Abiogenesis and Evolution

OK... please give me an example of any experiment which non-biologically produces amino acids and has given rise to biologically active proteins or enzymes.

Belief does not overrule reality.

[ July 01, 2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Steven O. Sawyer ]

 

Because evolutionism conveys "antiknowledge" as a fairy tale for adult atheists it "keeps them from the Gospel". When Christians latch on to it "hopefully" exchanging the gospel for a myth - they assume a compromised position in which the only acceptable direction is "more compromise" with atheism's doctrines of evolutionism.

Bob

 

Indeed. Our evolutionist friends would "never" place all their "faith" and "hope" in speculation that corrupts the gospel and the word of God - as if "hopefully the Bible is wrong" were their montra. Rather they would only go as far as sound objective, verifiable, peer-reviewed, imperical data required them to go in distancing themselves from God's Word. So as in this case - it is only "rock solid" - "hard data" that would force the affirmation of such a ratio from our friendly evolutionist.

At least that is what we "believe".

Bob

 

Synthesis of biologically active peptides:

http://www.macro.ru/04/page6.html

http://www.macro.ru/04/page6.html

http://sbl.kjist.ac.kr/sub/peptide.htm

http://www.abrf.org/ABRFNews/1998/June98/jun98Merrifield.html

http://peptide.chem.elte.hu/Research/Research.htm

This was cutting edge biochemistry a few years ago, but it's pretty ho-hum, now. And Rob is quite wrong. Orthodox Christians don't "hope the Bible is wrong". We just accept it as it is.

Since God tells us that the Earth and waters brought forth life, that's good enough for Christians.

At least it is for Bible-believing Christians.

 

So, what have you sent them so far?

My point here is that you have not offerred an explanation for the facts. Do you have one?

Hmmm, I can't remember anyone here saying that it was simple... Clearly, for the bioligical illiterates here such as myself, it is far from simple. But then nature often is not.

 

Both of these links are the same, so I assume that more than one noted example was the point… but I don’t see how this helps the evolutionary paradigm. These are examples of an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED system for creating and purifying amino acids. In the links on the left side of your linked web page we find the Methodology of synthesis of peptides where the hydrophobic microstructures of an hydrophilic carrier parts are used to predetermine structure/conformation of the amino acids as well as an hydrophilic polymer carrier are used:

No one denies that amino acids and biologically active peptide chains can be created as the result of Intelligent Design. You missed the point.

All three of these links are also examples of Intelligent Design forcing molecules to align just so.

Obviously Gallatian has completely missed the intent of my challenge. Let me try rephrasing the challenge.

In experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment, the resulting tar and goop contains amino acids found in life but these are very much the minority. Even if it were statistically possible to randomly produce a biologically active, 100% L-form pure protein (which I still sincerely doubt) the concentration would be insignificant. But, significance of the concentration aside, I am looking for experimental evidence where the conditions modeled are supposed to represent a NATURALLY OCCURING ENVIRONMENT “that produces enough MULTIPLE amino acids at a consistent rate with anything close to an 80% L-form preference” or “has given rise to biologically active proteins or enzymes”. The point is not to show that man is smart enough to design goal-oriented systems to accomplish purification but that realistic conditions in nature could produce biologically active proteins. Put another way, maybe you could explain a realistic natural environment that would duplicate the deliberate Intelligent Design purification methods used by man.

People can hear the wind whistle through natural formations, but they will never hear neither Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony nor any other elaborate symphony produced naturally. Machines do not build themselves and raw chemical will NEVER self-organize into a living cell (which is the bio-chemical equivalent of a von Neumann machine) without the aid of Intelligent Design.

God may have said, "let the earth bring forth" and "let the waters bring forth" but they did so at His command and His will. Nowhere does the Bible indicate that God merely started the process and then took a vacation or a nap. The God of the Bible is not the God of the Diests. The Bible DOES repeatedly state God created "in six days" consisting of an "evening and a morning". I guess when you are free to pick and choose the verses you want to fit your own paradigm you can come up with anything... "Judas went out and hung himself" "and Jesus said, go and do thou likewise". Before using a text as a pretext for one's ideas, they should consider the context.

 

The fact that biologically active peptides can be formed is so well known that I just did a search and gave you a few of the many sites that popped up.

It doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It has to to with abiogenesis.

So was Miller-Urey. But then we discovered that it happens in nature, too.

If you are asserting that no conditions at any time in nature existed to produce biologically active peptides, then evidence should be presented.

Good. But you have evidence that conditions were such that it could never happen in nature? I already showed you it would happen even if it was an entirely random process. A very small number of biologically active peptides form simply because the huge number of reactions will produce some of them.

Yep. One of the ways this can happen is for them to form on a surface that aligns the molecules. Certain clays found in shallow waters do that.

[quotee]In experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment, the resulting tar and goop contains amino acids found in life but these are very much the minority. Even if it were statistically possible to randomly produce a biologically active, 100% L-form pure protein (which I still sincerely doubt)[/quote]

It's a certainty, even with a completely random process. Because of the huge number of molecules, some of them will form peptides with only L-forms.

Unless there's a process that selectively picks such peptides.

We don't know yet. But since we know that the formation of such peptides is a fact, we do know that there are not theoretical objections to it.

It's one thing to say "we don't yet know", and quite another to say. "We know it can't happen."

Of course. He made nature. Why wouldn't it do His will? Nature works the way He wants it to.

Certainly not. He continues to be completely involved in the world. But He does almost everything here by natural means.

Isn't that what you've just done? You accept the six days, but you won't accept that the earth and water brought forth life.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Abiogenesis IS chemical EVOLUTION.

So was Miller-Urey. But then we discovered that it happens in nature, too.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the Miller-Urey is a designed experiment, but it was designed to MODEL a theoretically realistic environmental condition that evolutionists believed actually exited on the primordial earth. The experiment demonstrated that such a theorized and realistically possible environment could produce amino acids. But, again, the peptide strings that come from Miller-Urey type experiments are ALWAYS racemized and are ALWAYS a dead-end for origin-of-life research. If you have evidence to the contrary, please give it and stop dodging the issue.

Excuse me, but it is YOU who is so adamantly claiming that there is so much evidence to support abiogenesis. My reaction - provide it, please. The very experiments so often sited to favor abiogenesis indicate the very real limitation of nature to only go so far before intelligent intervention is required.

Good. But you have evidence that conditions were such that it could never happen in nature? I already showed you it would happen even if it was an entirely random process. A very small number of biologically active peptides form simply because the huge number of reactions will produce some of them.</font>[/QUOTE]“I already showed you it would happen even if it was an entirely random process”? Yeah, you started with a rigged presumption of 80% pure L-forms of ALL the necessary amino acids (which you do not explain how this came about)... as I pointed out before, this is figure is MUCH higher than even the Murchison meteorite which is so widely touted as evidence for naturally forming higher L-form concentrations and never takes into consideration the multitude of other amino acids that would definitely play their part in contaminating any resulting peptide (again, only 8 out of 80 peptides of the Murchison meteorite were even capable of use by proteins). Your statistics may fool some people but you constant bluff does not intimidate me in the least. These VERY slanted statistical assumptions were then used to provide statistics for a peptide chain consisting of only a whopping 10 peptides. The average protein is between 300-400 peptides in length and even "simple" insulin is over 150 peptides. Gee, did we find ANY of those in any Miller-Urey experiment or in the Murchison meteorite? NOPE. Statistically probable my foot. Get a grip on reality. Again, please provide some REAL evidence of your assertions.

Yep. One of the ways this can happen is for them to form on a surface that aligns the molecules. Certain clays found in shallow waters do that.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, the use of certain clays to fix the chirality problem has been proposed for decades. And even in this early stage problem for abiogenesis, the results to naturalistically produce any biologically active proteins is, well, non-existent. It is the very fact that the experiments have been such dismal failures that has lead to the hype of the Murchison meteorite for evidence to support the hope and faith that even if the required molecules could not have formed on earth naturally, perhaps there is the chance they formed in space and seeded the earth. Why else do you think the Murchison meteorite got so much attention? If anyone could actually demonstrate that the required molecules could be created with only the goo from a Miller-Urey experiment and a little clay, do you think the Murchison meteorite would have gotten any press?

Also, just think about this for a moment:
If it were really as simple as you suggest, why does it take special and expensive equipment in a controlled multi-stage process to extract purified amino acids and biologically viable proteins?

In other words, “keep those phone calls comin’ ‘cause we don’t have a winner yet.”

It's a certainty, even with a completely random process. Because of the huge number of molecules, some of them will form peptides with only L-forms.</font>[/QUOTE]It’s only a certainty with your rigged assumptions. Again, please give evidence otherwise. Please provide the experimental data that backs up your “certainty” because if it were that certain, SOMEBODY would have produced the experiment to prove it by now and the Murchison meteorite would be nothing more than a side curiosity.

Unless there's a process that selectively picks such peptides.</font>[/QUOTE]You mean like the clay selection discussed above.

Try again... with some real evidence would be nice.

We don't know yet. But since we know that the formation of such peptides is a fact, we do know that there are not theoretical objections to it.

It's one thing to say "we don't yet know", and quite another to say. "We know it can't happen."</font>[/QUOTE]We know that under CONTROLLED conditions and multi-stage intelligent manipulations that have never been demonstrated to exist in nature, such formations are possible. We also know that under CONTROLLED conditions and multi-stage intelligent manipulations that automobiles are manufactured. Are you therefore suggesting that I should believe that natural automobilegenesis takes place just because we have never demonstrated those conditions to exist in nature, but we know that such formations are possible? I thought you were arguing for good science, not your own unsupported metaphysical view of reality.

 

Barbarian on the abiotic formation of peptides:
It doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It has to do with abiogenesis.

Sorry. Theories are only judged by the claims they make. Hence, since evolutionary theory only makes claims about the way living things change, the question of how living things came about is not part of the theory.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Cartoon Theory of Evolution. That one is about the Big Bang, and dust on the moon, and who knows what else.

We're talking about the real one here, though.

Barbarian observes:
If you are asserting that no conditions at any time in nature existed to produce biologically active peptides, then evidence should be presented.

Yep. As you see, contrary to the claims of people who said Miller-Urey couldn't happen in nature, it does.

And yes, we know that RNA can self-polymerize, and so on. There's a lot of evidence.

However, we are talking about your claim that biologically active peptides could never form by natural processes. I asked for your evidence. I'm asking again.

(declines to do so)

Right. You're not alone. No one can do it.

 

I DO agree with this in one sense, though I would state it: "Abiogenesis may involve chemical evolution." By which I mean, the origins of life may involve the operation of RM&NS at levels prior to what we would technically call life. We just don't yet know for sure to what extent this was the case.

However, strictly speaking, abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution.

-Neil

[ July 02, 2003, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: NeilUnreal ]

 

I’ll take Galatian’s last comment first:

Reviewing some of my comments and yours again, we seem to be talking past each other on some points. In my case, I confess to not being specific enough at times especially when using such relative terms as “short” relative to peptide chain length. Maybe we need to come to some sort of definition as to what is actually SIGNIFICANT for possibly meaningful biological activity as it relates to abiogenesis. A polypeptide chain of only 10 amino acids, even 10 all L-forms, is not significant IMO (even though you seem to feel it is). Even a chain of 100 peptides is still a “short” chain IMO as it is still shorter than he simplest protein we know of. One of the simplest proteins we know of, an insulin protein, is a chain of 150 amino acids… all L-form. The insertion of even one D-form into the chain makes that chain biologically inactive. This is still “short” in my book as most proteins are longer than that, the average consisting of between 300-400 peptides. But I recognize that in the naturalistic view of things, the early proteins would not be as advanced as most modern proteins. Yet, in order to produce the symphony of chemical reactions found in even a rudimentary form of a hypothetical primordial living cell, some complexity would seem to be called for. I therefore propose that the 150 number of all L-form amino acids be used as the significant figure to demonstrate the threshold of a true biologically active protein.

I would like to hear objections from the creationists also to the above proposal.

So I still want to know of experimental data showing that PROTEINS (not 10 unit peptide chains) can be produced from Miller-Urey type experiments modeling a hypothetical but possibly real natural environment or in meteor finds or in any natural situation where the non-biological production of amino acids occur.

I will grant you that chains of amino acids with only 10 L-form peptide units could and probably have formed. But these are truly insignificant compared to forming a true protein (which is what I was looking for). But even if you find A protein, or even several, in a mixture (the experimental evidence of which you have yet to produce), just how biologically SIGNIFICANT would they be in terms of concentrations that would aid in abiogenesis? Literally hundreds of different proteins and enzymes are required for a cell’s normal activity. How do all of those or even a significant number of them arise in the same area at the same time?

Let’s put it this way, the odds of winning a state lottery to match 3 numbers for say several hundred bucks are small but the chances are that several participants in a city will win, possibly even a few in the same household. But if several people in the same household won the multi-million dollar lottery, some eyebrows would be raised and the game would at least be investigated for fraud. If the same household won the big lottery 100 times, fraud would be a virtual certainty.

It seems that not everyone even within the fold of the evolutionary dogma agrees that the RNA experiments are really that impressive. Here’s one name I’ll drop:

Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus, NYU
Research Area: Organic and bioorganic chemistry

Shapiro believes that laws of nature might favor the generation of life throughout the Universe (see his book Planetary Dreams) so he is certainly not a creationist. However, on the significance of the RNA experiments, he says:

One Catholic creationist site, http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/rnamodel.html , said this:

That’s it from me for now. I’m off to enjoy a relaxing American 4th of July long weekend. I hope everyone has a great weekend!

Blessings!

Steve

 

A couple of cautionary tales:

Darwin's critics brought up an important objection to his theory; if inheritance is like mixing two colors of paint, wouldn't a new characteristic be lost like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white?

Darwin had no answer for that, but pointed out that the evidence favored his theory.

Later, it was discovered that Mendel had shown inheritance was particulate, and the objections ceased.

Lord Kelvin did calculations on heat flux, showing that the Earth could be at most 100 million years old. Darwin objected, saying that the evidence was that evolution had been going on for a much longer time. But Kelvin's numbers were correct.

Then radioactivity was discovered, and the source of the heat. Kelving grudgingly admitted Darwin had been right.

Do not put your hopes in what we have not yet learned. It often lets you down. The preponderance of evidence is not always correct, but that's where the smart money is.

[ July 03, 2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

Evolution's doctrines produce a kind of "faithful devotee" that clings "to the slightest HOPE that evolutionism will one day pan out". AS you said before "hope springs eternal" for the evoltionist looking for support of their doctrines.

The then claim that their "faith" has now created "fact" - though all the imperical data is missing to support such wild claims. But that is the "starting point" for the faithful devotees to evolutionism.

You have repeatedly called for the "Salient" points of evolutionism's argument to be "defended". And the answer is always to obfuscate the point with a response that ignores the basic challenge.

Not only will you receive NO answer to that request to SHOW in nature a "process" that ever COULD produce the data that fulfills evolutionism's "hopes" - you will receive no "confession" that "obfuscation" is not a compelling response to your clear and obvious request.

In OTHER forums - the request that the salient points of an argument be defended with data - proof and compelling evidence - is alwasy accepted.

But in a discussion about evolutionism - evading the question and obfuscating the point - "is the only option for the determined evolutionist".

Again you state the "obvious" but once committed to compromised science of evolutionism - they can not concede to even the most obvious point.

And in this case you ask only about correct Chiral orientation - what if you had asked to see life-building proteins assembled into viable cell structres??

(in the LAB - by design at first YES - but then in nature to show conditions that are favorable to the lab experiment's outcome).

And what then if you had asked to see the assembling of those cell structures INTO a living cell (manufactured and manipulated in the lab first - and then demonstrated in nature to show a compelling argument that it is even a possibility).

Well then you would have the POSSIBILITY of abiogenesis - but STILL not the PROOF of it.

Yet such modest accomplishment would be Utopia compared to the ground-zero myths and suppositions at which our evolutionist friends are stuck today.

Bob

 

Ahh yes "pick and choose" and "cut and Paste" when it comes to God's Word.

And what is the result?

Corruption of the Gospel itsef! The Gospel REQUIRES that the "details" of the Gen 1-3 "Account" be trustworthy because it is the DETAILS that are sited in the Law of God (the 10 commandments) the Gospel of Christ regarding the fall of Adam, the fact that Eve was first deceived and then Adam. Even the FLOOD fact is connected with the hope of the Gospel - the 2nd coming the return of Christ in 2Peter 3.

The Genesis "details" (the very thing our evolutionist friends deny) are the very things that the Gospel basics are founded upon.

Without the fall of man from perfection and union with His creator - there is no "separation" there is no dire crisis that demands the death of God the Son. The Gospel is "made void" and our atheist friends see this clearly. For that reason they promote evolutionism said Huxley.

Bob

 

Spoken like a truly hopeful atheist!

Notice that "all pretext" has been dropped that WAS in the form "I gave up on God's Word because of the compelling facts of evolutionism DEMONSTRATED in the lab" - and NOW we have "Don't give up the faith in evolutionism just becaue its basic salient points ARE NOT yet supported by science - not YET. WE can always hope that one day they WILL have FACT behind them".

This we have come to expect from our atheist friends who have no hope outside of evolutionism.

But to see someone who "claimed" to be Christian NOW come FULL circle and admit "I hold to evolutionism IN SPITE of the fact that it is not yet supported by science, with the faith and hope that ONE DAY it WILL be" -

is telling.

Here we have a "smoking gun" - pure unmasked faith of the devotee in his evolutionism that has fully replaced the Word of God on those same subjects and showing that SCIENCE does NOT support him in his "cause".

Bob

 

Yes. God used natural means to create life. Very good.

That's true. But I don't think anyone here said that He did.

You seem to be arguing with yourself.

Yep. From the earliest Christians, it's been noted that it is not reasonable to assume 24 hour days, evenings, and mornings, with no sun to have them. Augustine, for example, repeatedly tried to make it work in a literal sense, and finally admitted that a literal reading was not supportable.

Nonsense. Even the allegories in the Bible are true. The problem is, you don't like the way God managed things.

 

Barbarian observes:
Do not put your hopes in what we have not yet learned. It often lets you down. The preponderance of evidence is not always correct, but that's where the smart money is.

It's sad to see someone who claims to be a Christian calling other Christians "atheists". You're upset, and you're perhaps realizing that things are different than you assumed. But there's nothing wrong here that can't be made worse by such behavior.

Whacking that ol' strawman, um? Not a good idea either. Inventing positions for others is a very transparent ploy.

You've gotten off track again. This is about abiogenesis, not evolution. And the argument is that since the evidence we have to date supports abiogenesis, it's foolish to assume that the evidence we don't yet have will rule it out.

Bob, do you honestly think that anyone will think better of you or your beliefs because you misrepresented my position?

Think it over.

Would Jesus have done what you just did?

 

quote:Bob responds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoken like a truly hopeful atheist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. I am observing that our atheist friends make that appeal above - since THEY have no alternative after all for THEM - "there is no God" to DO any of this.

I am expressing SURPRISE that anyone "claiming" to be a Christian would resort to the same tactic.

My key point is that this is UNNEXPECTED from a Christian.

See - that was easy!

hmmm. "compelling"?


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that "all pretext" has been dropped that WAS in the form "I gave up on God's Word because of the compelling facts of evolutionism DEMONSTRATED in the lab"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretending that those that differ with you can not "see the obvious" is also not compelling Galation.

"Obviously" several of our evolutionist posters have Already posted that at one time they accepted the Bible statements on literal 7 day creation week but were moved by science to reject that idea later in life.

My "obvious" point above is to "Contrast" that "claim" with the more recent post "expressing faith in Evolutionism EVEN THOUGH science does not yet support it".

I am not intending to upset you with this - I just think it is a telling commentary on the real rationale for evolutionism.

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW we have "Don't give up the faith in evolutionism just becaue its basic salient points ARE NOT yet supported by science - not YET. WE can always hope that one day they WILL have FACT behind them".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh I see. This is about the way a purely naturalistic explanation can be found for how life itself evolved on this planet from the very START - and NOT a discussion about the naturalistic way that life evolved at some point AFTER the start of life evolved.

Hmmm - I see your "need" to separate this - but I don't see a legitimate argument for it - yet.

Actually the "evidence" has not been shown to "remotely support abiogenesis" and that is the "problem". Every time you have expressed a hopefull "possibility" that might surface - science has shown that your hopes are "without imperical data".

How unfortunate for the evolutionist. And as the illustration shows - the evolutionist must then "hope" that one day evidence WILL be found that DOES directly address the unique, central, key, salient point of its own argument.

So far NO mechanism has been found to START the synthesis of life building proteins since NO mechanism produces the correct population of amino acids to get the ball rolling. NEITHER has any mechanism been discovered for assembling those proteins into cell "structures".

The case for abiogenesis "stops" before it gets started if you are considering the hard science, the imperical data.

And that is sad for evolutionism's faithful, hopeful follower as noted.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This we have come to expect from our atheist friends who have no hope outside of evolutionism.

But to see someone who "claimed" to be Christian NOW come FULL circle and admit "I hold to evolutionism IN SPITE of the fact that it is not yet supported by science, with the faith and hope that ONE DAY it WILL be" -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You "pretend" not to notice that my statment above is "suprise" that a Christian would have to resort to the same hope-filled posture as an atheist confronted with lack of imperical data to support the key, central, unique, salient point of their argument. And you pretend to say I called the Christian an "atheist" when in fact - the quote SHOWS that I merely expressed SURPRISE that a Christian could bring themselves to that same sad appeal that only an atheist should be "left with".

Surely that too - is obvious.

Basically "the obvious" is not as difficult to read on these threads - as some have hoped.

Bob

 

Please explain what you mean by a 'faithful devotee'. All I know are evolutionists who believe that evolution is the best way to explain life on earth. Most would drop evolution in a minute if there were a better explanation.

Actually, it has panned out. Evolution has done exactly what it is supposed to do as a theory. It explains the way things are.

Actually, I know of no one that is looking for support for evolution any more. That was done ages ago. Evolution has moved on to being a premise for further research. This is probably the source of your confusion.

I know of no one here besides creationists who call evolution a faith.

I know of no one here besides creationists who call evolution a "fact."

I don't know much about 'imperical' data, but there certainly is empirical data to support evolution along with legions of circumstantial data. For instance, we have empirical data that natural selection works. And we have circumstantial data in the fossil record.

Actually, it is the ending point of extensive research, all completed in the past. Evolution is a starting point because it has been verified by so much history. This is how we make progress. Someone first shows that flight is possible and then later people accept this and build airplanes. We no longer try to 'prove' that flight is possible.

That is correct. In science few things are proven in an absolute sense. However, after many years of testing, they become broadly accepted by the scientific community and can be accurately called 'scientific fact.'

 

I would resent your treatment of Christian evolutionists on this board as atheists, if I were not so accustomed to it. I dare say that you are not exactly winning souls by doing so. In fact, you are probably achieving quite the opposite.

Nope. That's not what any evolutionists on this board has said. In fact, there are even atheists who would not say this. Why do you poison the well, Bob?

We seem to see a lot of things that are unexpected from Christians on this board... Do you realize that with the wave of a hand, you have significantly reduced the Christian population of the planet?