Gawd, Let us talk about fraud: Chemists have partly unlocked the recipe by creating a complex compound essential to all life — in a lab

[Stryder50]

Really? A bit? explain this 'a bit'

For a start, the term "fellow terrestrial planets" is incorrect and poor English language. "terrestrial" refers to Earth and the other rocky planets are not "terrestrial" i.e. capable of supporting life such as found on Earth.

If you are so bright about science I shouldn't have to explain a basic to you.

None of the other rocky planets show the extensive form as plate tectonics as found on Earth. Actually none at all. The tectonic plate structure appears the result of a major impact event. Most probable impactor would have been the Moon/Luna. And likely about 4 billion years or more back in time. That impact blasted off about half the original crust layer and the rounding by gravity of the remaining body, and the cooling of the exposed magma layer is how the oceanic crust was formed, along with both types broken up into plates.

Mercury and the Moon/Luna (which could almost be considered a planet, making Earth-Luna a double planet system) tend to be near total airless, very cold, no liquid water on surface, no significant rotation on axis, negligible magnetic field; in sum very different from Earth. To say "a bit" may be an understatement.

Mars would seem "a bit" closer in company with Earth, having about the same axial rotation rate, but at a quarter of size and gravity to Earth, an atmosphere about 1/100th as thick, also very cold, and little to no surface water it is a long way from being another "terrestrial". It may have been more "terrestrial", long ago; the optimistic is range of tens-hundreds of thousands of years ago, the more likely would be millions or more.

Venus is close to Earth's size, but an atmosphere several times thicker and mostly CO2, it is also very hot in atmosphere and on surface. Appears to be very volcanic, but no clear indication of tectonic plates, i.e. two forms of crust. Venus also has retrograde axial rotation. Being very hostile to Earthly forms of carbon based life, Venus is also far from being classed as "terrestrial".

More accurate classification for the three other rocky planets, and Luna would be rocky worlds/planets, with Earth also in that broad class, but having many factors unique to itself and such that would support carbon based life. Earth is the only one that could be correctly called terrestrial.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

For a start, the term "fellow terrestrial planets" is incorrect and poor English language. "terrestrial" refers to Earth and the other rocky planets are not "terrestrial" i.e. capable of supporting life such as found on Earth.

If you are so bright about science I shouldn't have to explain a basic to you.

None of the other rocky planets show the extensive form as plate tectonics as found on Earth. Actually none at all. The tectonic plate structure appears the result of a major impact event. Most probable would have been the Moon/Luna. And like about 4 billion years or more back in time. That impact blasted off about half the original crust layer and the rounding by gravity of the remaining body, and the cooling of the exposed magma layer is how the oceanic crust was formed, along with both types broken up into plates.

Mercury and the Moon/Luna (which could almost be considered a planet, making Earth-Luna a double planet system) tend to be near total airless, very cold, no liquid water on surface, no significant rotation on axis, negligible magnetic field; in sum very different from Earth. To say "a bit" may be an understatement.

Mars would seem a bit closer in company with Earth, having about the same axial rotation rate, but at a quarter of size and gravity to Earth, an atmosphere about 1/100th as thick, also very cold, and little to no surface water it is a long way from being another "terrestrial". It may have been more "terrestrial", long ago; the optimistic is range of tens-hundreds of thousands of years ago, the more likely would be millions or more.

Venus is close to Earth's size, but an atmosphere several times thicker and mostly CO2, it is also very hot in atmosphere and on surface. Appears to be very volcanic, but no clear indication of tectonic plates, i.e. two forms of crust. Being very hostile to Earthly forms of carbon based life, Venus is also far from being classed as "terrestrial".

More accurate classification for the three planets, and Luna would be rocky worlds, with Earth also in that broad class, but having many factors unique to itself and such that would support carbon based life.

Do you have family or friends that have concerns for your mental health>

 

[Stryder50]

Do you have family or friends that have concerns for your mental health>

I've no doubt you do.
Mighty bit of projection there.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You see the problem in assuming that life is random, right?

Only you have been forwarding this false dilemma of randomness vs creation here. Anything "selected" (either naturally or supernaturally) is obviously not random. Also no planner need apply. Again, life will out given sufficient conditions (temperature, pressure, material, space, and time). Why? In simple terms, life (including death and decay) tends to lower the energy state of the entire system relative to nonlife.

Example: Water evaporates introducing steam into the system. Then it rains, returning to state 1. Cycle is inorganic, high entropy, and boring! Now take the same energy and produce zillions of ground dwelling (relatively low energy) organisms. The vast increase in variation alone can explain why there's life vs. none. Creators need not apply.

Figure 1. Entropy is a measure of randomness or disorder in a system. Gases have higher entropy than liquids, and liquids have higher entropy than solids.
An important concept in physical systems is that of order and disorder

Sure, organic molecules would still exist on Earth without life but with a pittance of their current variety.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only you have been forwarding this false dilemma of randomness vs creation here. Anything "selected" (either naturally or supernaturally) is obviously not random. Also no planner need apply. Again, life will out given sufficient conditions (temperature, pressure, material, space, and time). Why? In simple terms, life (including death and decay) tends to lower the energy state of the entire system relative to nonlife.

Example: Water evaporates introducing steam into the system. Then it rains, returning to state 1. Cycle is inorganic, high entropy, and boring! Now take the same energy and produce zillions of ground dwelling (relatively low energy) organisms. The vast increase in variation alone can explain why there's life vs. none. Creators need not apply.

Sure, organic molecules would still exist on Earth without life but with a pittance of their current variety.

How does the selection process work?

 

[Grumblenuts]

How does the selection process work?

See Darwin. Confusion persists regarding the meaning of order and disorder. Nature prefers fractal distributions of every make and size, not "clean" homogeneity.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I doubt that the people who wrote the article on which that story in the WaPo was based would agree that it "exposes frauds!"

Science advances much more slowy than in the days when men like Newton, Einstein, and Galileo were defying the "scientific dogma" of the time and advancing alternative theories that were ridiculed by lessor men. This article add somewhat to the theory of abiogenesis, but it certainly does not prove that it happened and that any doubt about abiogenesis is "fraud."

 

[Seymour Flops]

See Darwin. Confusion persists regarding the meaning of order and disorder. Nature prefers fractal distributions of every make and size, not "clean" homogeneity.

The language of the proponents of an entirely naturalistic explanation for origin of life cannot help but athropomorphize purportedly non sentient processes. The ideas cannot be explained through wholly natural phenomena, so they assign desires, preferences, goals, and even greed to what they also claim are completly non-conscious actions.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's been awhile since I looked into this but what I remember is that long chains of organic compounds - which could mimic amino acids - could theoretically fold themselves in just the right sequence in hot wet conditions but the odds of that happening are astronomical. It's the folding in the correct sequence which is the information required for life to exist and it is a massive amount of information.

Here's an example of what happens at the cellular level of life. It's not called the molecular machinery of life for nothing.

EWWWWWWWWWWW ... that's DISGUSTING ... how'bout a bit of warning ... I was eating my LUNCH dammit ...

An amino acid is just carbon-carbon-nitrogen sprinkled with hydrogen and oxygen ... C2H5NO2 ... just slightly more complicated than a simple alcohol, far far simpler than a sugar ... the important point is that glycine is stable, and persists in the environment ...

Enzymes are the key ... these are chemicals that act as a catalyst to a chemical reaction in some way and is returned whole after, such that it can catalyze another reaction, and so on ... once we have a catalyst for glycine, all the world's oceans fill up with glycine ... doesn't take long ... 10,000 years tops ...

Now imagine 100 iterations, one million years ... is this life yet? ... we don't know, there's no rocks from that long ago to examine ... I believe that starts at 500 million years, and that life is abundant by this time ... not all forms of life leave fossils ...

=====

Point of fact ... "organic chemistry" is strictly defined as the chemistry of carbon containing compounds, with the exception of carbon dioxide ... of all 118 elements known to humans, only carbon will readily bond with itself, and really none other ... when we say "carbon-based life", we mean there is no other types with our periodic table ...

And I do mean carbon readily bonds with itself, and at times aggressively ... a sealed vessel of methane is quickly contaminated with ethane ... just two methane molecules colliding and forming new chemical bonds ... and of course the acid/amine bond is strong as any, proteins tend to robustness ...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How did life on Earth begin? Good gawd, the chemical puzzle of how life on Earth began has just became clearer. It's simply incredible. I've heard a few claims of how life on Earth began, but never any backed up by replicable scenarios. This is a game changer in so many areas and fields of debate.

Science! It exposes fraud(s).

How did life on Earth begin? The chemical puzzle just became clearer.

Researchers have successfully created a compound critical for metabolism in all living cells, which is essential for energy production and regulation.

web.archive.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/02/29/life-earth-origin-chemistry/

Wow!


‘Monumental’ experiment suggests how life on Earth may have started


A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take, long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a copy of itself.

Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.

Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory, scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., have carried out...

The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...

“Then it would be alive,” said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and one of the authors of the new paper. “So, this is the road to how life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the universe.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-world/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-world/

 

[Seymour Flops]

Wow!


‘Monumental’ experiment suggests how life on Earth may have started


A much-debated theory holds that 4 billion years ago, give or take, long before the appearance of dinosaurs or even bacteria, the primordial soup contained only the possibility of life. Then a molecule called RNA took a dramatic step into the future: It made a copy of itself.

Then the copy made a copy, and over the course of many millions of years, RNA begot DNA and proteins, all of which came together to form a cell, the smallest unit of life able to survive on its own.

Now, in an important advance supporting this RNA World theory, scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., have carried out...

The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...

“Then it would be alive,” said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and one of the authors of the new paper. “So, this is the road to how life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the universe.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-world/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/03/09/origin-of-life-rna-world/

Why did it want to make a copy of itself?

Why did it do it on that particular day? Why not the day before or the day after? What prompted it to make a copy of itself?

If making copies of itself was part of its inherent nature, why hadn’t it been making copies all along?

What did it make the copies out of?

Since you make it sound so easy to simply make copies of itself, why did it need to develop all these life forms to carry it around?

If the gene is selfish, so that it is only intent on making copies of itself, why does it need to also create plants, animals, single celled, organisms, fungi, etc.?

What benefit does the gene receive from duplicating itself, that feeds its selfishness?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why did it want to make a copy of itself?

Why did it do it on that particular day? Why not the day before or the day after? What prompted it to make a copy of itself?

If making copies of itself was part of its inherent nature, why hadn’t it been making copies all along?

What did it make the copies out of?

Since you make it sound so easy to simply make copies of itself, why did it need to develop all these life forms to carry it around?

If the gene is selfish, so that it is only intent on making copies of itself, why does it need to also create plants, animals, single celled, organisms, fungi, etc.?

What benefit does the gene receive from duplicating itself, that feeds its selfishness?

'Want?'

Hmm...

okay. you're not a serious person.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Since you make it sound so easy to simply make copies of itself, why did it need to develop all these life forms to carry it around?

I did not. And I don't believe the scientists involved are saying such a thing. Your psychological quirks have you raising straw men and arguing and defeating caricatures of people that exist only in your mind.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How does the selection process work?

It's obvious, this Sock account hasn't read the links

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How does the selection process work?

The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.

“Then it would be alive,” said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and one of the authors of the new paper. “So, this is the road to how life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the universe.”

...

To reach this point, the scientists overcame perhaps the greatest barrier to the plausibility of the RNA World theory. Up to now, no RNA molecule in the lab had succeeded in making copies of another RNA that were both sufficiently accurate and functional.

‘Monumental’ experiment suggests how life on Earth may have started

Scientists at the Salk Institute have taken a small but essential step in showing how RNA might have kick-started life on our planet.

web.archive.org

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Earth tends to be a bit different than those other "terrestrial planets".

I would hope so.

 

[Seymour Flops]

'Want?'

Hmm...

okay. you're not a serious person.

So genes are NOT selfish?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, gets them closer to the grand goal of growing an RNA molecule that makes accurate copies of itself.

“Then it would be alive,” said Gerald Joyce, president of Salk and one of the authors of the new paper. “So, this is the road to how life can arise in a laboratory or, in principle, anywhere in the universe.”

...

To reach this point, the scientists overcame perhaps the greatest barrier to the plausibility of the RNA World theory. Up to now, no RNA molecule in the lab had succeeded in making copies of another RNA that were both sufficiently accurate and functional.

‘Monumental’ experiment suggests how life on Earth may have started

Scientists at the Salk Institute have taken a small but essential step in showing how RNA might have kick-started life on our planet.

web.archive.org

But that’s copying something that already exists! That’s not natural selection, that’s a tattoo artist

 

[Flash]

If turning Chemistry into Biology was easy then every Jr High School Science class would be doing it in the classroom.

It is a lot more complicated than water, the right temperature and a few chemicals coming together.

For all we know life on earth was created four billion years ago in an environment that can't be replicated today.

Having the right chemicals is just one step. Seeing how it can be done in Nature in an environment that we would consider very hostile is another big problem in itself.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I did not. And I don't believe the scientists involved are saying such a thing. Your psychological quirks have you raising straw men and arguing and defeating caricatures of people that exist only in your mind.

OK, but 5 billion years ago it was spontaneous, correct? So what prompted it? Why did it happen?

The laboratory example happened because scientist almost desperately wanted it to happen. So assuming that it actually did happen, and not just overexuberant scientist, claiming it happened because they’re so sure that it could happen, it was an example of intelligent design was it not?