Abiogenesis takes a step forward via RNA

Poor deluded fule!

RNA is a complex molecule and could not have come into existence spontaneously, as it would require smaller sub molecules, themselves complex, to stick together in precisely the right order.

Oh. Wait a minute...
 
Pathway to RNA

New path to RNA discovered

I'm pretty sure that no "probability calculation" ever done by a creationist took in to account the intermediate chemicals involved in this process.

As with most popular science reporting something always grates:

A serious puzzle about the nature of life is that most of its molecules are right-handed or left-handed, whereas in nature mixtures of both forms exist.
Click to expand...

Life isn't "in nature"??
 
RecoveringYuppy in a parallel thread pointed out the portion of the article that talks about the chirality of the chemicals found in living things.
New path to RNA discovered

I'm pretty sure that no "probability calculation" ever done by a creationist took in to account the intermediate chemicals involved in this process.

As with most popular science reporting something always grates:

A serious puzzle about the nature of life is that most of its molecules are right-handed or left-handed, whereas in nature mixtures of both forms exist.
Click to expand...

Life isn't "in nature"??
Click to expand...

Though I agree with the comments that recoveringyuppy made, I don't think that this is too hard to explain. It seems likely that any free nucleotides would constantly be degraded and reformed by the environment, leaving them a racemic mixture on average. If, by chance, one version of a chiral molecule were used in a primitive ribozyme, that version would tend to be selected for over and over again, as the other form would have different chemical properties (when it reacted with other chiral molecules, anyway.) Thus only one form of any particular RNA molecule would ever be used.

The remaining unused, other-handed RNA would be left in the water to be decomposed and reconstituted by abiotic mechanisms into a new racemic mixture. Alternatively, it could have actually been consumed and reformed via biotic mechanisms at a later date but the supply simply ran out over time (It wouldn't take long.) The preferred version would again be consumed quickly, and over time the process would convert all of the racemic mixture into the preferred form. One thing that life has had a lot of on Earth is time...
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I'm pretty sure that no "probability calculation" ever done by a creationist took in to account the intermediate chemicals involved in this process.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that no creationist ever made a probability calculation regarding chemistry at all.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I'm pretty sure that no creationist ever made a probability calculation regarding chemistry at all.
Click to expand...
Especially consider there need not be any particular end product.

Once you have any polymer capable of self-replication, you'll end up with more of those (and more of the ones that do it better). Since these are more abundant, they're more likely to be trapped inside vesicles that spontaneously form and divide by mechanical forces. That's basically a cell. Pretty much everything else is gravy that can be explained by natural selection.

This video gives a pretty good summary:



ETA: Why do we use the term "abiogenesis"? Wouldn't "biogenesis" have the same meaning? "The origin of life from non-life" is just a redundant way of saying "the origin of life", isn't it?
 
Last edited:
I recommend Chandra Wickramasinghes work on this subject. Who pretty much continued what Fred Hoyle started years ago, but with a more science based foundation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe

Especially his book "Chandra Wickramasinghe, A Journey with Fred Hoyle: The Search for Cosmic Life, World Scientific Publishing, 2005"
 
Last edited:
The NY Times? How can anyone believe anything written in that left-wing-socialist-commie-jihad-Castro-Chavez-loving rag, that has been exposed, vilified and destroyed by Fox News?:rolleyes:
 
Rodney said:
That is the same logic used by most abiogenesis believers. It's also known as "begging the question."
Click to expand...
You have no idea what "begging the question" is. Actually you belief in abiogenesis as well. You just claim that some magic power must have been involved. Science claims that natural processes did it.

Life exist. Basic self replicating enzymes exist. Now we have one more step in the process with self-assembling and replicating RNA. The chain of processes and events from basic self-replicating molecules to the first cell is becoming clearer. No super mind or god needed.

One day, Creationists will have no more gaps to hide in. But I really doubt things like facts will change the minds of the willfully ignorant.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
That is the same logic used by most abiogenesis believers. It's also known as "begging the question."
Click to expand...

If other than natural processes were involved in abiogenesis, the burden of prove is yours. The natural processes of life are all around us; but where is the evidence for any paranormal processes?
 
Rodney said:
So point me to a probability calculation that supports abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

Probability that nucleotides spontaneously assembled from simpler molecules, due to natural influences:

<some fancy math> = a really, really, really small number.

Probability that goddidit:

<God is outside of mathematical description, so we can't calculate the probability that he did it>

Verdict?

a really, really, really small number >> no number at all
 
We don't know that the probability of life is a small number. There is no way to calculate it at present because we don't know what the mechanism is and therefore don't know what role chance plays in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom