Abiogenesis.

[Guest maeon3]

As a human it is my duty to ask questions. I hope you will not reduce this post to a spitting match, a retreat to humor or stray from the spirit of the question. The question is of prime importance to me and I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me fellow questioners.

 

First I must define life. I define life as a collection of interdependent systems which brings in energy and resources from it's environment and precisely copies itself so that it may repeat the process. Therefore fire consuming wood is not life as well as fractals that may reoccur in nature.

 

As a prerequisite question I ask “What is the smallest most simple life form that exists today?” There are ways to answer this question:

1.Search the earth and collect up all the small bacteria and virus you can. Return the smallest one.

2.Find a really simple bacteria or virus and suppose how it could perform it's job more simply.

3.Other ways.. http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050325-1.htm

 

 

For the purpose of argument I bring up e-coli bacteria because it's easy to think about. Sure you can provide simpler examples, and if you do, I would love to know, however I am certain that the number of interdependent systems in the life-form you bring up is comparable to e-coli.

 

Care must be taken not to confuse virus with cellular based life forms. Technically virus do not have the capability to reproduce by themselves so I do not classify them as life. A thing that cannot reproduce cannot be the prerequisite to life.

 

Care must be taken not to confuse fractals that occur in nature with cellular based life forms or virus. I know fractals are impressive examples of complexity from randomness (added energy). However life forms to not resemble fractals. Fractals usually occur in liquids so it's difficult for me to imagine how fractals assisted proteins and amino acids from configuring themselves into the thousands of necessary interdependent systems all necessary for one life form to create one copy of itself.

 

Please be careful to only invoke evolution and natural selection only where it can occur. I can hear one of you preaching (primordial soup + evolution = life) already and that argument does not work if you consider that evolution can only preserve those creatures that survive. If you don't have any surviving going on, there is not positive selection going on.

 

Finally to the question: I want to understand how life came from those things that do not live. Pull out all the stops and please don't talk down to me like a fundamental creationist.

[Padreko]

Finally to the question: I want to understand how life came from those things that do not live. Pull out all the stops and please don't talk down to me like a fundamental creationist.

 

Well as I understand it, the basis for abiogenesis rests on the fact that the primodial soup allowed for essentially an infinite amount of chances for molecules to interact and form biochemical machines that are out of equilibrium with their environment.

 

Secondly and probably most important to the theory of abiogenesis is an experiment performed by two bologists(Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey) back in the 1950's which was basically an attempt to recreate the prebiotic earth environment envisioned by scientists to have precede the generation of what we call life. This experiment was devised under the assumption that the earth's atmosphere had a lack of oxygen (ie reducing conditions - that means gain of electrons; oxygen is an electron hogg) and an abudance of other inorganic precursors like methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). They took this experimental soup and sent electric current through it, mimicing what they thought to happen on prebiotic earth (lots of lightining storms). After a week they found that 10-15 percent of the carbon was in the form of more sophisticated biomolecules, like urea, sugars, and 'amino-acids' mostly glycine and alanine - Simplest A.A.'s

 

Also

 

"In 1961 Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine."

 

One last thing, aminoacids have been found on meteorites that have crashed into the planet - another possible source of the essential molecules.

 

http://www.ucsd.tv/miller-urey/ <--- video

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...ogy/miller.html

 

With all that said, we have systhesis of biomolecules from simple precursors. Now we need assembly into supramolecular polymer structures ie peptides and dna/rna. Scientist claim that lifeo n earth originated between 3.5 and 4.0 billion years ago.

 

Earth cools to a temp at which liquid water can exists. Scientists believe rna was probably the first genetic material. Short polymers of ribonucleotides have been shown to polymerize in solution some how (i dunno, you'd have to look it up in some journal). One you get this, the rna can act as a template/cataylst that helps polymerize of about 5-10 bases and if you add zinc, up to 40 nucleotides bases will form with like a 1% error rate. Now you have RNA polymers - some of these RNA polymers are more stable and replicate better than others so they predominate. Meanwhile, you must keep in mind that the temperature of the earth is not favorable for the existence of double stranded DNA helices. DNA formation occurs once the temperature cools more.

 

Also we need a cellular membrane(lipids + water =bilayer). Lipids are relatively simple (one or more)hydrocarbon chain with polar/charged head - and form either micelles bilayers. Diacyl glycerols form bilayers, and fatty acids form micelles. There is a thing called a protobiont, which is defined as an aggregate of abiotcally producd molecules which "are not capable of precise reproduction". However , it has been demonstrated that when organic ingredients include these lipids, liposomes can form(permiable membrane). Liposomes can split and engulf other liposomes. So all you need is a SINGLE liposome to contain some the this rna, dna, biochemical machinery working just right and wammo - life. Evolution and Natural selection follows.

 

Source: my memory and Biology 6th ed Campbell and Reece

wowzers.....

 

BTW... I think anyone with the balls to try to tear this down should be mamed. You have no idea the amount of time and money invested into trying to explain the origins of life through scientific experimentation - much stronger than the biblical account of the formation of life.

[BlueGiant]

I believe that you can get simpler than E. Coli, but I can't remember for the life of me just what that would be.

 

I also wouldn't entirely discount viruses, while they piggy-back on cells for synthesis, once manufactured their units are pretty self-organizing.

 

Other than what is in the post above, I can't think to add much more, except that this is still a fairly open research question, in that there indeed isn't a whole lot known about it.

[Ouroboros]

Personally, I think the problem is in the definition of life, why we call something alive and something not. Somehow "life" is considered something "outside" the physical. Something than either is or isn't, and when it is, it is something else than the physical nature and process. Why can't particles, quarks etc be called alive? Only because we have set a definition on what alive constitutes. If that definition is wrong, then nothing came alive, it was alive from start. (I just woke up, and haven't had coffee yet, so it probably doesn't make sense at all. I can lay it out more later if so wanted.) I just though of that asking these questions about abiogenesis is just like asking "when does a brain become a brain in a childs development?" or "when does, and what is the process for, a human becoming consious, or self-aware?" What's it called again, The Argonauts' Boat?

[Padreko]

Personally, I think the problem is in the definition of life, why we call something alive and something not. Somehow "life" is considered something "outside" the physical. Something than either is or isn't, and when it is, it is something else than the physical nature and process. Why can't particles, quarks etc be called alive? Only because we have set a definition on what alive constitutes. If that definition is wrong, then nothing came alive, it was alive from start. (I just woke up, and haven't had coffee yet, so it probably doesn't make sense at all. I can lay it out more later if so wanted.) I just though of that asking these questions about abiogenesis is just like asking "when does a brain become a brain in a childs development?" or "when does, and what is the process for, a human becoming consious, or self-aware?" What's it called again, The Argonauts' Boat?

 

 

Actually, I did have a problem with the definition of life at first. Life is an abstract concept, not like black and white. The most convinient definition I use for life is something that can force itself to be out of equilibrium with its environment. So humans are essentially uber complex biochemical machines, with the sole purpose of replicating dna (one thing common to all known life forms). And we are not in equilibrium with the environment. If we were we'd just decay (ie DEAD PEOPLE) into dust and bones. And that means no more DNA replication.

[Fishapod]

This page has a good description of the process, along with a very nice reference section:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[Interested Atheist]

I'll watch this one with interest. Should be edifying!

 

I don't know much science, but on the question of life I can tell you what Doctor Who said:

 

"What's life? Life's easy! Nature's way of keeping meat fresh, nothing to a nanogene." (Answering whether microscopic robots can bring people back to life).

[Padreko]

I'll watch this one with interest. Should be edifying!

 

I don't know much science, but on the question of life I can tell you what Doctor Who said:

 

"What's life? Life's easy! Nature's way of keeping meat fresh, nothing to a nanogene." (Answering whether microscopic robots can bring people back to life).

 

 

I don't think there is much to watch... No one will debate on this topic. However, you have to watch out for that asimov character - he'll throw a wrench into anything :-P

[Ouroboros]

True. We've discussed it before. And to no end. Because Abiogenesis still is in its infancy.

[Guest God's Prosecutor]

The question is of prime importance to me...

How, in your opinion, would you personally benefit from having the answer to this question?

 

How would you be affected if you never found the answer to this question?

 

How would you be affected if you thought you found the answer and lived the remainder of your life thinking you had found the answer, but, in reality, the model that you created was horribly flawed.

 

How would you be affected if you had found the correct answer to this question, erroneously rejected it, and lived the remainder of your life thinking that you had never found the answer to this question, when, in fact, you had?

[Guest maeon3]

I just like posing the question because (I believe) that it has no answer barking up the tree of time + chance. I have done lots of research in reference to the Miller experiment, I've considered speculation on proteins near volcanic vents, I've thought about clays causing nano tubes which integrated with other factors to cause devices necessary for life.. I've been around the barn and back a few times on this question.

 

I feel that the cumulative intelligence of mankind should have uncovered the method by which nonlife caused a DNA based life by now. The simplest life form you guys can come up with still has thousands of interdependent systems. You guys say the subject is still in infancy, well it SHOULDENT BE because humans have been trying to answer this question for the last 100 years with an awesome grasp on how matter work when left alone.

 

The question is of prime importance to me because I think this question is the lynchpin of a lot of other questions. If we are going to discover about the nature of a divine power then this question will help the atheists if it comes out plausible, or help the theists if it comes out implausible. (Only if we prove it beyond reasonable doubt.)

 

Padriko gets first prize for using the (primordial soup + time = Life) argument. I'm sorry but you coined the dangerous phrase "infinate time" to your equation which turned me off. I'm imagining about a few thousand cubic feet of this primordial soup on the earth for maybe a billion years. I do understand the nature of infinity but it tends to break realistic science. I can make any argument if you allow me to say "oh, don't you know that I have infinite time". I could scientifically claim that all ducks (in current form) were caused by volcanic vents + infinate time. I can say that the entire earth came into existence with you and all your memories intact 5 minutes ago if you allow me matter + infinate time. Stop the bus, we have to apply some realistic ideas here, I don't like the word "infinity" because we don't have it and it's been used as a fixall for the belief that life came from nonlife. We do not have at our disposal the (Google ^ 500) amount of years and yet more space necessary for randomness to cause the thousands of interdependent systems inscribed on proteins and amino acids to spontaneously occur.

 

I provide you guys 14 billion years, you are to do your work within the visible universe (Plus or minus a few hundred billion times) ... I know your tempted to explain your conclusion by throwing time and space at it like a madman, but we've got to use real science, not phony science.

 

The situation for answering this question is difficult. You guys don't have an intelligent designer, you don't have evolution or natural selection to use, your working with a world that tries very hard to disassemble everything that happens to be complex in sight. Everything is against you guys, you guys need a silver bullet like an example where life was accidentally created in a jar of peanut butter. (that won't happen)

 

This argument all comes down to argument (time + carbon + oxygen + hydrogen + heat + energy + chance = life). And sirs, I will not buy that until you can explain to me in layman's terms that this can happen within the aforementioned restrictions: 14 billion years, the visible universe * 1000 and current knowledge of physics.

[Padreko]

How, in your opinion, would you personally benefit from having the answer to this question?

He'd be smarter and it would bring him satisfaction...

 

How would you be affected if you never found the answer to this question?

 

At first it would piss him off and after a while he'd forget about it.

 

How would you be affected if you thought you found the answer and lived the remainder of your life thinking you had found the answer, but, in reality, the model that you created was horribly flawed.

 

Ditto for #1

 

How would you be affected if you had found the correct answer to this question, erroneously rejected it, and lived the remainder of your life thinking that you had never found the answer to this question, when, in fact, you had?

 

Ditto for #2

[Ouroboros]

I feel that the cumulative intelligence of mankind should have uncovered the method by which nonlife caused a DNA based life by now. The simplest life form you guys can come up with still has thousands of interdependent systems. You guys say the subject is still in infancy, well it SHOULDENT BE because humans have been trying to answer this question for the last 100 years with an awesome grasp on how matter work when left alone.

So with that said, shouldn't humanity have figured out the one and only true religion that all can agree to is the absolute and wholly true one? Shouldn't Christians be united, instead of divided? Shouldn't countries be in peace with each other? We had quite a long time to figure those things out. What about quantum gravity? I mean, we've had a friggin long time to figure out quantum physics and finding the unifying field theory... what's your point? In your opinion we should have, but that's what it is. Only an opinion, and you can't prove that we should have figured it out by now.

[Guest Mr. XC]

maeon3,

 

Padreko gave you an answer that is indeed workable within the time frame that you gave, as well gave examples of materials that do not have "thousands of interdependent systems" and can survive on their own and then later combine to become your thousands of interdependent systems. An example of how some of this happens has been discovered. You can find a summary of this by searching for "Study, in a First, Explains Evolution's Molecular Advance." Also, systems getting more complex is not unheard of. Because the sun gives this planet more energy, systems on earth do get more complex over time.

 

Given your passive rejection of Padreko's response, it sounds to me like you are not interested in a real answer to your question or you misunderstand the subject at hand. Also, given that you requested the subject be reduced to layman's terms indicates that you are not familiar with the details of this subject and it is possible that you are unwilling to learn the details of this subject. This subject can be studied in college and beyond. Padreko gave you a nice overview, and if you are serious about researching this question, you will use that post as a starting point to explore the subject in much further detail (as opposed to expecting one of us to break it all down into layman's terms for you). You said that you have been around the barn and back with this question. Instead of asking questions on the Internet, I suggest something more scholarly. If you are not willing to go beyond layman's terms on this subject, then you will never find the detail that you are looking for. To make this argument in favor of intelligent design by saying "its to hard for me to understand" is intellectually dishonest.

 

So, if you cannot argue this subject on a deep enough level of understanding that is required to appropriately address it, then I suggest you drop this question completely. To continue arguing this question as a method of spreading intelligent design with your current knowledge of science and biology is intellectually dishonest.

 

I suggest that you argue a different question; one that you are able to grasp completely.

 

You said intelligent design, so I guess you are somewhat familiar with that. In the popular intelligent design scenario, you have all of your creatures made all at once and since life requires a designer, nothing more advanced should appear later on.

 

Wittiness the fishopod. Its sole purpose was to fill the gap between the sea and land. It was not an "intelligent design" for long term survival. It should have died off long before when it was found in the earth's time line. It was not good at land travel, so when more suitable land creatures evolved, it quickly died out. This is an example of where science (through the theory of Evolution) found it exactly in the time period that it predicted it. This is an indicator that science and the theory of Evolution are working beautifully. Also, we do have a fossil record that is very clear that creatures appeared on the earth over a wide span of time. Intelligent design requires that we find all creatures throughout our earth's history, even in the very beginning, but this is clearly not the case. The intelligent design scenario is no longer viable after this point; period; end of discussion. "Faith is not needed where certainty exists." Betty Brogaard

 

This site is for ExChristians, so I think it can be safely assumed for the purposes of this discussion that you came here to argue intelligent design in favor of Christianity. It is apparent that this is an important subject to you and you may not have the time to research the science properly on your own, so I suggest an approach that requires a bit less effort on your end to end your restless question. You may already be familiar with the old and new testaments, so I suggest reading the following document. I expect it will be comforting to many ExChristians that they made the right choice and and to assure them that they are thinking sanely in the midst of this fiction. It may help you exit your embraced deception.

www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/pdf/RealMessiahBookPages_v4ab.pdf

 

Anyway, if you care about this subject and put forth the necessary energy towards solvable issues/conflicts, I think you will eventually loose this "intelligent design" deception as I did. If not, well, try harder!

[narcissist]

What the hell are you on about maeon?

 

Just 'cause you can't understand it, doesn't mean it's not true.

[Padreko]

I feel that the cumulative intelligence of mankind should have uncovered the method by which nonlife caused a DNA based life by now. The simplest life form you guys can come up with still has thousands of interdependent systems. You guys say the subject is still in infancy, well it SHOULDENT BE because humans have been trying to answer this question for the last 100 years with an awesome grasp on how matter work when left alone.

 

Forgive me Meon but you're crazy. You don't want to understand abiogenesis. You just want us to admit that its rediculously impossible to have occured - something which I'm not compelled to believe. I'm a biomajor and I still consider myself a fred flinstone when it comes to this issue. What you need to appreciate about science is that it gives you a glimps of what is going on on the molecular level. 100 years ago people thought protein molecule of inheritence. Now we know that DNA/RNA is that mystery molecule. 40 years ago there were like 4 kingdoms of classification. Now we have 3 fucking domains. 100 years ago people knew shit about biology and cells. Now we have x-ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance so we can see the arrangment of atoms a molecule. My favorite thing in the world right now is scanning electrony microsopy - looking at ribosomes in action is pretty fucking amazing. (ok so i lied, love making is better than SEM) But the point is that you don't get to look at these things in church. If you want to know what happened 4 billion years ago invent a time machine and figure it out - i'm sure you'll win a fucking nobel prize.

 

You don't understand how insane amazing science is d00d.

 

I'm sorry but you coined the dangerous phrase "infinate time" to your equation which turned me off. I'm imagining about a few thousand cubic feet of this primordial soup on the earth for maybe a billion years. I do understand the nature of infinity but it tends to break realistic science. I can make any argument if you allow me to say "oh, don't you know that I have infinite time". I could scientifically claim that all ducks (in current form) were caused by volcanic vents + infinate time. I can say that the entire earth came into existence with you and all your memories intact 5 minutes ago if you allow me matter + infinate time. Stop the bus, we have to apply some realistic ideas here, I don't like the word "infinity" because we don't have it and it's been used as a fixall for the belief that life came from nonlife.

 

Do you think the bible has a better story? I'm sure it helps to stop my brain from exploading any minute now. It would be convinient if it were true, but its not. Many other discussions on these forums show xanity getting run over by a semi.

 

omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creator + idle hands and bordem = life <---- retarded

vs

infinite time + infinite universe + ultra specific conditions = life <---- we can understand this

 

The situation for answering this question is difficult. You guys don't have an intelligent designer, you don't have evolution or natural selection to use, your working with a world that tries very hard to disassemble everything that happens to be complex in sight. Everything is against you guys, you guys need a silver bullet like an example where life was accidentally created in a jar of peanut butter. (that won't happen)

 

Everything goes to disorder... Smells like the second law of thermodynamics - specially a principle which only works in closed systems, of which earth is not. It is constantly recieving energy from the sun. Complex systems often go to disorder because they tend to be thermodynamically favorable simpler forms. However, we have tons of examples chemistry where this can be overcome by and we can create more complex systems via enzymes and catalysis. Right now I can go in our lab and build up peptide chains on a silicon wafer with stoichiometic amounts of reagent catalyst and amino acids. They'll stay that way for a very long time without breaking down.

 

I will admit though that abiogensis is hard to stomach. But its more realistic than believing that some magical sky daddy made us all for his enjoyment (a sadistic thought).