Ign
Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. - Thomas Edison
Please see the similarity in schematics between a NEC monitor and that of a single cell here.
With the plans, humans can build a NEC monitor. A living cell, not so much.
Darwin's Tautologists have been uncharacteristically silent regarding the NEC monitor/single cell analogy comparison. Building man's machine, simple. Building Nature's God's creations, not so much.
And yet, as Hebrews 3:4 states, even a house requires a builder - houses do not assemble by chance!
Sure it does, you have heard of sperm and eggs, turning into embryos, then infants, then kids, then adults with no brain like you
You are my Doctoral toy for the day
Bill Gates dropped out doofy
You are the babe, esalla!
After esalla showed her true colors in another thread, I retract the comment above forcefully.
Lol. Nothing changes the fact that amino acids can not be formed from elements without the arranging code of DNA arranging them
So shake the bucket all you want
Yes, it is true that some chemical evolutionists favor RNA (and nucleic acid synthesis) first, while others still hold to Miller's model of protein (and amino acid synthesis) first.
However, as I posted, some amino acids - notably Alanine and Glycine, have been synthesized without selection by DNA or RNA. You would be accurate if you posted proteins rather than amino acids.
The primary problem with any synthesis experiments is a lack of reporting of the actual chemical reaction product proportions - for example, in amino acids synthesis experiments the predominance of formic acid over amino acids, not to mention the proportions of amino acids not used in proteins.
I'm surprised that the religionist creationists spend such inordinate amounts of time trying to tear down peer reviewed science as opposed to offering something.... anything, to support their claims to supernatural creator gods.
Ignoring your rhetoric, which model do you prefer: protein first, RNA first, or something else?
I prefer the model that can pass peer review. An inquisitive science will likely discover the viable model.
But, ya' never know. Maybe your gods will wipe the planet clean of those vile humans again, because they're gods of love.
Nice dodge Hollie. I'll ask again:
Which model do you prefer: Protein first or RNA first?
Is that question too difficult for you to answer?
See this link for a discussion of some of the chemistry details and their implications for the origin of life on earth:
Earth’s atmospheric composition at the time of the origin of life is not known, but it has often been suggested that chemical transformation of reactive species in the atmosphere was a significant source of prebiotic organic molecules. Experimental ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A few excerpts:
"it has often been suggested that chemical transformation of reactive species in the atmosphere was a significant source of prebiotic organic molecules. Experimental and theoretical studies over the past half century have shown that atmospheric synthesis can yield molecules such as amino acids and nucleobases, but these processes are very sensitive to gas composition and energy source. Abiotic synthesis of organic molecules is more productive in reduced atmospheres, yet the primitive Earth may not have been as reducing as earlier workers assumed, and recent research has reflected this shift in thinking. ...
The idea of the prebiotic Earth as a roiling organic “soup” with a highly reduced atmosphere of H2, H2O, methane (CH4), and ammonia (NH3) was first presented by Oparin [
32]. Such an atmosphere was part of his model of chemical evolution in which reduced gases led to the production of organic molecules, providing an environment more conducive to the evolution of life. The landmark experiments by Miller and Urey, partially modeled on Oparin’s hypothesis, demonstrated production of amino acids via the action of an electric discharge on a H2, H2O, CH4, and NH3 gas mixture, supporting the theory of prebiotic synthesis in a reduced primitive atmosphere [
33-
35]. Sagan and Mullen [
24] determined that moderate quantities (ppm) of NH3 would resolve the Faint Young Sun Paradox. However, since the early 1980s, it has been thought that the primitive atmosphere was more oxidized, and contained large quantities of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of the carbon reservoirs on Earth and Venus (the former being equivalent in magnitude, but sequestered largely in the crust) suggest that CO2 on the early Earth could have provided the needed warming if it was more abundant in the atmosphere [
36]. NH3 was shown to have a very short lifetime in the atmosphere of the early Earth due to photodissociation [
37]. CO2, however, was assumed to be abundant and long-lived in the ancient atmosphere; as long as volcanic emissions were as high as those seen today and weathering was low, CO2 could have accumulated to large concentrations in the atmosphere [
38]. A partial pressure of 0.20 bar CO2, more than 500 times the present atmospheric level, would have been needed to maintain a surface temperature above the freezing point of water [
38]. Such an atmosphere may have been less favorable to the formation of organic molecules, although not necessarily prohibitive depending on ocean chemistry [
39,
40]."
Still think the famous Miller experiment is irrelevant? Note that earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which required earth's primordial oceans - but this also required Calcium ions which Thaxton et al pointed out destroy organic molecules.
Note that this extensive (and likely peer reviewed which you seem to care about [not me]) gives plenty of detail but does not mention that photolysis of water would produce free Oxygen, and even more noteworthy does not mention the chemical reaction product proportions produced in Miller type experiments including the predominance of formic acid.
Nor does it mention that the amino group (in amino acids, etc.) would have reacted with the carbonyl group (the group is mentioned, but not the chemical reaction) (in aldehydes and sugars) and thus destroys chemical pathways both to amino acids and sugars (as in RNA for example).
