Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by B.A.C.
 



Carbon, considered necessary for life, is amazingly versatile.

Burning an object basically infuses it with oxygen. Oxygen and hydrogen work together regulate the pH balance of everything.

Living beings are mostly water. The difference between a puddle of slime and a living being is probably the abundance of carbohydrates, including organic matter, which use water in a variety of ways.

Minerals, like iron and magnesium, also come into play.

All of these things help conduct electrical current, which is yet another feature of living beings.

As for the original topic, the most common theory I've heard in that regard is that the "elohim" created humans using genetic engineering.


I've never been much for the elohim theory. Who created them, then?

And so forth..

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Abiogenesis is a fascinating subject often glossed over my scientists.

Most just take it for granted that it happened without considering the amazing complexity involved.
We often hear expressions such as, " in the premordial soup, some amino acids joined to form proteins and then into self replicating single celled organisms....ect" without really contemplating the magnitude of the steps needed.

If we allow for a pre-biotic soup with millions of amino acids, we still need to make the jump from amino acids to proteins. Forget for now that amino acids are not stable in water.

"Amino acids.....to proteins"
Sounds simple enough at first glance, and for the lay person it may seem quite reasonable and logical.

However we should take an honest look at what is required to make this happen.
Half the amino acids are left handed and half are right handed. How likely is it, out of the millions of amino acids swimming in the soup, for the 20 correct left handed amino acids to somehow connect to form long chains necessary for life?

Not only do these long chains of the select 20 amino acids have to be linked together, they have to be linked in the correct order and in the exact shape for each protein.

A typical simple protein was about 100 amino acids. During the life of even the simplest cell, it will use approx 200,000 proteins. Of these 200,000 proteins, some of them are specialized, for specific tasks. These are called enzymes and it is estimated that there are about 20,000 of these.

Without these enzymes the cell, even the simplest cell cannot survive.
What are the chances of these enzymes randomly forming in the pre-biotic soup? if you had the soup? One chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. This is 1 followed by 40,000 zeros.

How can we wrap our minds around a these kind of odds?
The chance is the same as rolling dice and getting 50,000 sixes in a row. And that is for only 2,000 of the 200,000 needed for a living cell. So to get them all, roll 5,000,000 more sixes in a row!

But wait, we cant stop here. A simple cell with proteins and enzymes can not survive or reproduce without nucleotides. These are required to make the DNA & RNA.. Oh, I almost forget, this annoying little detail, Proteins cannot be assembled without first having the nucleic acids.....but wait...nucleic acids cannot be formed without the proteins....Well, lets just not dwell on that for now.

For any of this to work though the components of even the simplest cell need to protected from the soupy environment. It needs a membrane. Why?

Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University and a specialist in DNA research, dispose of the chance formation of nucleotides and nucleic acids in early earth’s environment:


"Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars."



So we need a membrane. But to create or form a membrane, a mechanism needs to already exist to do this. Call it a protein synthetic apparatus , if you will. After all, something needs to assemble this membrane per the instructions contained in the DNA..

But wait, one more sticky little detail....a protein synthetic apparatus can only function if it is encased or held together by a membrane.

cont..



[edit on 3-3-2009 by Sparky63]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
So to sum it up; Without the pre-biotic soup, there can be no no amino acids. Without the amino acids, randomly attaching themselves together in long chains, there can be no proteins. Without proteins,all left handed of course and arranged in just the right order, there can be no nucleotides.

Without nucleotides, no DNA or RNA. Without DNA, no cell that reproduces itself. Without a covering membrane, no living cell.

(source for much of this can be found here: The Intelligent Universe, by Fred Hoyle, 1983, pp. 12-17.)

additional sources.:
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, pp. 260-1, 263; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 112-13.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 234-8.

The Intelligent Universe, by Fred Hoyle, 1983, pp. 12-17.

Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, p. 188.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 238; Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 134, 138.

Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 173-4.

Ibid., p. 65.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 268-9.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Nice work.

Well explained and scientific as well.

You got me beat


Starred.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


First of all... How is this a conspiracy? A theory is not a conspiracy.
For this to be a conspiracy, every scientific mind which has studied and reviewed abiogenesis would have to be part of some sinister 'club'.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science also claims that this has nothing to do with evolution, even though Darwin himself wrote The Origin of the Species.

Science calls the study of the origin of life Abiogenesis. Which is the study of how life could have developed out of inanimate matter. Basically something from nothing.


Right... It has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution occurs after abiogenesis.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
The scientific method is all about predictions. Not reality.


Nope, religion is all about predictions (and poor ones at that).
The scientific method is all about trial and error/peer review.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science presents evolution as fact, not theory. Go read up on it.


Do you present religion as fact and not hypothesis?
What's that smell...
Hypocrisy? So that's what it smells like
.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I've never been much for the elohim theory. Who created them, then?

And so forth..

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



Regardless of how they originated, they created humans



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
how many times can we split the same hair? jeez people quit acting retarded.

go to school, take a biology class and count the times you hear the word evolution. it's not that big of a deal. yeah they teach it but they don't preach it. they mostly teach you about cell structure and mitosis and things like that.

it's only freaks like you people that bring up evolution as some kind of steamroller that's brainwashing you into believing that satan wants to kill your babies.

who cares about evolution? quit getting your panties in a bunch it doesn't matter.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


First of all... How is this a conspiracy? A theory is not a conspiracy.
For this to be a conspiracy, every scientific mind which has studied and reviewed abiogenesis would have to be part of some sinister 'club'.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science also claims that this has nothing to do with evolution, even though Darwin himself wrote The Origin of the Species.

Science calls the study of the origin of life Abiogenesis. Which is the study of how life could have evolved out of inanimate matter. Basically something from nothing.


Right... It has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution occurs after abiogenesis.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
The scientific method is all about predictions. Not reality.


Nope, religion is all about predictions (and poor ones at that).
The scientific method is all about trial and error/peer review.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science presents evolution as fact, not theory. Go read up on it.


Do you present religion as fact and not hypothesis?
What's that smell...
Hypocrisy? So that's what it smells like
.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by TruthParadox]


Read this:

A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.

Next,

For something to be a conspiracy doesn't take EVERYONE to be involved. One person can and has been involved in a conspiracy.

Next,

Isn't molecules "evolving" into life a type of evolution? What's the difference between this and anything else evolving?

Next,

Not sure where you see I'm presenting religion as fact.

Oh how I dislike using the word religion, but anyway, NO I CAN'T present God as fact. It's not proveable.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mozzy
how many times can we split the same hair? jeez people quit acting retarded.

go to school, take a biology class and count the times you hear the word evolution. it's not that big of a deal. yeah they teach it but they don't preach it. they mostly teach you about cell structure and mitosis and things like that.

it's only freaks like you people that bring up evolution as some kind of steamroller that's brainwashing you into believing that satan wants to kill your babies.

who cares about evolution? quit getting your panties in a bunch it doesn't matter.


This thread isn't about evolution. Period.

Satan killing my babies? WTF? Where did that come from....



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Read this:

A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.


Exactly...
That was my point.
You skipped the whole "collection of data" "experimentation" "formulation and testing" and went straight to "prediction".
A prediction without the aforementioned means would be religion.
Science is not religion.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
For something to be a conspiracy doesn't take EVERYONE to be involved. One person can and has been involved in a conspiracy.


It'd be nice to see some evidence for that...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Isn't molecules "evolving" into life a type of evolution? What's the difference between this and anything else evolving?


That's not what abiogenesis is.
It's a one time thing.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Not sure where you see I'm presenting religion as fact.


I thought I saw you in another thread presenting God as fact.
I may be mistaken.

Either way, a scientific theory is closer to fact than you realize.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I think there is a conspiracy of silence when it comes to the almost infinite complexity involved in the origin of life. Far too often it is just taken for granted that it happened. "We are here after all, ...so it must have happened" many conclude.

Or the argument is made that the universe is so vast & complex that even the impossibly difficult & complex "miracle" of abio-genesis must have happened.

I know when I was in college that these steps were never examined closely nor was the staggering odds against any of this ever taking place by chance ever considered.

Countless experiments have been conducted under every conceivable environment in order to duplicate it, but all have failed. The best they can do...even under carefully controlled & directed conditions is to produce some amino acids....& simple chains, but nothing even remotely close to even the simplest proteins needed for life.

Will they do it someday? Who knows? If so it would still not prove that life on earth originated by chance. It would prove that life required the direction of intelligent beings under carefully controlled conditions.



[edit on 3-3-2009 by Sparky63]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Evidence that a conspiracy can be committed by one person?

Are you serious?

Ever hear of Conspiracy to Commit Murder?

I say it's a Conspiracy to Commit Murder of the Truth.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I've never been much for the elohim theory. Who created them, then?

And so forth..

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



Regardless of how they originated, they created humans


Wow, that's a pretty absolute statement, elaborate.

.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Wonderful post, Sparky! You have really done your research!
Have you looked into the work of Stanley Miller? In the 50's and 60's he did work with organic molecules, demonstrating how they could form peptides and a sort of membrane called a "microsphere".
This is a fascinating subject. Despite all we know, there is still so much we don't know. That life should exist here at all seems like a longshot. Even after science has answered all the "how's", we will still be left to answer the greater mystery: the "why".



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Evolution is a fact. Even most all creationists now accept the fact that evolution happens, albeit they try to make a false distinction between "Micro" and "Macro" evolution.

OP is merely showing a brilliant lack of understanding the difference between scientific and colloquial nomenclature. In science, Evolution is a theory - which is the highest status a hypothesis can attain. To go higher, you need to enter into the realm of mathematics. A theory is a framework devised to explain facts. No explanation will EVER be called a "Fact of Science", because that implies there is nothing more to learn - and science does not operate by proving things, but by disproving.

However, in colloquial terms, evolution is a fact. Just as gravity is a fact. Just as cells are a fact. Just as atoms are facts. Yet, you will never find a "Fact of Atomics" or "Fact of Gravity", even if some scientists may say that gravity is a fact, or atoms are a fact.


15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism 1 & 2: Evolution is a "Theory".




Insofar as Abiogenesis, defining the boundries of "Life" is still rather iffy. As said before, Virii are still rather a grey area between life and non-life. Fire, as well, has been used quite often as an example of the fuzzy boundary between what we call life and non-life.

The earliest forms of life proposed by Abiogenesis were probably nothing at all like what we could currently consider life. And if you doubt that chemicals can self-assemble and self-replicate, then might I ask how you explain this?

Journal of Nature: Self-Replicating Peptides

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Stanley Miller’s experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?

The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.’ How solid was Miller’s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere?

In a classic paper published two years after his experiment, Miller wrote: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.

Was evidence ever found? Some 25 years later, science writer Robert C. Cowen reported: “Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. . . . Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981.

And since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: “Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.”

Why, then, do many still hold that earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, containing little oxygen? In Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose answer: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because, for one thing, “laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution . . . would be largely inhibited by oxygen” and because compounds such as amino acids “are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.”

This is circular reasoning at it's best! Here is the leap of Faith: "The early atmosphere was a reducing one, it is said, because spontaneous generation of life could otherwise not have taken place."
But there actually is no assurance that it was reducing.

There is another telling detail: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent? HMMMM



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows:
Observe what happens;
based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true;
test the theory by further observations and by experiments;
and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life.
There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening.
No theory concerning it has been verified by observation.
Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it.
Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled.

With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The well-known evolutionist Dr. Loren Eiseley conceded:


“After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past


The Immense Journey (New York: Random House 1957) p.199


That's all from me...I'm climbing down off my soap box and will sit back and enjoy the rest of the thread.


[edit on 3-3-2009 by Sparky63]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
Evolution is a fact. Even most all creationists now accept the fact that evolution happens, albeit they try to make a false distinction between "Micro" and "Macro" evolution.

OP is merely showing a brilliant lack of understanding the difference between scientific and colloquial nomenclature. In science, Evolution is a theory - which is the highest status a hypothesis can attain. To go higher, you need to enter into the realm of mathematics. A theory is a framework devised to explain facts. No explanation will EVER be called a "Fact of Science", because that implies there is nothing more to learn - and science does not operate by proving things, but by disproving.

However, in colloquial terms, evolution is a fact. Just as gravity is a fact. Just as cells are a fact. Just as atoms are facts. Yet, you will never find a "Fact of Atomics" or "Fact of Gravity", even if some scientists may say that gravity is a fact, or atoms are a fact.


15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism 1 & 2: Evolution is a "Theory".




Insofar as Abiogenesis, defining the boundries of "Life" is still rather iffy. As said before, Virii are still rather a grey area between life and non-life. Fire, as well, has been used quite often as an example of the fuzzy boundary between what we call life and non-life.

The earliest forms of life proposed by Abiogenesis were probably nothing at all like what we could currently consider life. And if you doubt that chemicals can self-assemble and self-replicate, then might I ask how you explain this?

Journal of Nature: Self-Replicating Peptides

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Lasheic]


This thread isn't about evolution. I will respond however.

Electromagnetic Theory explains the many LAWS of electricity.

Gravitational Theory explains the LAW of gravity.

Evolutionary Theory tries to explain itself. It is not fact.

Enough said.

Go here to talk about evolution:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is about The Origin Of Life.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I've never been much for the elohim theory. Who created them, then?

And so forth..

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



Regardless of how they originated, they created humans


Wow, that's a pretty absolute statement, elaborate.

.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



The origin of the Elohim would have no bearing on whether or not they created humans. By learning a person's past or origin you can try to establish causality. However, in this case it appears as though "Elohim" is The Creator by definition, assuming that the theory is true.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join