Prime Factor

[FinsterniS]

I agree there’s something we don’t know, something nebulous about evolution. But saying “god” all time we don’t understand something is a big lack of vision, an error “scientists” often made.

This is one area where the “blind watch-maker” hypothesis requires even more faith than religion.

That is an area we don’t have explored yet, but already some theory like the “morphogenetics fields”, can explain the phenomena without introducing mythology and fairy tales. I can, too, invent a mythological being that can explain everything in evolution but i won’t; that is not constructive.

Sheila Copps… It is not her that promise she will get out of politic if the TPS was’nt removed ?

And the Jedi religion is as valid as any religion… It seem maybe a little more strange… But if we were there when they write down the bible we would probably think the same thing about Christianism (…and Islamism, and Judaism)

[cystic crypt]

@FinsterniS:

Also the bible is not incoherent with current theory

The bible is incoherent with ALL current theory (well i don’t remember all the bible but in part). The earth is not flat, we are (human) very similar to other species, the earth was not “created” but formed, we are product of evolution not of some divine creator, and concept such as good & evil make the bible sound like a book for children. All these are incoherent…

I must admit i find it very hard, and always harder, to understand why people want to hard not to use their logic & creativity…

I don’t know how to argue this other than to say “you are wrong”. As i said earlier, the Bible is not a scientific document, so some poetic license may be taken, particularly in the book of Psalms. Whether the earth was created instantly or over a long period of time is not in conflict with the idea of it being created (if i create a cake out of instant mix, do i not get a similar result to one made from scratch?). We may be a product of an evolution guided by a devine creator, and whether you agree or not that the concepts of good and evil have a place in the world, it was written in many ways, simply - for children, for fishermen, for slaves, for solders, etc. They are not coherent if you open your mind a crack.

@FinsterniS:

I’ve always maintained that if there appears to be a conflict between the bible then there is information that we are missing. Either that or we are taking something literally which was intended metaphorically and vice versa.

That is fanatism… A good reason so you will never have to say somethings is incoherent in the bible, it is “metaphorical”.
"Plants began to grow before there was sunlight. "
“God takes part in a wrestling match. He wins by injuring Jacob’s hip”
“The Moon is created as a “lesser light””
These are metaphorical ?

You know, i used to take offense to you using terms like “fantism” to describe my beliefs, but as i think about it, i feel better. Often i am afraid that i am more fanatical about exercising, pizza, gaming, women, etc. than my faith and Jesus Christ.
With regards to your “quotes”, if they are not metaphorical, then there is something that we don’t understand, or else that certain concepts were written simply for a simple people.

Is it not scientific to consider possibilities outside of measurable realities?

Yes, but as i said we do not, in science, create concept just because it pleased us, i am sure you know that. There’s no evidence, empirical or rational for god… That is why you will find far more unreligious scientist…
Christianism take very hard hit… with Freud, with Copernicus, with Darwin. But it still live, people do not want to know, they just find it a little hard to believe we came microbes.
You even support once in this forum a circular argument, not because you are idiot, not because you are not logic. because this was coherent with your belief (yeaaaa, stupid argument for atheist also exist…).

you know, we scientists often make up concepts that please us as well. They are called hypothesis, and are developed according to previous literature and findings. The null (opposite) hypothesis is tested, statistical analyses are run, and the null hypothesis is either found to be true or wanting (i.e. the hypothesis is correct). This is a scientific method hung onto before Louis Pasteur. Scientists DAILY say . . . “hmmm . . . i wonder if the reason for this might be that . . . that is a concept that pleases me” (or something similar). RNA is considered the first biological molecule - not because of any proof, but because it is a concept that makes sense. Apoptosis, now more or less demonstrated, was a much touted concept well before it’s pathway was elucidated. The Bible, a compilation of work that has been tested for validity over the years has been around much longer than the scientific method (obviously so has religion). The problem is, God is not something that we can test, or develop a set of materials and methods around in order to find whether God exists or not. We can only go by the evidence as we see it (or feel it, etc.). Your criticism of Christians/religious people for their own scientific approach to their feelings and interpretations of nature, their thoughts, etc. is not supported as well as a religious person’s approach, not because it is invalid (who am i to say so), so much that you lack that 3rd eye to allow you to see what we do.

[FinsterniS]

You know, i used to take offense to you using terms like “fantism” to describe my beliefs, but as i think about it, i feel better. Often i am afraid that i am more fanatical about exercising, pizza, gaming, women, etc. than my faith and Jesus Christ.
With regards to your “quotes”, if they are not metaphorical, then there is something that we don’t understand, or else that certain concepts were written simply for a simple people.

Exactlty what i said, you set all the condition so the bible will always be right. What can i say exept this is fanatism ? You should think about that…

you know, we scientists often make up concepts that please us as well. They are called hypothesis, and are developed according to previous literature and findings. The null (opposite) hypothesis is tested, statistical analyses are run, and the null hypothesis is either found to be true or wanting (i.e. the hypothesis is correct). This is a scientific method hung onto before Louis Pasteur. Scientists DAILY say . . . “hmmm . . . i wonder if the reason for this might be that . . . that is a concept that pleases me” (or something similar).

Yes, because there is REASON to believe that, other than the reason “i will believe X because it make me feel better”. When we attribute thing in nature to intelligence; it is just because we lack knowledge or vision… I explain all this on previous discussion. There is no Rational nor Empirical reason to believe in god, only “emotional” and personnal feeling. So, as there is nothing outside individiual that can be a reason to consider god a valid theory; it should always be personnal; not in science, not in politic, but it is in both ! There is lot of confusion in the common when talking about Carbone 14, Thermodynamic & occam’s razor… while i cannot blame religion for everything, it does not help. Religious “scientist” often use old and fallacious logic, as much as deformation of physic’s law, and i take it very personnaly when they use irrational logic to say they just “proove” god with their reason.

RNA is considered the first biological molecule - not because of any proof, but because it is a concept that makes sense.

Well i know that; but the key word is “becaue it makes sense”, god do not make sense, sure it WAS making sence, some 500 years ago, but our current discoveries about the Nature are incoherent with the belief of an intelligence, a divine creator.

The Bible, a compilation of work that has been tested for validity over the years has been around much longer than the scientific method (obviously so has religion).

That is not a reason to give it validity, it is just resilient… People believe in god because other people around them believe in god.

so much that you lack that 3rd eye to allow you to see what we do.

Well that is a little strange… I believe in god once, i feel him, i had this third eye… i just change my mind, but i am perfectly aware of christianism’s feeling towards god, i just loose that with Descartes.

[Guest]

@TG:

Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don’t forget that “natural selection” is supposed to retain those individuals, which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive, when it would not be well suited to either its old environment or its new environment?

Why is a badly done, “improvised” improvement better than no improvement?
Things happen gradually (as you said), so there is a mutation, which has no effect at the moment, but maybe when temperature drops by 5 degrees. That animal now can go up “further north” and find food etc. without his fellow animals eating it.
A mutation has to show wether it is an improvement (gives more flexibility etc) by a change of environment, right.
See this nice example of that white butterfly, that hid on …. this white tree, don’t know the name…it’s Birke in german :). , in the Uk before the industrial revolution.
Every say 1 in 1000 was a mutant, who was black and not white, tried to hide on the same white surface, and was easily spotted and eaten by birds.
Then came the industrial revolution… lots lots lots of pollution, turning the tree bark black. In “no time” the white ones were the easy prey, the black ones survived… with a 1 in 1000 mutant being white instead of black.
Now, the british learned to use filters, the trees became white again…and guess what happened: the colour of the butterfly population changed again…

@F_alk:

Actually, the first eye was not much more than a layer of photosensitive cells.

Certainly a “light-sensitive spot” is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye is hard to take.

Luck, Chance, Unlikely Mutation? There is no answer for this kind of “why”-questions. Only if you assume there is a plan behind it all, then this is allowed, but when you assume there is no plan, then there is no answer to that.
And i think the development is pretty straightforward.
Take for exaple the evolution from the laterna magica to the first photographs to today. Humans copy nature quite a lot, and a not half as successful as nature in that (one think why i don’t trust genetic engineering too far).

[TG Moses VI]

“Why is a badly done, “improvised” improvement better than no improvement?”

Good counter move.

“See this nice example of that white butterfly, that hid on …. this white tree, don’t know the name…it’s Birke in german . , in the Uk before the industrial revolution.
Every say 1 in 1000 was a mutant, who was black and not white, tried to hide on the same white surface, and was easily spotted and eaten by birds.
Then came the industrial revolution… lots lots lots of pollution, turning the tree bark black. In “no time” the white ones were the easy prey, the black ones survived… with a 1 in 1000 mutant being white instead of black.
Now, the british learned to use filters, the trees became white again…and guess what happened: the colour of the butterfly population changed again…”

Hmmm… this reminds me a lot of the peppered moth changing its predominant color in response to environmental pollution from in industrial era of England. Before the population shift occurred both light and dark moths were present. The environment allowed one shade to flourish. However, what if the pollution covering the trees on which they rested was a bright green, making both the light and dark moths highly visible. Would the moths become green? Also, experiments and knowledge to date demonstrate that adaptation has limits beyond which no more change is possible. Selective breeding of roses has never been able to produce a blue-colored rose.

“Luck, Chance, Unlikely Mutation? There is no answer for this kind of “why”-questions. Only if you assume there is a plan behind it all, then this is allowed, but when you assume there is no plan, then there is no answer to that.
And i think the development is pretty straightforward.”

I also wondered as much. But I can say “chance” (and maybe even “luck” if you believe in it) certainly plays a large part in evolution. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations give greater reproductive success to their possessors are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out.

Anyways, this is along the same lines as the “photo-sensitive cells” argument, but try taking a stab at it. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce (it is improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point)? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient.

[Guest]

i’ll post a better reply to Moses later,
just a couple quick notes: F_alk’s lines about the moths just demonstrates “natural selection” - not the sudden generation of an entire protein (as well as its underlying genetic code). Multiply that by thousands of proteins (and genes), and one starts to see the incredulity of many people (scientists etc.) when considering the “blind-watch-maker” hypothesis. True, i can fathom ways that it can happen (and i have several times), but i don’t really believe them as contributing THAT much to the final “Person”.
Also Moses, with regards to evolution producing two sexes, just want you to consider a few things:
bacteria are without “sex” as we know it. At the same time, they do exchange genetic material (by conjugation) where by the “male” bacteria donates a plasmid (gene-like structure) to a “female” bacteria (lacking the plasmid). Bacteria reproduce asexually, but there is exchange of genetic material outside of reproduction. Obviously with “higher” species genetic variability and reproduction are more entwined. In theory this is a better “solution” in that you maintain genetic variation throughout a population if both are required for each to happen. Insofaras there is a possibility of passing down a mutant gene to your progeny, you also increase the chance of passing down a favorable mutation to your progeny.
Hope you found that interesting. If not, i really don’t care. Either way i hope you have a nice day . . .

• lazy crypt

[TG Moses VI]

“Also Moses, with regards to evolution producing two sexes, just want you to consider a few things:
bacteria are without “sex” as we know it. At the same time, they do exchange genetic material (by conjugation) where by the “male” bacteria donates a plasmid (gene-like structure) to a “female” bacteria (lacking the plasmid). Bacteria reproduce asexually, but there is exchange of genetic material outside of reproduction. Obviously with “higher” species genetic variability and reproduction are more entwined. In theory this is a better “solution” in that you maintain genetic variation throughout a population if both are required for each to happen. Insofaras there is a possibility of passing down a mutant gene to your progeny, you also increase the chance of passing down a favorable mutation to your progeny.”

Okay, I see.

[Guest]

@TG:

Anyways, this is along the same lines as the “photo-sensitive cells” argument, but try taking a stab at it. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce (it is improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point)?

Well, actually, self-reproducing molecules have been formed by humans in the lab, from what we by out knowledge expect could have been in the muddy soup of our very early planet, adding energy in form of electricity (e.g. lightnings).
These molecules then work as a catalyser (sp?) for the creation of themselves out of the ingredients. Once you know how a cell works, it doesn’t take creativity to imagine how the first reproducing molecule could have come into existence.

Have a look at the mad cow disease, there you van get a picture of how the “bad case of self-reproducing molecules” works. One of proteins in your neural cells has (at least) two stable configurations (ways of the atoms being folded into the molecule).
One of those configurations is the one needed for the cell, the other one works as a catalyser to promote its way of folding, folding the “useful” proteins it meets into “infective”, non-useful ones.
That is the same principle.

[FinsterniS]

danke f_alk
mein europaischer verbundeter

Multiply that by thousands of proteins (and genes), and one starts to see the incredulity of many people (scientists etc.) when considering the “blind-watch-maker” hypothesis.

Hey Moses, that was what i was talking about, when we don’t know, it is god… And i really don’t see how our ignorance on the subject can be use as an argument for god ? If each time i saw order in math without understanding the cause, then think it is somekind of god; then i would be a very strong Theist !

Ist denn wohl unser Begriff von Gott etwas weiter als personifizierte Unbegreiflichkeit?

What is our conception of god other than the personification of the inconceivable ?

• Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)

[Guest]

@FinsterniS:

danke f_alk
mein europaischer verbundeter

Multiply that by thousands of proteins (and genes), and one starts to see the incredulity of many people (scientists etc.) when considering the “blind-watch-maker” hypothesis.

Hey Moses, that was what i was talking about, when we don’t know, it is god… And i really don’t see how our ignorance on the subject can be use as an argument for god ? If each time i saw order in math without understanding the cause, then think it is somekind of god; then i would be a very strong Theist !

Ist denn wohl unser Begriff von Gott etwas weiter als personifizierte Unbegreiflichkeit?[\quote]

Note: Although the implication of intelligent design was there, all i did was take a light-hearted swing at “blind-watchmaker” hypothesis. Also, you seem to be saying that just because we don’t know all the causes of something is no reason to doubt the process we’ve come to believe in. This argument, when i applied it to lack of understanding with regards to biblical occurances you shot down as “fanatism”.

Good work on “prions” F_alk.
Also note what i said earlier about RNA. They resemble to large degree DNA (especially messenger, or “mRNA”), and yet can form molecules such as “transfer” or tRNA as well as “ribosomal” or rRNA. These important “organelles” catalyze the production of proteins generated by the mRNA molecule (which in turn was transcribed from DNA). This is why some scientists consider RNA to be the first biologically useful protein.

• sorry, no fancy quotes by some German or French guy right now
  not-signed-in-Crypt

[FinsterniS]

Note: Although the implication of intelligent design was there, all i did was take a light-hearted swing at “blind-watchmaker” hypothesis. Also, you seem to be saying that just because we don’t know all the causes of something is no reason to doubt the process we’ve come to believe in. This argument, when i applied it to lack of understanding with regards to biblical occurances you shot down as “fanatism”.

The bible is a book, it is made of statement. You seem to think it is perfection, while it contain strange theory. Also;

1; history teach us that “god” was far too often an answer to the unknow; the weather, the moon, the sun, et cetera…
2; it is not because we don’t understand something that we need to go into mythology to find answer… There is evidence of something we don’t understand but there is no evidence of “intelligence”. Order does not need intelligence, look at planets, suns, clouds…

• sorry, no fancy quotes by some German or French guy right now
  not-signed-in-Crypt

Just read Jery Falwell you will get some quote for religion :)

[TG Moses VI]

“Hey Moses, that was what i was talking about, when we don’t know, it is god… And i really don’t see how our ignorance on the subject can be use as an argument for god ?”

Nah, I never mentioned in any my postings that what we don’t know is a work of “God.” I have never once supported Creationism (Early Earth Creationism is just plain stupid IMO) in any of my post.

“- sorry, no fancy quotes by some German or French guy right now”

When in doubt, make up your own!

F_alk,
Evolutionists claim that life formed from “abiogenesis”, even though it is then biological law, “biogenesis,” that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe. Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

[FinsterniS]

No no no i never said that you said the unknow was the work of god. But one time i said; “everything that is not understand was somewhere in time the “work of god””, you answer “that is an overstatement” and then, after CC’s argument i said;

“Hey Moses, that was what i was talking about, when we don’t know, it is god… And i really don’t see how our ignorance on the subject can be use as an argument for god ?”

[TG Moses VI]

@FinsterniS:

No no no i never said that you said the unknow was the work of god. But one time i said; “everything that is not understand was somewhere in time the “work of god””, you answer “that is an overstatement” and then, after CC’s argument i said

Okay sorry for the mix up then, I didn’t quite understand what you were saying.

[Guest]

@TG:

F_alk,
Evolutionists claim that life formed from “abiogenesis”, even though it is then biological law, “biogenesis,” that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe. Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

Can you give me a source for that? Then i will look around for a source of the lab experiment, where they did just that, creating a reproducing molecule in conditions that once were predominant on our earth (AFAWK).
So, having this (experiment), i trust that, and have to assume that the theorical work is flawed.
And of course: Current physics says: The electron is a point, dimensions zero. You can fit an infinte amount of electrons in any part of the universe (either neglecting their electric interaction, or with an infinite amount of energy at your disposal). So, i really have to distrust that quote, as it translates not to “the chance would be near zero, but finite” (Which i could accept), but to “the chance is zero”, which i cannot accept, because then even the experiment couldn’t possibly have been successful (ouch, what grammar…)

So, do you know how they calculated the chance? “In free space” i guess it would be near zero, in a system like our ancient earth, with nice UV radiation and lightnings, i think it is much higher.

[TG Moses VI]

Then I will try to rephrase what I said better.

[TG Moses VI]

Evolutionists claim that life formed from “abiogenesis”, even though it is then biological law, “biogenesis,” that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small.

“So, do you know how they calculated the chance? “In free space” i guess it would be near zero, in a system like our ancient earth, with nice UV radiation and lightnings, i think it is much higher.”

Life is often portrayed as arising from some sort of “primordial soup”. There it is nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of life. But to go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:

1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
   For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.
2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
   We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.
3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
   Some the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules.
4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
   Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.
5. LIVING CELL -
   And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.

Now starting from the beginning, our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen were present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.

Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. Instead, they propose an atmosphere, which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor.
There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer, which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting.

In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks.

“Then i will look around for a source of the lab experiment, where they did just that, creating a reproducing molecule in conditions that once were predominant on our earth (AFAWK).”

Honestly, I would like to see this. Can there really be life from dead chemicals?

BTW: Most of this hogwash comes from my Creationists/Intelligent design teacher and his group of super friends who tries to convince the class Evolution is wrong.

[cystic crypt]

Obviously i don’t see a point in convincing people that evolution is wrong, however your teacher (i believe) has a number of excellent points.
wrt oxidation - this is a very interesting process. True, in many current biological systems, this can be an extremely destructive force. At the same time, from an organic chemist’s point of view (which i was briefly) it can be a very handy process for generating a variety of molecules from apparently stable ones.
Basically you take a fairly non-reactive organic molecule, expose it to an oxidant, and “presto” you have something much more reactive - such as a carboxillic acid (found on the ends of amino acids - which bind to a nitrogenous base via a covalent bond with an amino acid next to it).
With an inert atmostphere, such as CO2 and nitrogen one might have trouble descerning how these processes might otherwise come about.
Note: ozone is also handy for certain organic reactions.
Also: UB radiation, in that it might hydrolyze and break certain bonds, given conditions many years ago, it might have a different effect, depending on the nature of the atmostphere, as well as any cloud (or water layer - as mentioned in Genesis) surrounding the earth.
(yes F and F, i realize that my biblical reference might well sully anything intelligent that i have written. i don’t care)

[TG Moses VI]

Yeah I guess, you’re right. I think that I did over react a little too much, and I apologize. It is a pretty good argument if you think of it.

[Guest]

Most of the things have been answered by CC already, but maybe i can add one or two aspects.

@TG:

Life is often portrayed as arising from some sort of “primordial soup”. There it is nutrients in a primitive sea, a lightning strike in the distance is imparting the energy of life. But to go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, we would have to pass through a number of stages:

1. EARLY ATMOSPHERE -
   For starters we need a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.

It looks like that has been the case, see below.

2. SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES -
   We need a means of constructing the building blocks of life.

done in the lab, see below

3. LARGE MACRO-MOLECULES (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.) -
   Some the simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules.

done in the lab, see below

4. BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS -
   Biological systems such as energy conversion must be constructed.

there are hypothesis’s for that, see below

5. LIVING CELL -
   And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.

there are hypothesis for that, see below

Now starting from the beginning, our current atmosphere consists primarily of oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%) and is called oxidizing because of chemical reactions produced by oxygen. The presence of oxygen in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere poses a difficult problem for notions of self-assembling molecules. If oxygen were present, there would be no amino acids, sugars, purines, etc. Amino acids and sugars react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.

Because it is impossible for life to evolve with oxygen, evolutionists theorize an early atmosphere without oxygen. Instead, they propose an atmosphere, which contains free hydrogen. Originally, they postulated an atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), free hydrogen and water vapor.
There is a problem if you consider the ozone (O3) layer, which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. Without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. But if you have oxygen, it prevents life from starting.

Unless you “form” the molecules in a different regime from where they later exist. Assume a large, deep mass of water. It will absorb the UV, so its deeper layers are UV-free. Forming can happening close to the atmosphere, and those molecules that drop to deeper sealevels will not be destroyed (see Urey effect for that).
And of course: the ozone layer is very (!) far away from where the action takes place. But from what i read, it wasn’t there, my sources assume a reducing atmosphere.

In must be noted at this point that the existence of a reducing atmosphere is theoretical and does not rely on physical evidence. To the contrary, there are geological evidences for the existence of an oxidizing atmosphere as far back as can be determined. Among these are: the precipitation of limestone (calcium carbonate) in great quantities, the oxidation of ferrous iron in early rocks and the distribution of minerals in early sedimentary rocks.

There then seem to be at least two different points of view. I guess for each reference to the oxydating atmosphere i can give one which proofs the reducing atmosphere.
This question therefor is open, and cannot be used to disproof something.

“Then i will look around for a source of the lab experiment, where they did just that, creating a reproducing molecule in conditions that once were predominant on our earth (AFAWK).”

Honestly, I would like to see this. Can there really be life from dead chemicals?

Ok, i looked around:
in 1953 there was an expermiment by Stanley Miller in Chicageo, who showed that you can build biological molecules out of non-biological ones. (he used an atmosphere of Hydrogen, Methan, Ammonia and watere electrical discharges, and could show that aminoacids, carbonhydrates and lipo-acids were produced. There was no ammonia in the early atmosphere as far as we know today, but he showed that you can build the needed molecules to start life out of others.)
Later similar experiments (don’t know who) showed that you can build purines and pyrimidine (which are part of the RNA!) out of the primordial soup
The very first catalyser for the forming of self reproducing molecules could be a crystal called Pyrit, which is (after the webpage i found, don’t know much about cryzstals) an electrically self-polarizing crystal, means it provides an electric field at its ends. Martin Keller from Regensburg showed that this crystal enhances biochemical reactions.

Scientists from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (State NY), showed that another crystal could have worked as some kind of “skeleton” for the formation of RNA.
So, the first “life” without a “cell” could have taken place in and under the protection of these crystalline “reactors” (also calcit could be important, but i didn’t find more than just it being mentioned).

There seems to be one cylce (citronic acid cycle would be the literal translation) that still takes place in archaebacteria, which synthesis organic carbon out of CO2, and produces peptides and lipids as secondary products (which you need to build the cell membrane).

“Nuitrition” for the first organism can be supplied by the underwater “black smokers” who supply hydrogen and ironsulfid.

Another hypothesis:
It has been showed that dust coulds in space contain sugars and proteins. NASA scientists set up an experiment, forming “comets”, that is iceblocks at near absolute zero, out of water, methan, ammonia, CO and CO2, fomred it under conditions of temperature, darkness and vaccum that you would find in space ( you will find the same chemical components as well). UV Radiation then lead to the forming of many and some very large molecules. Bringing these molecules into contact with water, they spontanously formed protocells (which means, some of the molecules must have been lipo-acids), that is a cell-membrane with nothing in it. Still, creating a membrane “out of nothing” can happen! See some article in the „Proceedings of the National Academy of Science“ for that.

In short: if you are interested, google for it :). looking for “molecules” and “primordial soup” gives some hits. “Miller” and “Urey” can help as well.