On the Origin of Life

[snakeguy76]

Why is low energy UV light more destructive? Interesting that he says UV destroys molecules, but its the lower energy UV light and not the higher energy that is destructive. I'm not a well trained chemists but you'd think its the other way around.

Studies with low wavelength (250nm) light is actually helpful to the formation of stable RNA. But it doesn't sound like they were intentionally eliminating other wavelengths

[hisnameisfrankie]

No true scientist will say evolution is the true explanation, nor the one explanation, but, all things considered, it is the best explanation we have so far. Advancing evidence against the accepted mechanisms of evolution (which I encourage) is not advancing an alternative, unless these pieces of evidence can coalesce into some form of coherent theory. Until then, it's evolution.

[5tonyvvvv]

...so what came first RNA..or the repair mechanisms..or the molecular machines??...u have a Major Paradox....evolution has bullshit assumptions..with ZERO chemistry to back it up..but thats ok..but if u mention Intelligence its not allowed..

[12thcenturyfox]

As recent models proclaim, the basis is a kind of selfreplicating molecule that intereacts with a mineral surrounding (kathalysis) once you have that going, you can get a first evolutionary selection to work on it. (Iron-Nickel-Sulfur World, RNA-World, Microsheres and the such).

You don't need a perfect enzyme/Protein to start. To start you just need somthing that just works. Given time an and a bit of randomnes, complexity will come eventualy

It does not however require any intelligent designer

[toobsucker]

Another point most all atheists (including Dawkins) do not seem to understand is, abiogenesis is the only thing that can prove Darwinian (atheistic) evolution.

There are only two ways life in the universe (and earth in particular) could have arisen, either by abiogenesis or intelligent design. as Sherlock Holmes said "if you eliminate the impossible, what ever is left, however improbable must be the truth"

Dawkins said Darwin made is possible to be intellectually fulfilled atheist. WRONG!

[MagusGod]

WHERE IS YOUR DARWIN NOW?

[5tonyvvvv]

@MagusGod u cant question Darwinism,anywhere.in my Biochemical Chemistry classes we are told millions of years ago cells were more primitive.

they dont need molecular machines,and can live with just one single protein..LOL..some people laughed..and some went with it..

it would be like sayin u could live with just a heart and u dont need your other organs...how the Fuck could a cell live only having one single protein?

[hisnameisfrankie]

@5tonyvvvv Perhaps you Biochem teacher wasn't equipped to answer your Q that day. The problem here is with the definition of 'alive.' There is no set 'point' where substances in aggregate 'become' living. Are viruses, for instance, living? Can a cell live with a single protein. Improbable. Can a complex single protein molecule self-replicate given the right conditions. Probable.

[5tonyvvvv]

I say Give you all the Proteins and DNA and RNA you want....What would you do with it???????..from there you have ZERO molecular machines, ZERO assembly instructions!!!...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube!!..your cell would never evolve ..you dont know chemistry at all..there has been no cell made, or living one, that can live with just one protein..and no scientist has ever even made a protein..

[hisnameisfrankie]

@5tonyvvvv Okay. Perhaps I don't know Chemistry. Anyway, you're saying evolution is not a complete theory. Do you know a more complete theory?

[5tonyvvvv]

@hisnameisfrankie All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’.homochirality

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Which is? toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on? a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!

[circusOFprecision]

@hisnameisfrankie

"Can a complex single protein molecule self-replicate given the right conditions. Probable."

Proteins have specific domains. They are folded by chaperonins. Just think about what that means. In living systems shape, timing, electrochemical properties, ect. all confer information by way of symbolic representation. What possible theory of information applies to the complex information flow without invoking it's systemic structure in the first place?

[5tonyvvvv]

@MagusGod and science says it can all be tested,when science cant even make one single protein!!!..LOL..all chemicals do when broken down,is become more complex..

u must have all left handed amino acids..its a paradox

[toobsucker]

I find it funny when educated men such as Dean Kenyon and Charles Thaxton and many others can be highly respected among their peers within science when they are teaching and believing in Darwinian evolution (Goo-to-You). but after they reevaluate the evidence and coming to new conclusions, now suddenly these same mens intellects are questioned.

[Nyarl3]

@toobsucker Excellent point. It's absurd when first year university students come on here and start belittling the credentials and even intelligence of these extremely bright, well-published, accomplished men.  I think it also belies a hostility to anything but the status quo. And that, not only undermines (if not destroys) their capacity for objectivity, but also is against the spirit of scientific inquiry which they claim to hold in such high esteem. Cheers!

[2005FLSTCI]

Excellent!

[athlete117]

Great stuff.

[eikedeus]

sounds like intelligentDesignPropaganda

[loqutor]

Very clever. You can't refute the claims, so you call it 'propaganda'. Speak of fascism!

[thewordisalive1]

Excellent Video!

[HiJaQue]

He says that hydrogen is needed. And If Im not mistaken. Hydrogen is among the most common components of the universe. So whats the problem?

[carloscarlos13]

Hydrogen is pretty reactive--so most of the H around would be already bound to other elements--as is the case now: there's lots of H around, but it's all in the form of water and other molecules--not available to make amino acids.

[DemokritosAbdera]

@carloscarlos13 we just found water in the moon, there is a couple of watery moon in the solar systems, and if my memory dont fail, last month or so and extrasolar planet that aparently is made mostly of water.

What was the problem again?

[Alphasys]

Another problem with these laboratory conditions, is the lack of diversity. A small vessel will always have the same concentration of all products everywhere, especially when it's stirred incessively, which is usually the case. The premise of evolution is that viable things will thrive, while non-viable things die out. This can also be seen in basic components in a reaction. Stable versus unstable compounds. Complexity is no reason to dismiss random sequencing. Given time, everything can happen.

[Alphasys]

Indeed, food for thought. I see some gaps though. For one, there's this talk about laboratory settings all the time. This means a reaction vessel of moderate proportions, and a small amount of time. Earth is a lot larger, with an immense amount of water, and dissolved chemicals in them. Then there's the fact that you can't run a large enough experiment for enough time. It might take a few thousand years for anything to happen that resembles life, in an ideal setting.

[maurieer]

WOW!!!

Does this ever leave one with food for thought.