Prime Factor

[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.

[cystic crypt]

@F_alk:

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.

Hmmm . . . lipids. I still can’t escape them.
Note: “soap” can and will form a “membrane”. So will fat etc. A spontaneous bilayer, of course, requires solution (i.e. an aqueous environment).
Also this experiment should have been logically deduced by an organic chemist. I.e. Methane, when subjected to energy at a given wavelength, may lose a hydrogen group, becoming a free-radical something like this:
H3C* (that “*” refers to an extra electron). This molecule then can run amock doing the same to other molecules. The higly reactive free-radicals may then join together, filling their octets with electrons, forming long chains. Toss in a “CO2” at the end and you have your lipid (fatty-acid chain). These things will ultimately form micelles, membranes, or just a layer floating on the top like an oil slick. These membranes, however, little resemble membranes found in nature. Glue them together with a glycerol and toss a phosphate group at the end and “Presto” - a funcioning phospholipid. Now you have a biologically relevant membrane. Before you just had my sink with some soap poured in there.
(sorry for boring you - did my M.Sc. on polyglycerol phospholipids)

[yourbuttocks]

Whoa, Fisternis is at it again, beating up poor crypt with his “Unicorns never existed so neither does God” arguments.

So, Fisternis, where did matter come from? Has it simply always existed?

Moses, your sister is a Christian? What denomination? Has she told you of the error of your ways? :lol:

And Crypt, the only one here who is a woman fanatic is Moses and his “McDonald’s” fetish [sic]. The rest of us (including you) are normal.

[FinsterniS]

Whoa, Fisternis is at it again, beating up poor crypt with his “Unicorns never existed so neither does God” arguments.

I never said god does not exist because unicorns never existed. I just said the bible make reference to unicorns and i find that amusing. Don’t make me say things i never said.

So, Fisternis, where did matter come from? Has it simply always existed?

“Where did matter come from ?” Just another way to say “How can the universe exist ?”

I know somes things, but not everything, i am not a christian and i do not pretend to know how the unvierse exist and what is good or wrong. However, i have enough knowledge to know god cannot be the first cause, because it is certainly where you are going with your “matter”. This argument seem just to be a variant of the “Each thing require a cause”, and as the “Each Desing need a Designer” argument, it has been refute again and again by different people. In your topic “Defence of Catholicism” I clearly expose my argument why it is not a valid argument, and the interesting thing is that Falk use another way to refute it. You were not able to answer my questions about the logical coherence of your argument, i don’t know why you are asking the same question again. If you who an argument of the type;

Matter exist
It must have a cause
And God is the only possible uncaused cause
Then god exist

I will soon burn them, as they are full of fallacies…

If you want to believe in god; don’t look at science and don’t use deformation to caution your belief. You want to believe in god ? Well i don’t care. But please don’t come up with the “uncaused cause” and the “design need designer”, it’s an insult to my science.

Moses, your sister is a Christian? What denomination? Has she told you of the error of your ways?

Wooooo, the “error”… i wish you are not serious, otherwise it is another good exemple of christian arrogance. I can hardly believe someone can really believe, that of all the religion, he’s on the right one, as most of them goes on different direction.

It make me thing of a tale, a real tale; the history of japan’s religion. There’s was a religion called shintoism in japan, the emperor was one of the gods (a Kami if a remember right), and it was a religion for everyone. Then buddhism came from Korea, the two religion meet, and they merge. Shintoim get a little of the buddhism and Buddhism get a little of the Shintoism, still there was no important war (maybe even no war at all) for religion. Often those who represent Kami were goind to buddhist monastery at old age. Then, christianism came. Christianism does not want compromise, as other religion were false… It was an era of wars as christians daymio (lord) were fighting buddhist/shintoist daymio.

The morale; of all the religions, the more dangerous are the monotheistic, because they think they have the true message of god, others are infidels.

[TG Moses VI]

@F_alk:

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.

Hmmm… interesting. I never though of that.

@F_alk:

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.

Wait… so these experiments happened in the 1950’s? It seems a bit odd that our science books don’t mention this. Have there been any other such breakthroughs more up to date?

@F_alk:

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.

Likely this theory happened

@yourbuttocks:

.
Whoa, Fisternis is at it again, beating up poor crypt with his “Unicorns never existed so neither does God” arguments.”

Wait… where did this ever come up? Last I knew, we were all discussing about evolution.

@yourbuttocks:

Moses, your sister is a Christian? What denomination? Has she told you of the error of your ways? :lol:

She goes to St. Thomas Episcopal Church (that’s Christian, right?), and sometimes I go with her. So far I’m the only non-Christian to carry the Bible in my backpack (to protect it with its “Holiness”) when I go to school. And No, she hasn’t told me the “error” of my ways, and does everything a good religious person should – not force their religion onto others. Sorry, I think FinsterniS was right about “Christian arrogance”

@yourbuttocks:

And Crypt, the only one here who is a woman fanatic is Moses and his “McDonald’s” fetish [sic]. The rest of us (including you) are normal.

Wha—what the hell? Where did you take a honest discussion about evolution and insert a personal attack on my apparent “McDonald’s fetish” in it? Sorry, but I think you have this weird fascination with women if you took that joke a little too seriously. The best I was hoping was if someone would get a kick out of it (like Horten), but you seem to have twisted it into some sort of sick fetish. Don’t assume such things, if I were you.

F_alk,

For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids(which is the one I think you mention), a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the “trap” in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.

Another problem is that different molecules will react with one another. For example, amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?