixture of L and D-forms). This supports that even if a possible asymmetric synthesis in space is allowed or preferred, in many cases it is followed by an progressive racemization. Also not impressive towards a naturalistic scenario.

On another board, I was quoted statistics that one of the amino acids had an 80% L-form purity (which I have not been able to verify, but I shall assume the statistic is correct). Of course that means that there was still 20% of this exemplarily case of the wrong-handed D-form to mess up any polypeptide formation. This combined with the fact that this was only ONE amino acid with this excess (but not sufficient) amount out of the 8 amino acids found on the meteorite used to make biologically active proteins which were but a part of 80 amino acid compounds found on the meteorite (55 of which are non-terrestrial) add up to only one logical conclusion: even if millions of micrometeorites with similar components to the Murchison meteorite were to bombard and "seed" the earth for chemical evolution towards life to begin, the result would STILL be a racemized, non-biologically active tar, similar to the glop at the bottom of the much heralded Miller-Urey experiment, not life.

Try again, naturalists. The Murchison meteorite is a bust also!

 

dupicate, please delete

[ June 30, 2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

Let's see..

We know that amino acids necessary for abiogenesis form in nature, and we know that there is a preponderance of L-forms, as one would expect, given that living things we know about use L-forms.

It appears that you've put your faith in the notion that it is impossible to make a peptide using only L-forms, if R-forms are also present.

That's wrong. Even if it's exceedingly rare, it has to happen randomly for peptides.

Suppose we have an 80% L-form and 20% R-form mixture of amino acids. Let's say that it's entirely by chance which one is attached.

So, the likelihood of getting 10 L-forms (a very respectable peptide) is .8^10 or roughly 0.11, a bit better than one in ten.

What is the likelihood of putting ten peptides together?

A bit less, about one in ten billion.

Fortunately, one mole of peptides has about 6.022 x 10^23 peptide molecules:

602,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 peptide molecues.

Which means that even by chance, this is going to happen frequently.

So, if there's some stability to be had by being all one form, then it's going to happen.

As you see, the presence of R-forms is not an objection.

We don't yet know the complete set of possible amino acids by natural means, nor do we know what amino acids were in the first replicating chemical systems.

So that's not an objection, either.

Lots of work remains to be done, of course, and abiogensis has not yet had it's Darwin as evolutionary theory has. But there are no theoretical objections to it.

 

Rather, fact vs. What Steve would like to believe.

I'll give you a hint: it was the guy who made the unsupported asssertion that L-form polypeptides can't form in the presence of R-forms.

That was a classic, indeed. Thanks, Steve.

 

Well, that is what the data tell us.

Well, if they were quite a different thing, they surely look different. Can you tell us how the layers are different? Or are they only different because you wish them to be so?

Hey, I'm just taking the common thread of all those flood myths that you (all) keep referring to. I don't remember that many of them talking about building an ark for two years...

Not at all. Most of the geological record was there before radiomtric dating was invented. Maybe you mean that the dates are selected according to the known geological record, but we've been over that ground before. You cannot account for the concordant dates nor can you support your previous assertion that dates are selectively suppressed.

Oh, that helps!

Correct. Why should the system suddenly break down? And what is your evidence to support your assertion?

 

Hey, Steven, what would you say the present atmospheric condition of the earth is? Do you think that every part of the earth has this same condition? Also, why do you restrict the discussion to the atmosphere? How about the oceans or the soil, etc.?

It does? Think now, what if the creator decided to use abiogenesis and/or evolution? Hmmm, thinking outside the box can be interesting, eh?

Correct. Now show us that it is/was impossible.

In fact, you make science virtually impossible, because we cannot know when a miracle has happened in nature, or interferred in our experiments. This may be easy for you to take, but it puts me and a bunch of other folks out of work. Why do they need us when a well-timed miracle will allow some creation scientist to make that next discovery?

Yep, all you need now is evidence.

Not exactly. More accurately we say that supernatural events are simply not necessary. Personally, I have nothing against miracles.

Please provide an example. Anyone can speak in general terms, but I fail to see in any aspect of the entire science of geology that supports YECism.

 

>>>>"Abiogenesis" means the advent of life from non-life by purely naturalistic means. It involves anything from Darwin's 'warm little pond' to Hoyle's panspermia. <<<<<<

Helen,

I think you are mistaken that Darwin ever discussed a "warm little pond" in connection with Abiogenesis. I say this because his starting point for evolution was life that was already existing.

 

Excellent point "again" Helen!

Outstanding observation. As Steve said "Hope springs eternal" for the compromised Christian evolutionist - ever hopeful that "someday" his mole (6 x 10^23) will ONE day produce a set of L-Amino Acids that all miraculously form life-building proteins that then miraculously form cell-structures that then miraculously come together (in some unknown way) and produce "LIFE".

All this "miracle upon miracle" forming what Steve calls "The Just So stories" -- chronicles of faith hope for our evolutionists stands in stark contrast to the Christian creationists.

What would be "a bit more believable" is "IF" the evolutionists could at least "START" their "story" by "cheating".

#1. Take an ALREADY ASSEMBLED "living cell" as the STARTING POINT. Yes my friend "cheat" PLEASE.

#2. Dissassemble it into it's "Amino Acid" components.

NOW you are at that "IDEAL" and "PERFECT" state with all the Levro Amino Acids in the RIGHT numbers to form the RIGHT proteins and all the RIGHT proteins to form the RIGHT structures, and all the RIGHT structures to form a single living cell.

In FACT you even know WHAT cell - why its the VERY one you just DISSASSEMBLED!!!

Once you can "cheat" your way to the solution --- SURELY you could then show "natural" paths to that same solution.

But "how embarrassing" it is to know that - they can't even get there by cheating!!!

Fascinating!

But as Steve said of the "just so stories" and hope filled chronicles of faith from our evolutionist friends - "Hope springs eternal" for those who would "do it without God" - and we wish them "all the best" as they wander to their "Fantasy land" enamored with all their little dreams "making life".

In the mean time - Bible believers will have to be content with "the uncorrupted Gospel", God's OWN summary of the Genesis account in Exodus 20:6-11 and of course God's OWN book - the Bible with Genesis 1-3 obvious and clear to the unbiased reader.

Bob

 

Why would expect to be able to disassemble a working system and make it work again? I don't think that anyone believes that the first cells were anything like modern cells.

 

Actually, Darwin did speculate that life might have started in a "warm little pond", but when he wrote that, he was thinking that God did it by miraculous means.

 

Were any of Darwin’s theories his own? I believe I read somewhere where they weren’t.

 

Before beginning, if anyone thinks they can answer the question as to the mystery of life’s origin and the origin of the information required, there are organizations that will reward anyone who can contribute a workable scenario. Not just would a Nobel Prize be in order, but also there is at least one organization offering $1.35 million to anyone who can come up with an abiogenesis scenario that actually works:
The Origin-of-Life Prize (NOT from a creationist organization):
http://www.us.net/life/

It would appear the answers are not yet as simple or as apparent as our evolutionary friends would have us believe.

Now, back to the fray:

Living things do not use “a preponderance of L-forms” they EXCLUSIVELY use L-forms. The only exceptions to the rule that I am aware of (and please correct me if I’m wrong) are two species of bacteria that use a FEW D-forms (the right-handed forms) of amino acids in the structural proteins of their cell wall. Playing the devil’s advocate, this might appear to argue for the origin-of-life from racemized mixtures. But it actually raises more questions. If evolution were true, racemized mixtures MUST have been used at least in the early stages of the hypothetical evolution of modern protein molecules. These 2 anomalies demonstrate that a racemized protein could be used in a living system, even one with mostly L-amino acids and assembled by instructions from a D-form DNA molecules (which constitute their own set of problems… but not taken up here). So why isn’t all life at least partially racemized? If the racemized mixture works, it should have been kept. If the racemized mixture works, all life should be comprised of roughly equal amounts of L and D-forms of amino acids, as this IS what is formed in experiments hypothetically representing primordial soups. Even with the elevated L-forms found on the Murchison meteorite, it is very hard to imagine that anything other than at least a partially racemized polypeptide could ever emerge, despite the slight-of-hand statistics indicated by Gallatian. L and D-forms of amino acids are identical chemically, kinetically, and thermodynamically and a polypeptide chain does not distinguish or favor one form over another. Nothing like a real modern protein has been produced using a prebiotic soup type situation. Therefore at least a partially racemized polypeptide “protein” mixture should abundantly appear, if not in all life, at least in the “early” life forms such as most bacteria. But it doesn’t. The racemized anomaly only appears in two bacteria species and only in a few places of certain proteins used in structural functions in the cell wall.

Yes, short polypeptide chains do form in mixtures formed from “prebiotic soups” like the Urey-Miller experiment, and they are always racemized, always of non-specific order and always biologically inactive. Yet, under any realistic evolutionary hypothesis, biologically-active racemized polypeptides had to be used to produce the required hundreds of different polypeptide nano-machinery proteins required to make part of the incredibly complex symphony of chemical reactions required to produce even the simplest living cell.

Examining a very simple life form today, it is obvious that life requires many true 100% L-form proteins. Estimates, based on the Mycoplasma genitalium genome put the minimum genome necessary for life at about 300-400 genes each of which codes for a protein. Someone else suggested that at least 239 proteins are required for the simplest conceivable living cell. Life, even in its most simple form, is still mighty complex! Proteins are highly complex, specified molecular nano-machines whereas the short, non-specific, racemized polypeptides that are always produced by the amino acids from experimental “prebiotic soup” mixes are only the building blocks of the non-biologically active goop and tar lining the experiment’s container.

Looks like you fixed the race from the start. You ASSUME that some prebiotic mixture exists which contain MULTIPLE amino acid selections with a relatively consistent constitution of 80% L-forms. Please give an example of a non-biological formation of amino acids that produces enough MULTIPLE amino acids at a consistent rate with anything close to an 80% L-form preference. You obviously must know of examples. Why else would you pick such a high ratio? Also, do you know of examples that do not have more than the 20-22 amino acids used by living organisms today in their L-forms along with their respective 20% D-form mirror image. The Murchison meteorite contained 80 amino acids, which means that, even being very generous, there were at least 36 amino acid compounds present that would contaminate any long peptide chains that might theoretically form. These excess compounds are not used by living systems today nor do we have any evidence they were ever used. I believe that the Miller-Urey type experiments have yielded more than 74 different amino acids which again are excess contaminants even ignoring the fact that ALL the Miller-Urey type experiments produce highly racemized L and D-forms in roughly equal amounts. This means that even if ALL the amino acids used by living organisms were present in something like the Murchison meteorite (only 8 were present out of the 80 found) and ALL those compounds were at a preferred `ratio of 80% to their respective D-form mirror image compounds, there is still a high risk of contamination.

Back to the drawing board again for the evolutionists!

I think that I have pointed out a couple of theoretical objections.

 

Well, yes, we have a few Christians who are still resistant to the evidence. Like evolution, they have a religious objection to God's creation by natural means, as He told us in Genesis.

But their excuses are not persuasive against His word, or against the evidence.

 

You repeated your belief. However, it does not adequately refute the evidence.

As I pointed out, even if the formation of peptides was entirely random, you'd still see many peptide molecules that were entirely L-forms. If these were the only ones that would work for biological systems, then we would see them preferentially used for that purpose.

Which is, not surprisingly, exactly what we see.

Belief does not overrule reality.