Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Introductory Biochemistry 101: the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are right- and left-handed respectively. Those of life are left- and right-handed respectfully.

So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general. Furthermore, as has been mentioned already, life does not always take advantage of the most abundant compounds. We rely on aerobic metabolism, despite oxygen not being the most abundant element in the atmospgere or the sea. It just so happens that it was eventually selected "for" to perform aerobic metabplism in organisms.

Cells tend to use left handed amino acids (but not always). Your argument is not complicated. You say this means an intelligent, magical sky daddy made it so.

That is your entire argument. It is obviously absurd, and it is laughed off by scientists.

 

[james bond]

So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.

Show us your biochem 101 skills. We haven't even gotten there to discuss chirality of amino acids. Show us where you get your primordial soup. First, you have to form amino acids in the atmosphere. How does one get amino acids?

The other thing you mention is left handedness. Which amino acids are left handed? Which amino acids are right handed? It's too bad you didn't learn anything from Dr. Duane Gish .

 

[Ringtone]

To give everyone else some insight into this plagiarized, discredited talking point:

Certain misguided chemists (and their plagiarists, like Ringtone) have tried to claim that life could only form in the presence of a pure source of "left handed" amino acids. They argue that, since this pure mixture did not exist, life could not have formed.

This talking point is deacdes old. The first time scientists heard it, they laughed at it and said that it is in no way necessary that only left handed amino acids be present...


...and that was the end of that. But, once in a while, a YEC goober will dust off this old, charaltan's talking point and try to impress people with big words.

Pay no mind.

First, take the charge of plagiarism and shove up your ass. You're the one who can't spell. Anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat can see that the prose on this board and the prose in the article are of the same author. Second, you're the one spouting the slogans of know-nothings. Everybody who understands the science knows that the chirality problem is very real and that abiogenetic theorists have yet to give a satisfactory answer. But, then, you fail to correctly state what the essence of the problem is. Once again, the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are racemic, but those of life are decisively left- and right-handed respectfully. The skeptics of abiogenesis, which include agnostics and theists, do not assert, as you claim, that life can only arise in the presence of a pure mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids and sugars, respectively. Of course it can! We're here, aren't we?

_crickets_ _chirping_

Your hackneyed account, therefore, obviously cannot possibly be the essence of the problem!

The problem is that racemic mixtures are optically inactive. Period. All mixtures are racemic in raw nature, and the fact that intergalactic synthesis sightly favors left-handed amino acids is of no avail. This factor would be axiomatically diluted on Earth, yielding a fully racemic mixture of amino acids with a specific rotation of zero. Period.

But, ultimately, once again, the problem goes to the following from the article:

What is not manifest are the purely natural processes by which these space travelers avoided being racemized on Earth, achieved homochirality and transferred it to the α-hydrogen amino acids of extant biochemistry. Was homochirality transferred before or after replication? If before, how in the absence of organic information? If after, why in the presence of an established system? Given the inevitability of racemization in heterogeneous environments (that is to say, given the vain pretensions of chemically acquired homochirality) and given the magical nature of transferring a mulishly intrinsic property from one type of amino acid to another … oh, never mind! Behold, another of the many impenetrable riddles of abiogenesis.

​

 

[Ringtone]

So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.

Shut up. Amino acids on Earth do not tend to be left-handed in general.

False! ALL MIXTURES OF AMINO ACIDS AND SUGARS ARE RACEMIC IN RAW NATURE—USELESS TO LIFE!

Only in life are they decisively left- and right-handed respectfully. There's no in general about it in living organisms, you idiot!

Why did you mindlessly agree with the following?

"Introductory Biochemistry 101: the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are right- and left-handed respectively. Those of life are left- and right-handed respectfully."

Answer: because you don't know dick, because you're a mindless reactionary, because you're a mindless slogan-spouter.

The first part of that statement is totally meaningless. Not only did you bust yourself by first calling me liar and then concede that I had the right of it, albeit, subliminally, after looking it up, but you sprung the trap I set. .

The correct way to express the above would be: the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are racemically right- and left-handed; those of life are left- and right-handed respectfully.

Cells tend to use left handed amino acids (but not always).

Really? What cells use right-handed amino acids?

crickets chirping

Some bacteria can convert right-handed amino acids into left-handed amino acids so that they can use them. Is that what you meant to say? Obviously not. You were just making things up again.

You've dug a very deep hole for yourself. I can barely see the top of your head.

 

[Ringtone]

So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.

Show us your biochem 101 skills. We haven't even gotten there to discuss chirality of amino acids. Show us where you get your primordial soup. First, you have to form amino acids in the atmosphere. How does one get amino acids?

The other thing you mention is left handedness. Which amino acids are left handed? Which amino acids are right handed? It's too bad you didn't learn anything from Dr. Duane Gish .

All amino acids are either left- or right-handed. In other words, all amino acids occur in both forms. There's no kind that are either one or the other, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

 

[abu afak]

I searched the article and it not only seems to be by Michael Rawlings .. but posted by Michael Rawlings several places (and ie sweetunderlings blog) with your avatar.
No credentials whatsoever.

I don't know how your Feb 2009 date is "the Latest research" either.
But all these Stale and usual 'improbabilities' never take into account the Trillions of Planets over Billions of years with countless septillions of hourly changing conditions and micro conditions on each.

Your main probability claim about taking all the possible chemicals and conditions being tried are ergo nonsensical.
It's 'religious math' garbage.
And also the 'Argument from Ignorance/Argument from Incredulity Fallacy.
(And probably the 'Goddidit'/if we don't know it must be god Failed reasoning)

And of course once one or two proteins come together (and many inorganic molecules have tendencies to bind), it cuts the odds down dramatically.

Life could have arisen anywhere. Earth may be likely/unlikely, but so what?
'We'/they could be having this same conversation on billions of other planets, marveling at the long odds of it.

A new thread is coming probably tomorrow.

 

[james bond]

So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.

Show us your biochem 101 skills. We haven't even gotten there to discuss chirality of amino acids. Show us where you get your primordial soup. First, you have to form amino acids in the atmosphere. How does one get amino acids?

The other thing you mention is left handedness. Which amino acids are left handed? Which amino acids are right handed? It's too bad you didn't learn anything from Dr. Duane Gish .

All amino acids are either left- or right-handed. In other words, all amino acids occur in both forms. There's no kind that are either one or the other, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Yeah, I know. They're asymmetric with one carbon atom and form L or D-amino acids. All proteins are L-amino acids except glycine which is what I was asking. Life on Earth is made almost exclusively of only left handed amino acids which is what Gish taught. The D-amino acids for living organisms form sugars -- Chirality - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science. Fort Fun Indiana is the one who is clueless as he ignored Dr. Duane Gish like most evos. They only know him for his fast patter and call it the Gish gallop. Atheists are usually wrong because they ignore real science and believe in fake science.

 

[Ringtone]

I searched the article and it it not only seems to be by Michael Rawlings .. but posted by Michael Rawlings several paces (and blog) with your avatar.
No credentials whatsoever.

I don't know how your Feb 2009 date is "the Latest research" either.
But all these Stale and usual 'improbabilities' never take into account the Trillions of Planets over Billions of years with countless sextillions of hourly changing conditions and micro conditions on each.

Your main probability claim about taking all the possible chemicals and conditions being tried are ergo nonsensical.
It's 'religious math' garbage.

And of course once one or two proteins come together (and many inorganic molecules have tendencies to bind), it cuts the odds down dramatically.

Life could have arisen anywhere. Earth may be likely/unlikely, but so what?
'We'/they could be having this same conversation on billions of other planets, marveling at the long odds of it.

A thread is coming.

Feb. 2009 goes to the original version. It has since been updated many times, but thank you for pointing that out. I need to indicate the date of its latest revision. In the meantime, if you scroll down to the additional notes, you can also read about the latest experiments of note. I'm Michael Rawlings, the author. I don't claim any special credentials other than a brain that can think and understands the science. I don't give a hoot for credentials that spout nonsense. I'm not floored by authorities. I find that many "authorities" nowadays are leftist or materialist crackpots.

For example, you're talking out your ass. No peptide chains of any significance, much less proteins, form in raw nature. You would know that and why had you read the article. But that's just one of the many obstacles that abiogenesis would have to hurdled. You're just spouting slogans. There's no probability claim in my article in the sense of your probability claim relative to the vastness of the universe. That vastness is of no significance. The problems for abiogenesis are that of information and the limits of mere chemistry. But I'll be happy to knockdown the feverish dreams of your materialist fanaticism, your religion and your magical god of nature, in your upcoming thread for ya.

 

[Hollie]

So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.

Show us your biochem 101 skills. We haven't even gotten there to discuss chirality of amino acids. Show us where you get your primordial soup. First, you have to form amino acids in the atmosphere. How does one get amino acids?

The other thing you mention is left handedness. Which amino acids are left handed? Which amino acids are right handed? It's too bad you didn't learn anything from Dr. Duane Gish .

Did you mean this Duane Gish?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Duane Gish

Gish has been the peddler of most known creationist arguments (short of Comfort’s banana; that one is in a class of its own), and was the inventor of several of them. Especially famous was his bombardier beetle argument, which Behe later redressed as “irreducible complexity”. In fact, Gish and Morris must be considered something like the inventors of debate-style creationism in the US and the standard set of creationist arguments.

Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated Gish five times, noted that Gish ignores evidence contrary to his religious beliefs – a heartwarmingly tactful statement. A rather creationism-friendly assessment of his work can be found here.

It may be a little less than tactful, but remember that Gish is a guy who claims there is no evidence for evolution. Then this novel came out. It is hard to avoid noticing that cover picture.

 

[Hollie]

So what? For one, it is likely that this didn't hold on prebiotic earth, as amino acids found on earth tend to be left handed in general.

Show us your biochem 101 skills. We haven't even gotten there to discuss chirality of amino acids. Show us where you get your primordial soup. First, you have to form amino acids in the atmosphere. How does one get amino acids?

The other thing you mention is left handedness. Which amino acids are left handed? Which amino acids are right handed? It's too bad you didn't learn anything from Dr. Duane Gish .

All amino acids are either left- or right-handed. In other words, all amino acids occur in both forms. There's no kind that are either one or the other, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I find it hilarious that depending on what ID’iot creationist quack the fundies cut and paste from, the fundie quacks fall over themselves with their lack of understanding what they cut and paste.

 

[Hollie]

The chirality of nature's paltry collection of pertinent organic chemicals is the exact opposite of life.

Shameless lie. You are exaggerating to the point of a shameless lie. These are desperate, basless, stupid YEC talking points.

Furthermore, even if all of your shameless exaggeration were true, it STILL would not constitute evidence for your childish sky daddy fantasy.

That should give you a hint of how wrong you are.

You're still spouting slogans. You're the liar, indeed, a sociopath like Hollie apparently. You can't just discuss the matter in good faith, with an honest and open mind. You have to insult, lie, get all personal. Introductory Biochemistry 101: the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are right- and left-handed respectively. Those of life are left- and right-handed respectfully. What's next? Are you going to deny the laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell' equations, Hubble's law, the fundamental interactions of nature, the existence of bosons and fermions. . . .

By the way, I'm not a young earth creationist, but then you'd know that if you had read the article, just like you'd know that the only research discussed in the article is that of the proponents of abiogenesis. The work of creationist/Id theorists is not discussed at all. LOL!

Like so many angry, self-hating fundies, you tend to lash out with emotional outbursts when your cutting and pasting is challenged.

The entirety of your cutting and pasting is not just consistent with what is dumped on the various ID’iot creation websites, it’s identical. The ID’iot creation industry exists on precisely the anti-science rhetoric displayed by the two angry fundies in this thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First, take the charge of plagiarism and shove up your ass.

Hmm, no, this is a plagiarized and debunked YEC talking point. Congrats on adding the 50 cent words in place of actual substance. If that's what you mean, then okay, the word salad aspect is all yours.

 

[Ringtone]

Abiogensis is a foregone conclusion. While we may not know how it happened, we can safely assume it is a fact and did, indeed, happen.

In other words, we're here, so nature did it! LOL!

Abiogenesis strictly entails natural processes. Please identify and describe the magical processes by which your mindless god of nature overcame these obstacles:

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would not have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres.

Perplexing.

That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins. In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evince an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth. 3

Perplexing.

It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities. But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today. The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. It doesn’t.

Perplexing.

Still, despite the paltry concentrations of the organic materials produced relative to the energy expended, the best bet for amino acids would have been a semi-reducing atmosphere akin to that simulated in the unpublished experiments. At least the pertinent, organic materials produced in those were more voluminous and diverse. Also, it seems reasonable to assume that the dynamics of the altered atmospheric model would have moved the materials away from the lingering dangers inside the synthesizing medium, past the threats beyond, and into the primordial soup of the oceans below more rapidly.

It’s all pie-in-the-sky nonsense, of course, but as long as we’re already suspending disbelief far above any reasonable altitude, we might as well go along with the tale forever: never mind the threats beyond the synthesizing medium, never mind the ubiquitous cross-reaction contaminants, never mind that water ultimately pushes peptidyl bonding backward, not forward, would disperse the precursors of proteins and condemn them to the whims of a churning and lonely isolation, and never mind most of all that the total amount of organic compounds on Earth today, relative to the overwhelming, abiotic reactions in raw nature, is less than a fraction of the lofty concentrations that would be plausibly favorable to the inscrutable processes of abiogenesis. After all, the other precursors of life, which improbably braved and overcame the same obstacles, have need of their prebiotic cousins. The long and arduous journey toward self-awareness must go on by way of an even more implausible series of elaborately complex and fortuitous accidents.​

 

[Ringtone]

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.

LOL! Oh, look, everybody, faith-based, Nature did it!

Please identity and describe how your mindless, magical god of nature overcame this obstacle.

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.

[. . .]

Since Miller-Urey, the discoveries of biochemistry and microbiology have revealed precisely why the synthesis of life out of amino acids from the ground up is a dead end. Mere chemistry does not produce life; only complex structures produce life. Amino acids simply do not link up in nature to form proteins, not even when they are set loose in a pristine brew consisting of only left-handed ingredients. Without high-energy compounds and enzymes, amino acids do not form the many peptides and, therefore, the many proteins needed for life. But the most significant prerequisite of all is information, and that information resides above the chemical properties of amino acids.

Thusly, the original, underlying hypothesis of the Miller-Urey experiments has been falsified for decades.

Hence, [. . .] no matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves from the bottom up. It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. They must be assembled in a meticulously elaborate fashion in order to perform useful or desirable functions. Without the necessary information contained in preexisting nucleic acids, the result would be a collection of gobbledygook, and nucleic acids cannot evolve without the infrastructural and catalytic properties of preexisting proteins. In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.​

 

[anotherlife]

If you had little to fear in the past, now you have plenty of reasons nonstop.

Only if you are irrational. And that isn't something your computer can do anything about.

But imagine, this means that you maybe whatever, but other external forces decide what you want and what you think, you taking the consequences though.

 

[DOTR]

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.

LOL! Oh, look, everybody, faith-based, Nature did it!

Please identity and describe how your mindless, magical god of nature overcame this obstacle.

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.

[. . .]

Since Miller-Urey, the discoveries of biochemistry and microbiology have revealed precisely why the synthesis of life out of amino acids from the ground up is a dead end. Mere chemistry does not produce life; only complex structures produce life. Amino acids simply do not link up in nature to form proteins, not even when they are set loose in a pristine brew consisting of only left-handed ingredients. Without high-energy compounds and enzymes, amino acids do not form the many peptides and, therefore, the many proteins needed for life. But the most significant prerequisite of all is information, and that information resides above the chemical properties of amino acids.

Thusly, the original, underlying hypothesis of the Miller-Urey experiments has been falsified for decades.

Hence, [. . .] no matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves from the bottom up. It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. They must be assembled in a meticulously elaborate fashion in order to perform useful or desirable functions. Without the necessary information contained in preexisting nucleic acids, the result would be a collection of gobbledygook, and nucleic acids cannot evolve without the infrastructural and catalytic properties of preexisting proteins. In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.​

Ironically enough you seem to be arguing against an older theory falling out of favor (fort funs science is dated but he clings to it like the zealot he is)

I’m not sure this article belongs here but it’s interesting, concise and sort of related so I’m going to offer it.

A New Clue to How Life Originated

 

[DOTR]

The following article reviews the most relevant findings in abiogenetic research to date and touches on the potential metaphysical presuppositions for science (methodological naturalism, philosophical/ontological naturalism) in the light of those findings. Where do we go when the findings show that a natural mechanism of sheer chemistry for the origin of life is implausible, cannot be given and/or is indemonstrable? In light of the evidence, I propose a return to the open-ended, methodological naturalism of tradition, that applied by the great theistic scientists prior to Darwin, the latter of which, in my opinion, begs the question and leads to error. I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

By Michael Rawlings
February 4, 2009


While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design. The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science. . . .

What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic mellanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic spark discharge system, which increased air flow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. .

I would think the atheists/agnostics here do not know how to do Miller-Urey even though they claim it worked. They will not be able to use it to create amino acids because they do not know what gases to mix. Here is a website where they can demonstrate their findings, failures, and successes, if any. I am claiming most won't be successful or even try it because they can't do it. They do not know what gases were present in the early atmosphere and screw up. It's not that hard.

Miller-Urey Experiment

That experiment not only failed but is now known to have been based on incorrect assumptions...correct?

 

[Hollie]

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.

LOL! Oh, look, everybody, faith-based, Nature did it!

Please identity and describe how your mindless, magical god of nature overcame this obstacle.

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative, but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities which stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.

[. . .]

Since Miller-Urey, the discoveries of biochemistry and microbiology have revealed precisely why the synthesis of life out of amino acids from the ground up is a dead end. Mere chemistry does not produce life; only complex structures produce life. Amino acids simply do not link up in nature to form proteins, not even when they are set loose in a pristine brew consisting of only left-handed ingredients. Without high-energy compounds and enzymes, amino acids do not form the many peptides and, therefore, the many proteins needed for life. But the most significant prerequisite of all is information, and that information resides above the chemical properties of amino acids.

Thusly, the original, underlying hypothesis of the Miller-Urey experiments has been falsified for decades.

Hence, [. . .] no matter how many experiments were conducted by planet Earth and no matter how many chemicals She might have had at Her disposal, there’s absolutely no pathway for amino acids to fabricate the hundreds of thousands of proteins found in living organisms by themselves from the bottom up. It takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. They must be assembled in a meticulously elaborate fashion in order to perform useful or desirable functions. Without the necessary information contained in preexisting nucleic acids, the result would be a collection of gobbledygook, and nucleic acids cannot evolve without the infrastructural and catalytic properties of preexisting proteins. In other words, DNA synthesis relies on the presence of infrastructural and enzymatic proteins, and protein synthesis relies on the encoded, genetic information in DNA and the coded translations of that information in RNA. And while RNA polymers are simpler than DNA polymers and have both informational and enzymatic properties, they cannot evolve sans preexisting DNA. What we have here is an interdependent circle of irreducible necessity, and the RNA-World hypothesis is riddled with prohibitive problems and paradoxes that mulishly defy resolution at every turn—the most daunting of the problems being (1) RNA polymers’ instability outside living cells and (2) their rate of fatal errors in replication sans DNA.​

These silly, tedious cut and paste diatribes are hilarious. They are all of the genre, and all very stereotypical, that follow the ID’iot creationist script: “it’s too complicated to have occurred naturally, therefore the gawds did it”

We can sum up your arguments as nothing more than the processes of biological evolution that produced gradually more complex structures; chemical compounds, cells, flagella) are so complicated that there is no conceivable path for their evolution. We have no idea how it could have happened. Therefore they must have been designed and created by the gods. That's clearly the classic God of the Gaps, and a religious, non-scientific approach. Obviously that is why your cutting and pasting is just reiteration of the flailing about performed by Meyer, Dembski and the hacks at the Disco’tute.

Religious extremists are completely uninterested in testing any ideas about how their gods designed anything and the details about how they overcame the impossibilities you attribute to nature. Your screeching out “its’s the magical hands of the gods by magical means, because it’s magic” is hardly an explanation for anything. People working in abiogenesis develop and test models all the time. Of course, those models are incomplete but there are methods used in the lab to make hypotheses about the details and test them to see if they are plausible.

Here is a representative view of the “research” being done by your ID’iot creationist hacks:


Intelligent design think tank’s “institute” is a Shutterstock image

Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.

Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
Discovery Institute

As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumbwhen he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image.

 

[james bond]

That experiment not only failed but is now known to have been based on incorrect assumptions...correct?

It worked for them because Urey assumed a lot of methane and you know what that is, fartsmoke. Farts are comprised of

• Nitrogen: 20-90%
• Hydrogen: 0-50% (flammable)
• Carbon dioxide: 10-30%
• Oxygen: 0-10%
• Methane: 0-10% (flammable)

The problem for them was oxygen, O2, so they left it out. Try the experiment and add some oxygen to see what happens.

Many scientists do not think these were the gases of the early universe, but volcanic gases.

"The primary components in volcanic gas are water vapor, carbon dioxide and sulfur (either sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide). But you can also find nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon dioxide and hydrogen."

The rub is with these gases amino acids do not form.

What Is a Fart Made Of?
Volcanic Gas - Universe Today

 

[james bond]

Besides oxygen, O2, the atheists and their scientists have a problem with water in the oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, etc. on an early Earth. Water is an universal solvent, so will dissolve the amino acids. It is ironic that water being necessary to sustain organic life, dissolves the basis for forming it. Of course, the abiogenesis folks still have in their "faith-based" science. Abiogenesis is another name for spontaneous generation which was debunked by Dr. Louis Pasteur..