How Did RNA & DNA Come Into Existence ?

originally posted by: Noinden
your link

Again, same thing.

"Self-assembly processes occur in nature in various forms, from molecular-level protein folding"

protein folding is a tertiary structure, and it is known to happen spontaneously. If you want to prove your point, you need to find a long nucleic acid sequences (the primary structure) that forms spontaneously. Because this is what actually holds the data to code for proteins.

You're just googling DNA self-assembly and "throwing" (your words) the paper at me without realizing what you're sending.

a reply to: 57ORM1IV

How is nature going to preserve a piece of DNA, RNA, various enzymes and a chain (polymer) of amino acids as these components of life are getting ready for the transition to life (which according to some takes millions of years, so these components would have to stay around for millions of years without a nice cozy cell protected by a highly specialized cell membrane for that purpose)? Especially once one considers the presence of free oxygen in the atmosphere and/or UV radiation and the laws of chemistry involving how hydrolysis works.

Consider also: if you drop a piece (chain) of RNA, DNA or a chain (polymer) of amino acids in the ocean or another watery environment, it's going to break apart over time, the chain will be broken up into individual pieces (nucleotides or amino acids).

The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory (such as “the chemical evolution theory of life”, just to head off the usual red herrings that evolutionary theory supposedly doesn't address the origin of life already made recently in this thread), are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?

Stanley Miller, mentioned earlier, passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”(1) Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Franchis Hitching (evolutionist): “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”(2) I.e. UV radiation.

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”(3)

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”⁠(4)

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠(5) Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠(6)

There are, however, many other stubborn problems that confronts evolutionary theory (in particular the so-called “chemical evolution theory of life”). But that's enough for now.

References:

1. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.
2-4. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 65.
5. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.
6. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

DNA is Code.

Codes require intelligence.

That’s empirical.

Meditate on those facts of reality.

OK for the billionth time.. Evolution does not debate intelligent design vs random chance, evolution does not say how life started and it really doesn't care. Both intelligent design or random chance works perfectly well with evolution, the kicker is the magic wand vs natural selection debate as in did God wave a magic wand or did he invent natural selection to do the work for him.

In any event we have a path from complexity to simpler states of a DNA back to RNA...amino acids..protein etc that all are molecules made up of basic elements. We have many natural and synthetic polymers that is the complexity you speak about and examples of naturally occurring polymers are silk, wool, DNA, cellulose and proteins.

The problem is life is a human created concept that we put a special meaning to it. The universe sees complex chemical reactions that are all over the place with what we might call life or not. Much of your argument is from the 1800s such as the eye as proof of intelligent design. Today we know the eye is a perfect example of evolution and why it is not intelligent design.

To me it seems people that have faith in intelligent design do not follow current discoveries such as folding polymers.

a reply to: Noinden

As the footnote regarding Shapiro's comment already mentions:

In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

I would have to agree on him on that one regarding the link you used as well.

originally posted by: whereislogic


There are, however, many other stubborn problems that confronts evolutionary theory (in particular the so-called “chemical evolution theory of life”). But that's enough for now.

References:

1. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.
2-4. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 65.
5. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.
6. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.

Maybe the place to start is referencing something that isn't 40+ years old.

Here is 2017 and even that is old now as fast as the knowledge is going.

Protein Folding Problem

a reply to: cooperton

Oh neighbour, I am not just googling anything. I am going in via Scifinder. Reading the abstracts, then the papers. I know you do not understand it. Because you are not a scientist. I doubt you got out of highschool science classes, based on how you are posting here.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Very dramatic neigbour. Except its not a foundation of the ideological scientific concept. Go on, post proof otherwise.

a reply to: cooperton

Do you even read what you type. IF you had an education in Chemistry (hah not likely) you would know

(a) Nucleic acids are the monomers;./
(b) That nucleic acids polymerise with out ATP, ATP is just the source of energy, to overcome the activation energy of the reaction.
(c) Primary structure in the DNA or RNA is what hte sequence is. Secondary structure is due to the interactions between the various bases. These are generally non coalescent.

I read the paper, and many more.

YOU are trying to shift the goal posts. Meaning you are the fallacious one. here.

a reply to: whereislogic

Oh and another goal post shifter. You guys can not help yourself.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Both intelligent design or random chance works perfectly well with evolution

An interesting statement, I don't know that the prolific posters of this thread that defend evolution, will necessarily agree with that. If they do it would be an interesting compromise.

a reply to: Noinden

Except its not a foundation of the ideological scientific concept. Go on, post proof otherwise.

I don't have to, that's just your opinion, like a nose we all have just one.

Pretty simple.

Also your opinion that the total discussion is shifting the goal posts, that's so rich coming from people saying don't discuss the chemical biology of the start because it's not part of the equation, you don't get it.....but you might get forced to see the light literally one day.

Sort of like Saul did back in the day, hope you live long enough to see it.......Live long & Prosper

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Just my opinion? Bwhaaa. I am quoting scientific consensus here, while you are insisting we do it how you and other creationists want it. You guys get angst ridden if we even look like we tell you how to religion.

a reply to: Noinden

From that article you just referenced

molecular evolution are the basis for naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis. It is true that these do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two, especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.

Thank you very much for helping me make my point, I appreciate it.

Game Over - Thanks for playing, you get a bronze participation ribbon for your efforts in this thread.

a reply to: Xtrozero

If something has changed regarding the facts discussed in the comment you were responding to I suggest you be more specific. The same problems for the variety of storylines that are proposed are still there. Take for example the subject of hydrolysis described in the following statements:

Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠(5) Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠(6)

You have the exact same problem if you switch the storyline from RNA first to protein first (as in your link*). The same problems with UV radiation and free oxygen in the atmosphere as well (since that was already about amino acids, which is what proteins are made of). The laws of chemistry aren't suddenly going to change just because some people can't get their story straight and come up with a new storyline that conveniently ignores these facts of chemistry.

*: Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’” (Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.) RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA.

a reply to: Noinden

Btw, the writers of the article you linked themselves don't seem to refer to their methods as "spark-discharge experiments" as Shapiro put it. Of course you said "electrical discharges" which made me think of the "spark-discharge experiments" akin to Miller's simulated lightning that Shapiro was talking about. As the article you linked mentions under "2. Sample Production and Analysis":

. . . This apparatus uses a capacitively coupled radio frequency (RF) discharge to initiate chemistry in gas mixtures . . . the cold plasma produced by RF discharge . . . It produces electrons with enough energy to dissociate N2 and CH4, while having little effect on the temperature of the neutral gas, unlike a spark discharge.

Since I already mentioned why I was thinking about what Shapiro called "spark-discharge experiments" because of the term "electrical discharges", there's not much point in debating whether or not a RF discharge can also appropiately be referred to as an electrical discharge (not that I would debate that).

Another thing to keep in mind, individual nucleotide bases are not nucleic acids yet, simple or otherwise. Since you were talking about "simple nucleic acids".

This is not a matter of moving the goalpost, it's a matter of you being clear about what exactly you're talking about and not capitalizing on the ambiguity of language. Giving misleading impressions in the process to lay people like me.

Regarding some of the things I skipped from the article you linked, I take it you are aware that UV radiation coming from our Sun is highly irregular compared to the RF discharge used in this experiment and fine-tuned for a specific chemical engineering process with a specific goal in mind*?

*: in the minds of the chemical engineers wanting to produce, or create (engineer, i.e. chemical engineering) "molecules of biological interest", as they call them.

Could someone give me the creationist view to how everything started please?

a reply to: whereislogic
The meteorite containing DNA RNA likely someone somewhere skidded their knees on it...

Either on that planet before it was abliterated or here, or maybe the meteorologist licked his finger thumbing though a book before experimenting on it... one of these is right because DNA RNA only exists in living things.

Also in synthetic meat production DNA has been replicated:

Lab-grown meat comes in many other names; cultured meat, in vitro meat, synthetic meat, and is made by growing muscle cells in a nutrient serum and encouraging them into muscle-like fibres.23 May 2019

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Oh neighbour, I am not just googling anything. I am going in via Scifinder.

That's irrelevant to the fact that the paper you sent was in regards to tertiary structure, and not primary structure. Tertiary structure is well know to self-assemble, that's no surprise to anyone. Primary structure self-assembling is what would be necessary to prove that DNA code can write itself. But there is no such proof.

Reading the abstracts, then the papers. I know you do not understand it.

lol for the article you presented it wasn't in reference to primary structure self-assembly, which is necessary for the reasons explain above. Also, the paper you supplied BlueJay actually proved his point, which shows again you either don't read the articles you post, or you don't understand them, or both:

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

From that article you just referenced

"molecular evolution are the basis for naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis. It is true that these do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two, especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life."

Because you are not a scientist. I doubt you got out of highschool science classes, based on how you are posting here.

If I'm not a scientist, and you can't keep up with scientific conversation with me, then what does that make you?

Not sure why this phrase just crossed my mind
"The Hyper Active Spazamataz Biased Scientist" and it could be a TV show.
I think we have all seen the scenes of the mad scientists in the lab from movies and TV shows.

I seem to recall some pretty eccentric science teachers/professors from my time in school, they were highly intelligent for sure, but they weren't normal, seems to come with the territory.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Xtrozero

If something has changed regarding the facts discussed in the comment you were responding to I suggest you be more specific. The same problems for the variety of storylines that are proposed are still there. Take for example the subject of hydrolysis described in the following statements:

Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠(5) Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠(6)

You have the exact same problem if you switch the storyline from RNA first to protein first (as in your link*). The same problems with UV radiation and free oxygen in the atmosphere as well (since that was already about amino acids, which is what proteins are made of). The laws of chemistry aren't suddenly going to change just because some people can't get their story straight and come up with a new storyline that conveniently ignores these facts of chemistry.

*: Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’” (Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.) RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA.

I think you basically missed the point of the article. It stated past debates that you listed, BUT it is about how can proteins come first and the whole dissertation was about the physical mechanisms that enabled long polymers to emerge in the prebiotic world.