It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

page: 32
30
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Perhaps if you stopped trying to weasel out with comments like the one he responded to.




posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: vasaga

We're all waiting for you to respond to the comments made regarding your posts. If you can't do it, then just say so and be done with it. I would place a bet in Vegas that you can't respond intelligently to anything in this thread.

I have no need to respond to irrelevant red herrings. And even then, I already responded, but you insist on spouting the same drivel.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Please explain with an example. I did no such thing. You're making it up as you go along.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Call it what you like - but DNA is NOT an isotope. There are standard methods of extraction but extraction of materials which were obtained from different environments will yield samples with differing decay rates. DNA frozen in ice for 1M years and under pressure from that ice will have a different decay curve than DNA extracted from an organism who recently died.

The "half life" the article refers to describes exactly what I just said:




(b) DNA extraction and qPCR DNA was isolated from all samples at dedicated aDNA facilities (Murdoch University, Perth, Australia), using a standardized method described previously [52] and detailed in the electronic supplementary material, text S1. All DNA extractions were undertaken from 200 mg uniformly sampled and powdered bone. The DNA isolation protocol (molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) and Silica purification) was selected owing to its ability to generate DNA largely free of inhibitors.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I was in the middle of writing that post which was quite lengthy. I responded to your post after I was finished writing. This is the last time I'm going to address this issue.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

You asked for research articles which describe an opinion and/or research that contradicted your post. You never acknowledged those articles, must less read them.

To be ignorant is one thing. To be dishonest and lack integrity is something else.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Because cutting and pasting is quite time consuming....
Right.

Because you're lying and you know it.
Again, those timestamps on the upper left betray you.
edit on 18-1-2019 by HarbingerOfShadows because: Soylent green is people!



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Call it what you like - but DNA is NOT an isotope. There are standard methods of extraction but extraction of materials which were obtained from different environments will yield samples with differing decay rates. DNA frozen in ice for 1M years and under pressure from that ice will have a different decay curve than DNA extracted from an organism who recently died.


Come on, you're writing anonymously on the internet and you're STILL afraid to admit you're wrong. Lighten up. You didn't know DNA had a measurable half-life, that's ok. Of course DNA is not an isotope, but it still has a measurable decay rate in which half of the bonds break down, and that number was measured to be 521 years.



The "half life" the article refers to describes exactly what I just said:



two posts ago you were saying DNA doesn't have a half-life, and now you're trying to school me on DNA half-life? Again, you can be wrong some times, it's ok. Don't try to hide it with haughtiness, it's silly, and probably effecting your personal life too. Just saying.


originally posted by: Phantom423

DNA is not an isotope. It doesn't have a half life.


You see? A couple days ago you didn't even think DNA had a measurable half-life, and now you're trying to send me articles on DNA half-life... Just let it go, you know, the constant attempt to be right all the time. Fallibility can be fun.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




Few researchers ever believed that DNA could survive long enough to make Jurassic Park a reality, and yet there have been no reliable models for how long the molecule takes to degrade. But a study published this week (October 10) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B estimates that DNA from bone has a half-life of 521 years: after that amount of time, half of the nucleotide bonds that hold it together are broken, and after another 521 years, those bonds are cut in half again, and so on.

Half Life of DNA Revealed



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
Are we talking evolution or abiogenesis in this thread?


Wow. You just don't stop the verbal diarrhea. You can't even keep up with the conversation. You literally just searched catch phrases instead of reading the paper. Again, ABIOGENESIS is not a single hypothesis, so the word itself is not going to be in every single paper. There are several of them, all with different names. Phantom gave you one of them regarding the underwater thermal vents. That is a hypothesis related to abiogenesis. You don't grasp anything at all related to this. Give it up, you aren't helping your cause.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Dude, stop! You are peddling ignorance. The decaying of DNA is dependent on the conditions in which it decays. It's not like isotopes where the conditions do not matter, they very much do.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Phantom423

Because cutting and pasting is quite time consuming....
Right.

Because you're lying and you know it.
Again, those timestamps on the upper left betray you.


Your accusations are entirely baseless. She backed up everything she said and gave numerous examples. If you want to make an argument, then be specific instead of this libel.


originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Phantom423




Few researchers ever believed that DNA could survive long enough to make Jurassic Park a reality, and yet there have been no reliable models for how long the molecule takes to degrade. But a study published this week (October 10) in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B estimates that DNA from bone has a half-life of 521 years: after that amount of time, half of the nucleotide bonds that hold it together are broken, and after another 521 years, those bonds are cut in half again, and so on.

Half Life of DNA Revealed


LOL! This was posted like ten pages ago. People that are ignorant and not even following the conversation shouldn't bother responding. We established this long ago and the decay rate is DEPENDENT ON THE CONDITIONS. Put the arrogance away.
edit on 1 18 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You're not strong on following context or dealing with what people actually said are you?


She backed up everything she said and gave numerous examples.


Which has nothing to do with what I actually said.
Try again. Dude.

But I'm sure this silly declaration of partisanship of your's is appreciated.


LOL! This was posted like ten pages ago. People that are ignorant and not even following the conversation shouldn't bother responding. We established this long ago and the decay rate is DEPENDENT ON THE CONDITIONS. Put the arrogance away.


Pot, kettle, black.
This is funny.
Yet you miss where the other person says DNA doesn't have a half life......

edit on 18-1-2019 by HarbingerOfShadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
They allow for some type of alien involvement, in part, or whole, but it's crazy to consider God or whatever.... thanks!



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Sure.
Swap out one currently unfalsifiable entity for another.
That works.
edit on 19-1-2019 by HarbingerOfShadows because: Video killed the radio star.



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Barcs

You're not strong on following context or dealing with what people actually said are you?


You called her a liar without demonstrating such. It was baseless libel.

Did you not read Coop's original argument about the half life of DNA? He was using it to claim that the dates of fossils / bones were wrong because of the half life when the "half life" is totally dependent on the conditions. It's not a constant like isotope decay. That's what everybody has been saying. Context matters. There is no set half life, it's condition dependent. It was measured in ONE condition and that condition is not consistent among all fossils. That was the point. The decay rate varies.

edit on 1 19 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2019 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I explained why I said she's lying.

I saw the comment.
She said flat out it does not have a half life.
This is false.
Perhaps not sticking with your first assumption is not the best option hm?
edit on 19-1-2019 by HarbingerOfShadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

It doesn't have a set half life. LOL! I just explained that.



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
Are we talking evolution or abiogenesis in this thread?


Wow. You just don't stop the verbal diarrhea. You can't even keep up with the conversation. You literally just searched catch phrases instead of reading the paper. Again, ABIOGENESIS is not a single hypothesis, so the word itself is not going to be in every single paper. There are several of them, all with different names. Phantom gave you one of them regarding the underwater thermal vents. That is a hypothesis related to abiogenesis. You don't grasp anything at all related to this. Give it up, you aren't helping your cause.
You mean the one that says this?;

"Modern ideas of abiogenesis in hydrothermal vents or elsewhere on the primitive Earth have developed into sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support."

And I'm the one not helping my cause... Uhuh...



posted on Jan, 20 2019 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Phantom423
(Highlighted in this link: www.abovetopsecret.com...)

NOTE: The citations listed are from 2015 onward so as to avoid "old" news

1. Pathways for abiotic organic synthesis at submarine hydrothermal fields
Jill M. McDermott, Jeffrey S. Seewald, Christopher R. German, and Sean P. Sylva
PNAS June 23, 2015 112 (25) 7668-7672; 
doi.org...




Significance

Arguments for an abiotic origin of organic compounds in deep-sea hot springs are compelling because of their potential role in the origin of life and sustaining microbial communities. Theory predicts that warm H2-rich fluids circulating through serpentinizing systems create a favorable thermodynamic drive for inorganic carbon reduction to organic compounds. We show that abiotic synthesis proceeds by two spatially and temporally distinct mechanisms. Abundant dissolved CH4 and higher hydrocarbons are likely formed in H2-rich fluid inclusions over geologic timescales. Conversely, formate production by ΣCO2reduction occurs rapidly during subsurface mixing, which may support anaerobic methanogenesis. We confirm models for abiotic metastable organic compound formation and argue that alkanes in all ultramafic-influenced vents may form independently of actively circulating serpentinizing fluids.


2. Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates
Matthew S. Dodd, Dominic Papineau, Tor Grenne, John F. Slack, Martin Rittner, Franco Pirajno, Jonathan O’Neil & Crispin T. S. Little
Nature volume 543, pages 60–64 (02 March 2017)
www.nature.com...




Abstract

Although it is not known when or where life on Earth began, some of the earliest habitable environments may have been submarine-hydrothermal vents. Here we describe putative fossilized microorganisms that are at least 3,770 million and possibly 4,280 million years old in ferruginous sedimentary rocks, interpreted as seafloor-hydrothermal vent-related precipitates, from the Nuvvuagittuq belt in Quebec, Canada. These structures occur as micrometre-scale haematite tubes and filaments with morphologies and mineral assemblages similar to those of filamentous microorganisms from modern hydrothermal vent precipitates and analogous microfossils in younger rocks. The Nuvvuagittuq rocks contain isotopically light carbon in carbonate and carbonaceous material, which occurs as graphitic inclusions in diagenetic carbonate rosettes, apatite blades intergrown among carbonate rosettes and magnetite–haematite granules, and is associated with carbonate in direct contact with the putative microfossils.

Collectively, these observations are consistent with an oxidized biomass and provide evidence for biological activity in submarine-hydrothermal environments more than 3,770 million years ago.


3. The Origin of Life in Alkaline Hydrothermal Vents
Victor Sojo, Barry Herschy, Alexandra Whicher, Eloi Camprubí, and Nick Lane
AstrobiologyVol. 16, No. 2 Review Article
www.liebertpub.com...




Abstract

Over the last 70 years, prebiotic chemists have been very successful in synthesizing the molecules of life, from amino acids to nucleotides. Yet there is strikingly little resemblance between much of this chemistry and the metabolic pathways of cells, in terms of substrates, catalysts, and synthetic pathways. In contrast, alkaline hydrothermal vents offer conditions similar to those harnessed by modern autotrophs, but there has been limited experimental evidence that such conditions could drive prebiotic chemistry.

In the Hadean, in the absence of oxygen, alkaline vents are proposed to have acted as electrochemical flow reactors, in which alkaline fluids saturated in H2 mixed with relatively acidic ocean waters rich in CO2, through a labyrinth of interconnected micropores with thin inorganic walls containing catalytic Fe(Ni)S minerals. The difference in pH across these thin barriers produced natural proton gradients with equivalent magnitude and polarity to the proton-motive force required for carbon fixation in extant bacteria and archaea. How such gradients could have powered carbon reduction or energy flux before the advent of organic protocells with genes and proteins is unknown.

Work over the last decade suggests several possible hypotheses that are currently being tested in laboratory experiments, field observations, and phylogenetic reconstructions of ancestral metabolism. We analyze the perplexing differences in carbon and energy metabolism in methanogenic archaea and acetogenic bacteria to propose a possible ancestral mechanism of CO2 reduction in alkaline hydrothermal vents. Based on this mechanism, we show that the evolution of active ion pumping could have driven the deep divergence of bacteria and archaea.


To be Con't...............

Uhuh... Let's see...

"Conversely, formate production by ΣCO2reduction occurs rapidly during subsurface mixing, which may support anaerobic methanogenesis. We confirm models for abiotic metastable organic compound formation and argue that alkanes in all ultramafic-influenced vents may form independently of actively circulating serpentinizing fluids"

"May" support. In other words, not confirmed, in other words, conjecture.
And same argument applies. If I have electricity going through a wire, doesn't mean I have a computer. If I can throw a ball into the direction to the moon, it doesn't mean the ball will reach the moon. And so on and so on...

"Although it is not known when or where life on Earth began,"
*stuff*
"these observations are consistent with an oxidized biomass and provide evidence for biological activity in submarine-hydrothermal environments more than 3,770 million years ago."


Read the first sentence. Most important. This whole part doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis. It is talking about a habitable environment. Doesn't mean that life originated there, since they themselves state they don't know when or where life on earth began.

"Over the last 70 years, prebiotic chemists have been very successful in synthesizing the molecules of life, from amino acids to nucleotides. Yet there is strikingly little resemblance between much of this chemistry and the metabolic pathways of cells, in terms of substrates, catalysts, and synthetic pathways. In contrast, alkaline hydrothermal vents offer conditions similar to those harnessed by modern autotrophs, but there has been limited experimental evidence that such conditions could drive prebiotic chemistry. "

Oh look. You actually agree that abiogenesis has little to no evidential support.

"Work over the last decade suggests several possible hypotheses that are currently being tested in laboratory experiments"

In other words, nothing yet.

"We analyze the perplexing differences in carbon and energy metabolism in methanogenic archaea and acetogenic bacteria to propose a possible ancestral mechanism of CO2 reduction in alkaline hydrothermal vents. Based on this mechanism, we show that the evolution of active ion pumping could have driven the deep divergence of bacteria and archaea."
Nothing to do with abiogenesis once again...

Keep trying.




top topics



 
30
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join