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.

 

How could the first living cell have evolved?

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by micmerci
 


We don't know exactly how it works yet. But we will, in time, just like with so many other things in the past.


What frustrates me is that we can reverse engineer almost everything. Why can't we tear apart a living cell and be able to say, AHA, That's how it works! ?


The thing is we can, we have, we do. That is why we know it is impossible for abiogenesis to happen. We understand what would be required, and it is a statistical impossibility.




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by Aim64C
 


The fact that it is a complex chemical process does not change the fact that it is a chemical process.


No the fact the chemical process is impossible means the chemical process can't happen. It is still a chemical process, just one that never occured. There are things we can create in labs that do not exist in nature because the process required can never happen by random chance.


O.C....OUCH! You of all people should know that if there is even the slightest possibility it can happen....PROBABILITY DICTATES IT MUST HAPPEN! Mathematical and Physical Law of a Multiverse or even Universe. Split Infinity


If you're going to say it, you need to finish it. It must happen given enough time. That is the problem. With the time allotted it can not have happened. I will agree that if you give something enough time and tries everything will happen. We have not reached that moment in time. Maybe I am wrong, show me some naturally occuring Ununpentium on Earth and I will believe in abiogenesis.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

I am surprised that you have not heard of the multitude of claimed College and University experiments that are awaiting confirmation on creating GENESIS. Now I for one feel that a good majority of these have either not run a proper control group or have been able to have a proper CLEAN ROOM or EVENT CONTAINMENT that would assure that there is no contamination of the experiment.

However...I have read about a few of the experiments procedures to obtain this prior to attempting Genesis and I believe that one or two may have accomplished it. As is dictated by observational scientific logic...all matter in our Universe is in a constant state of rearranging itself by multiple process to become more complex. Our SUN is an example of Hydrogen which..yes...I know tend to be an Elementary Molecule thus H2 but there are other Forms of Hydrogen...via Fusion...arranging itself into Helium. All Heavy Elements that exist are the products of Supernova which have the conditions to form Gold, Lead, Uranium...etc. The Human Body itself is the product od Stars that have gone Supernova.

I believe LIFE is a Natural Byproduct of the Universe or Multiverse in that Matter is driven by condition to continue to arrange itself into Larger and more Complex Chains of Molecules. Now a VIRUS is NOT ALIVE! It has DNA but it is not living and the two men who won the Nobel Prize for their work in Virology won the award in the CHEMISTRY NOBEL AWARD. Not in BIOLOGY as a Virus is not ALIVE...but it is CLOSE!

I believe that a few of these experiments that use conditions that are approximated to exist at the time Earth had life appear....will be confirmed within a year as they must be checked and duplicated and checked again.

But I believe that Life is a VERY COMMON THING in the Universe. Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

I am surprised that you have not heard of the multitude of claimed College and University experiments that are awaiting confirmation on creating GENESIS. Now I for one feel that a good majority of these have either not run a proper control group or have been able to have a proper CLEAN ROOM or EVENT CONTAINMENT that would assure that there is no contamination of the experiment.

Can you point me to some, I look out for these things and I am unaware of them.

I believe LIFE is a Natural Byproduct of the Universe or Multiverse in that Matter is driven by condition to continue to arrange itself into Larger and more Complex Chains of Molecules. Now a VIRUS is NOT ALIVE! It has DNA but it is not living and the two men who won the Nobel Prize for their work in Virology won the award in the CHEMISTRY NOBEL AWARD. Not in BIOLOGY as a Virus is not ALIVE...but it is CLOSE!

I believe that a few of these experiments that use conditions that are approximated to exist at the time Earth had life appear....will be confirmed within a year as they must be checked and duplicated and checked again.

But I believe that Life is a VERY COMMON THING in the Universe. Split Infinity



Many people share that belief. As of now that is all it is, a belief. Having weighed the evidence I do not share it. When new evidence comes to light I will re-evaluate that.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

There are MANY. I would google Genesis recreation experiments university and college
Also...type the same and change University or College to...Private Corporations....Genetic Engineering....Monsanto...or...U.S. Government will not provide grants.

There is a Massive amount of these experiments going on and the U.S. Military is by far...the Largest as well as most advanced Player in the Groups. They seek to understand how to create Human Tissue that will not reject electronic composite neural connections to be able to connect directly to the Human Brain through Neural Interface.

Understanding how LIFE can Chemically Evolve from non-living Molecular Chains...is the key to using a Retro-Virus to infiltrate and change the Genetic Code of specific Neural areas. Thus the experimentation. Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Do those genesis creating experiments occur randomly by chance on their own? or would you say there is a designer or creator of the genesis?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


The only one I am aware of was able to create ribonucleotides, although they did game the system a bit, only one form was able to be created. Also much like amino-acids are known to self assemble, you will NEVER get a functional protein. Sutherland showed it may be possible to get a ribonucleotide, but not RNA. When you show me lab generated RNA that produces functional proteins let me know.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


im sorry but im not reading that. its made by a creationist group, therefore they have an agenda to discredit evolution. if you can provide a reliable source then ill be more than happen to read through it



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Do those genesis creating experiments occur randomly by chance on their own? or would you say there is a designer or creator of the genesis?


The conditions are set and designed to replicate an Saltwater Ocean Tidal Pool that would have all the same Amino acids that were naturally existing through Chemical Interactions created by the raw materials of geologic mineral deposits as well as Chemical Reactions occurring via UV-Radiation from the Sun as well as Electrical Discharge by either Lightning Strike or Static Electrical Discharge plus the Salinity effect as well as Volcanic Discharges.

Place all this in a controlled environment that also has a control group as well as proper setup as to not have any life present at the start of the experiment and some have declared....GENESIS.
Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


im sorry but im not reading that. its made by a creationist group, therefore they have an agenda to discredit evolution. if you can provide a reliable source then ill be more than happen to read through it


Translation, you are scared of the truth. Numbers are numbers, if you want to be ignorant be ignorant, I'm not doing your research for you. I gave you that so that you would have an understanding of the process, if you believe their numbers are in error you are welcome to research on your own, I'm not stopping you. The question is, do you want to know the truth?

I did not look at creationist websites to come to my conclusions, the only ones who talk about the actual maths involved happen to be creationists and ID people. Why would anyone put out information that says what they believe is a mathematical impossibility? But, you can verify the numbers using independent sources, I'm not doing your work for you.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


They gamed the system by adding phosphorous at a specific time, it is not completely random. If phosphorous was in the system before this one specific moment ribonucleotides cant form.

With that said, they have not achieved GENESIS, they have achieved ribonucleotides, not even, a ribonucleotide, just one type. That would be like saying amino-acid chains forming naturall prove proteins can form. Yet they cant, its impossible. That is why they switched focus from protein to RNA. So far they have some interesting stuff, but all meaningless still.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


im not scared of the truth. i just wanted a reliable source from an impartial party, facts and figures can be manipulated to make things appear how ever you want them to appear.

i will read through that site and ill get back to you when iv finished, not that iv ever read anything written by creationists that actually made any sense in the past



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


i read it and although the calculations seemed sound, i still didnt seem like they were being 100% upfront, so i checked a couple sites showing the evolutionist point of veiw and this site
rebuttal
shows pretty much what i was thinking

although, they are not an impartial party either.
edit on 14/7/2012 by DaveNorris because: added text



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Again, TRILLIONS of "attempts" per day over the course of millions of years. Never going to happen in a lab. The human mind cannot comprehend the numbers. If every human on Earth had a lab and did the experiment every second the human race would be busy for near eternity just replicating ONE DAY of foam washing up on beaches. And this went on for at least 300 million years. If trying to create life was ALL everyone ever did it would take hundreds of millions of years before it happened. Why is this so hard to understand?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris

although, they are not an impartial party either.

Well, they're backed up by science, I'm happy with that. It's only the religious side that misrepresent evolution and abiogenesis because it so happens to contradict the very first chapter of their so-called book of divine truths (a pretty damning indictment, you must admit). That's why you see scientifically-literate posters such as OccamsRazor, who's posts are usually informative and backed up by evidence in this forum, get a crippling bout of uncritical thinking when it comes to science that contradicts their personal religious beliefs. Well, that is the power of belief, such that it can creates an intellectual blind spot on otherwise intelligent and informed individuals.
edit on 14-7-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by bias12
 


Please show me where irreducible complexity as it pertains to abiogenesis has been refuted. Just give me a source.


Harvard Science Review - Fall 2005
www.hcs.harvard.edu...

Quarterly review of Biology - December 2010
www.medicalnewstoday.com...
www.jstor.org...

Quality, peer reviewed research.


The fact that irreducible complexity in biology has been refuted by science at large is a well known fact. See the case notes for Kitzmiller v. Dover if you would like to see professor Behe's disastrous testimony.

"We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)).

^^^ Findings of Kitzmiller v. Dover ^^^

Irreducible Complexity is only considered seriously by pseudosciences and creationists. This is fact.

I was disappointed to find that this thread is not really about debating the science of the first living cell, and appears to be yet another topic in which the proposal of ancient designers is prevalent. Surely that is more of a cryptozoology or religious conspiracy type matter?


Perhaps someone would care to share a piece of published, peer reviewed work, which has any evidence for a "Designer"?










edit on 14-7-2012 by bias12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bias12
 



You are completely correct! The fact that the agent is unidentified certainly doesn't mean there is no evidence for intelligent design. I suppose, from your point of view, it's just an unfortunate coincidence that there really is no evidence for an intelligent process behind the origin of life whatsoever


This is incorrect.

Proteins and the process of self-replication represent what we call specific information. This is different from mere shannon information. Shannon information is a simple formula - the number of states that can be assumed by a digit taken to the power of its places (or length). This represents all of the individual states that a sequence can assume.

A simple five letter word in the English language could be represented by the figure: 52^5. There are 52 possible english characters (capital and lower-case, excluding punctuation and special characters) and 5 spaces that can be occupied.

However - any sequence appearing in this is just as improbable as any other sequence. Hello is just as probable as IaKTz.

The word "hello," however, carries specific meaning. It matches a sequence you already recognize to accomplish a function or convey a message.

To illustrate this point - an instructor would pass around a combination lock to his students and have them each try the lock 3 times. There are 30 'characters' with a sequence length of 3. There are 27,000 individual combinations possible. Presuming there are 50 students who each try the lock 3 times, that gives a total number of trials of 150 (presuming they all use a unique combination). The class was led to believe this would illustrate mere improbability.

But there was a catch. A student near the end of the trials succeeded in unlocking the lock.

The probability of that happening is 150:27000 - or 1:180 - something that should only be expected to happen once - maybe twice in a teachers' entire career.

It didn't take long for the class to suspect the obvious: that the student had been informed of the lock's combination.

It's an obvious deduction - but we make that inference even when faced with the very high statistical probability of such happening by chance (by comparison to winnings at casinos, probability of death aboard a plane, etc).

The reason is that the combination 'guessed' by the student matched the tumblers in the lock. While continued trials would have, ultimately, opened the lock by sheer chance alone; the number of trials - the probabilistic resources - of the class did not favor the chance hypothesis when the design (or intelligence) hypothesis fit the observation far more readily.

This is the basis of the theory put forth by William A. Dembski that allows any system to be analyzed based on its informational content to both eliminate the chance hypothesis of that system arising and ascertain the plausibility of either law/necessity or design as influences in developing the system.

www.arn.org...

It's a very interesting concept and has been adopted greatly in the computer sciences.


Perhaps you still believe rain is just your god crying?


Again, a demonstration of your unwillingness to dedicate more mental faculties to understanding the argument placed before you than to the endeavor of coming up with ad-hominem attacks.

Further - you wish to make appeals to absurdity in an attempt to discredit what you oppose.

The reductionist argument can be reversed: "What created the matter that came before your chemicals?"

"What created that?"

"And that?"

"And that?"

"And what created the big bang? - Why did that give rise to the laws you state led to life?"

A question that you cannot be expected to answer - and would not expect to be answered for your hypothesis to be considered plausible.


The physical phenomena we don't understand yet, we're working on, have some patience.


This is also a fallacious argument.

You cannot evaluate theories/explanations based on what is unknown. You can only base the evaluation on what is known and what they do explain.

There is current research into AI programs that could potentially demonstrate you to be one of the first spontaneously arising AIs. Since I don't know the individual behind the text exists and can only infer this from my experiences illustrating humans to be the only known source of forum posts - I would still stick with the explanation that you are an actual person. It's most probable. But... you could still be an AI. You may even be a quantum enigma - a bizarre wave function collapse of sorts. Your status as a human being hinges on the research being done now and forevermore.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bias12
 



The fact that irreducible complexity in biology has been refuted by science at large is a well known fact. See the case notes for Kitzmiller v. Dover if you would like to see professor Behe's disastrous testimony.


You... really don't do much in terms of study, do you?

www.evolutionnews.org...

www.discovery.org...

To pick a couple interesting cases:


Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases (aaRS): aaRS enzymes are responsible for charging tRNAs with the proper amino acid so they can accurately participate in the process of translation. In this function, aaRSs are an “aminoacylation machine.”20 Most cells require twenty different aaRS enzymes, one for each amino acid, without which the transcription/translation machinery could not function properly.21 As one article in Cell Biology International stated: “The nucleotide sequence is also meaningless without a conceptual translative scheme and physical ‘hardware’ capabilities. Ribosomes, tRNAs, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and amino acids are all hardware components of the Shannon message ‘receiver’. But the instructions for this machinery is itself coded in DNA and executed by protein ‘workers’ produced by that machinery. Without the machinery and protein workers, the message cannot be received and understood. And without genetic instruction, the machinery cannot be assembled.”22 Arguably, these components form an irreducibly complex system.23



F0F1 ATP Synthase: According to cell biologist and molecular machine modeler David Goodsell, “ATP synthase is one of the wonders of the molecular world.”37 This protein-based molecular machine is actually composed of two distinct rotary motors which joined by a stator: As the F0 motor is powered by protons, it turns the F1 motor. This kinetic energy is used like a generator to synthesize adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the primary energy carrying molecule of cells.38


You run into a system where you need the component in question to make the component in question.

From an evolutionary standpoint - these don't make sense. You cannot have natural selection without self-replication. For self-replication - in all known forms - you need specified information sequences that generate structures capable of transcribing and/or replicating the host sequence.

That's irreducible complexity. And not "high order" irreducible complexity (such as examples of cellular structures like flagellum or water pumps - which are difficult to explain through processes of natural selection - but ultimately red-herrings by comparison) - these are low-order irreducible complexity. You can't have cells -to- naturally select without these processes.


Findings of Kitzmiller v. Dover


Sorry, I've got a brain. I can look at the biochemistry within cellular mechanics and read this individual's papers.

His statements are simply not backed up by cellular mechanics.

It's a vanishing group of biologists that cling to the "anti-intelligent" thesis. Physicists and mathematicians that regularly handle statistics and readily defined systems take one look at cellular mechanics and say: "Yeah, that didn't come about by chance."


I was disappointed to find that this thread is not really about debating the science of the first living cell, and appears to be yet another topic in which the proposal of ancient designers is prevalent. Surely that is more of a cryptozoology or religious conspiracy type matter?


Except it is.

The problem is that you're ignorant to your own ignorance on the matter. You don't really understand organic chemistry - regardless of what pieces of paper you may have with that in their heading.

What you mean to say is: "I was hoping someone could answer my questions about the first living cells."

The answer is that no one knows. Even Dawkins readily admits that the origin of life is a mystery and beyond current ability to explain or even begin to hypothesize about.

The reason for that is simple: Irreducible complexity. You reach a point where you cannot make a cell any simpler - any more basic - before you no longer have a self-replicating system. Lacking any evidence of self-replicating enzymes, RNA sequences, ribozymes, etc - there's no clear indication that a self-replicating system can be made simpler.

Since natural selection cannot act on anything failing to self-replicate - the evolutionary theory can only apply to cells once they come into existence; not the processes leading up to their formation (unless they can be demonstrated to arise by some natural law that produces self-replicating chains).

However - if it is a law that leads to abiogenesis... why has this process stopped? Why should chemical processes still not lead to primitive life?



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The first life wouldn't have had all of the bells and whistles that modern life has. The first life would have had no competition. The only thing it had to do was make copies of itself from the assortment of chemicals dissolved in the medium it lived in.

The form of evolution occuring at that time would have been between chemical reactions. The synergistic chemical reactions continued and became life. The non-synergistic reactions stopped and returned their atoms to the environment.

Where there's life there is synergy.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by bias12
 


It's a vanishing group of biologists that cling to the "anti-intelligent" thesis. Physicists and mathematicians that regularly handle statistics and readily defined systems take one look at cellular mechanics and say: "Yeah, that didn't come about by chance."


Show us the quality, peer reviewed research papers backing up your claims. I notice that you provided none of the evidence I asked for in support of the existence of your "designer"



However - if it is a law that leads to abiogenesis... why has this process stopped? Why should chemical processes still not lead to primitive life


I would hazard that if the process has indeed completely stopped it may be due to the differing conditions on our planet now, compared to what the environment was like in the distant past. Although I have seen no quality, peer reviewed research that has proven that there is no new development of life anywhere on our planet.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

Even if irreducible complexity was an accepted scientific principle in biology, it in no way suggests the existence of a "designer." It poses interesting questions about the current level of our knowledge in primitive biochemistry.

I have no problem with the fact that the origin of life is still unexplained. There are unimaginable volumes of knowledge which we as a species have yet to acquire.

Please show me a single piece of evidence in support of the existence of an intelligent designer. The mere fact that things exist that we can't explain under our current understanding is not evidence. Neither are statistics stating that our current theory is improbable.

I hear you saying a lot of things to challenge our current theories, "irreducible complexity" and improbable statistics included, but where is the evidence in support of a designer?

A pleasure as always AIM64C



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join