Any Evolution-believing Person care to Explain Origin of Life?

[-Cp]

Yes before the existance of plants, free oxygen was probably much rarer than it is today




Current theory suggests that life developed under water before it developed on land. There is a reason for this, water reflects and disperses UV rays, in addition it would also protect the developing organics from most gaseous oxygen. This works out rather well since chemical interactions (like say RNA interacting with lipids and proteins) occur natrurally in a liquid much more readily than they would in a solid or a gas.

Primordial soup theory remains as much a possibility as genesis.

Couldn't have been in water either - the organic molecules formed, the water would've immediately destroyed them through a process called Hydrolosis - which is known as "Water splitting" - it's where the addition of a water molecule between the two bonded molucules (two amino acids in this case), causes them to split.

There have been many scientists that have noted this problem:

<blockquote><i>"Besides breaking up the polypeptides, hydrolosis would have destroyed many amino acids."</I>
- Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. Vol 1, pp. 411-412

<i>"In General, the half-lives of those polymers in contact with water are on the order of days and months-time spans which are surelly geologiclaly insignificant."</I>
- Dose, K., The origin of Life and Evolutionary Blochemistry, p. 69

<i>"Furhtermore, the water tends to break the chains of amino acids apart. If any proteins had formed in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated."</I>
- Morris, R. The Big Questions, p.167</blockquote>

 

[The ClayTaurus]

god was created by man to explain the things science could not.

symetrical arguments....they teach you this in law school....works well when negotiating and vetting arguments

science was created by man to explain the things God could not?

 

[manu1959]

science was created by man to explain the things God could not?

science was created by god to explain things to men :alco:

 

[deaddude]

Couldn't have been in water either - the organic molecules formed, the water would've immediately destroyed them through a process called Hydrolosis - which is known as "Water splitting" - it's where the addition of a water molecule between the two bonded molucules (two amino acids in this case), causes them to split.

There have been many scientists that have noted this problem:

<blockquote><i>"Besides breaking up the polypeptides, hydrolosis would have destroyed many amino acids."</I>
- Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. Vol 1, pp. 411-412

<i>"In General, the half-lives of those polymers in contact with water are on the order of days and months-time spans which are surelly geologiclaly insignificant."</I>
- Dose, K., The origin of Life and Evolutionary Blochemistry, p. 69

<i>"Furhtermore, the water tends to break the chains of amino acids apart. If any proteins had formed in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated."</I>
- Morris, R. The Big Questions, p.167</blockquote>

Which is why the developement of a lipid cell membrane was so critical. Lipids are by and large hydrophobic. You will still find such membranes in all known living cells.

Look we can do this all you want, you can point out a problem and I can point out a solution, the fact remains that primordial soup theory is a possibility.

 

[-Cp]

Which is why the developement of a lipid cell membrane was so critical. Lipids are by and large hydrophobic. You will still find such membranes in all known living cells.

But that's putting the cart before the horse.. .why would membranes develop with nothing to protect?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You're wrong - all the fossil records point to an atmosphere that had oxygen in it..

It had less than it does today. The early Earth was formed out of the same materials that the solar system was formed out of, and hence would have about as much oxygen as the rest of the solar system.

Furthermore, its possible life could have started around hydrothermal vents deep in the ocean, where there would be very little oxygen.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

spoken like someone that hopes intelligence is contagious.....so you are out of any kind of reasonable response so you resort to inane comments....yep that proves it....height not genetic.....what caused better health if i didn't take any medicine....genetics?...i thought you believed in evolution and survival of the fittest....

Are you telling me you were never vaccinated as a child? If you weren't, I highly recommend it.

The availability of food is also an important factor. In modern day society we can transport a variety of foods quickly, so nutritional malnourishment is rare in industrialized nations.

One reason you didn't get sick as a child is that modern day children are more likely to be getting all the vitamins and minerals they need than in older days.

You excample is also purely anecdotal. The exception does not prove the rule.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

+



=
a tediously long way of illustrating that...



To argue that one requires more 'faith' than the other would be laughable.

Except for the fact that one theory is testable and potentially falsifiable, and one is not.

That is, unless you take creationism literally, in which case, it is, and has been falsified. It is a well known fact that it took longer than 6 days to create the Earth - therefore, creationisn has been proven wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in a theory that has been proven wrong.

 

[-Cp]

It had less than it does today. The early Earth was formed out of the same materials that the solar system was formed out of, and hence would have about as much oxygen as the rest of the solar system.

Furthermore, its possible life could have started around hydrothermal vents deep in the ocean, where there would be very little oxygen.

No, it's not possible - see my previous post:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=380614&postcount=101

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't think it's childish or silly in the slightest.

No, but it is naive. TO suggest religion, which is rooted in faith, requires the same amount of faith as science, which is rooted in theories tested by observation, is to say something which is simply incorrect.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

if they belive it is evidence it is evidence who are you to tell them it is not?

if you can belive that "nothing, bang, soup, man" can occur and your evidence is the writtings of scientists, written millions of years after the fact....and force those writtings to be taught in all schools without exception.....then you should at least be tollerant and allow those that belive...."nothing, six days, rest, man".... equal time ..... their theroy is as plausible as yours

The theory of creationism isn't scientific. It is based on the writings of someone presumably under the divine inspiration of a supposed God, whereas science is based on hypotheses which are tested with observation. Why is it you continue to ignore this fact?

 

[-Cp]

The theory of creationism isn't scientific. It is based on the writings of someone presumably under the divine inspiration of a supposed God, whereas science is based on hypotheses which are tested with observation. Why is it you continue to ignore this fact?

You know what's funny? You speak as if you're some sort of supreme knowledge of what Intelligent Design teaches - as if, somehow, because you say something it MUST be true...

Before you continue in your ignorance, you may want to start reading up on what ID actually teaches and how it can be and is heavily supported by scientific data...

 

[deaddude]

But that's putting the cart before the horse.. .why would membranes develop with nothing to protect?

because lipids can form independantly of the things that they are protecting. So the lipids develope, and the Acids and Proteins develope within the lipid. The lipid does not develope because the acids and proteins need protection from the water, it developes becuase all of the neccesary components come together, it is random. Which is the entire idea behind primordial soup theory, that life occured by random chance.

 

[dmp]

The theory of creationism isn't scientific. It is based on the writings of someone presumably under the divine inspiration of a supposed God, whereas science is based on hypotheses which are tested with observation. Why is it you continue to ignore this fact?

Why are you so obtuse?

There are plenty of scientists supporting "ID".

You have Life began by accident, and somehow IMPROVES itself if left alone - which simply is just too unlikely.

You have ID which says Look at the intricate workings of the universe - There simply is not enough faith to believe this happened by accident.

 

[-Cp]

because lipids can form independantly of the things that they are protecting. So the lipids develope, and the Acids and Proteins develope within the lipid. The lipid does not need a reason to develope the entire idea of primordial soup theory was that it was random.

If you want to run with the idea that Amino Acids formed in the Ocean - okay...

But you have another HUGE hurdle to get over: The left and right-handedness of amino acids...

All living creatures are developed from Left-handed amino acids - if even one right-handed amino acid fell in there somewhere, life wouldn't have started..

Can you explain - through your theory of "Organic Soup" how all the amino acids that formed early life all happend to be Left-handed amino acids?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Couldn't have been in water either - the organic molecules formed, the water would've immediately destroyed them through a process called Hydrolosis - which is known as "Water splitting" - it's where the addition of a water molecule between the two bonded molucules (two amino acids in this case), causes them to split.

There have been many scientists that have noted this problem:

<blockquote><i>"Besides breaking up the polypeptides, hydrolosis would have destroyed many amino acids."</I>
- Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. Vol 1, pp. 411-412

<i>"In General, the half-lives of those polymers in contact with water are on the order of days and months-time spans which are surelly geologiclaly insignificant."</I>
- Dose, K., The origin of Life and Evolutionary Blochemistry, p. 69

<i>"Furhtermore, the water tends to break the chains of amino acids apart. If any proteins had formed in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated."</I>
- Morris, R. The Big Questions, p.167</blockquote>

It could be that a catalyst was present which catalyzed the formation of nucle-bases but not hyrolysis. Thus a net accumulation of nucleo-bases could occur. Formamide, which can form under these conditions, has been found to catalyze the formation of nucleo-bases. (Saladino et al. 2001; Saladino et al. 2003)


Are you attempting to argue that life never started on Earth? if you are, you've got a lot of explaining to do.

Or is it merely your assertion that the lack of a complete natural explanation for something implies the only possible explanation is supernatural? Because that isn't true, either.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You know what's funny? You speak as if you're some sort of supreme knowledge of what Intelligent Design teaches - as if, somehow, because you say something it MUST be true...

Let's test your knowledge of ID.

If ID is wrong, what quantifiable evidence would show this?

If ID is right, what quantifiable evidence would show this?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Why are you so obtuse?

There are plenty of scientists supporting "ID".

You have Life began by accident, and somehow IMPROVES itself if left alone - which simply is just too unlikely.

You have ID which says Look at the intricate workings of the universe - There simply is not enough faith to believe this happened by accident.

Cup of coffee to drink while pondering the origins of life: $2.00 :cof:

Textbook to read about the unproven theory of evolution: $60

Seeing the look on an atheist's face when they finally meet God: Priceless :dev1:

 

[manu1959]

Except for the fact that one theory is testable and potentially falsifiable, and one is not.

That is, unless you take creationism literally, in which case, it is, and has been falsified. It is a well known fact that it took longer than 6 days to create the Earth - therefore, creationisn has been proven wrong. It takes a lot more faith to believe in a theory that has been proven wrong.

how convient for science to create a system that will validate their ideas and in validate all other ideas...

how long was a day before the big bang occured? if there was no sun and no earth to spin then there was no day as you know it so days were not of a finite lenght.

believing in the big bang or soup to man takes faith because neither is proveable and therfore are not science they are creationism

 

[deaddude]

Can you explain - through your theory of "Organic Soup" how all the amino acids that formed early life all happend to be Left-handed amino acids?

No, I cant of the top of my head. Can explain why they all could not have just happened to be Left-handed. There is a very large amount of chance to this theory. The neccesary components for life as we know it are pretty common, however it is the fact that you need them to combine in a very peculiar way that makes life so amazing and so rare.