Re: Irony

On 12/29/2024 5:26 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 27/12/2024 9:36 am, RonO wrote:

On 12/16/2024 12:10 AM, MarkE wrote:

I've raised Steven Benner's "tar paradox" in a recent post; it subsequently occurred to me that the Miller-Urey experiment is, ironically, a demonstration of this (I've mentioned this in a another thread, but thought it deserved a separate post). Miller-Urey produced only unusable small/trace amounts of amino acids in a "tar" mixture:
>
Breakdown of products:
* Carboxylic Acids (e.g., formic acid, acetic acid, and succinic acid): These dominated the product mix, typically making up 80-90% of the total organic compounds.
* Hydroxy Acids (e.g., lactic acid and glycolic acid): Accounted for 5-10% of the total.
* Amino Acids: Typically contributed about 1-2% of the total organic product yield.
* Other Organic Molecules: Small amounts of urea, nitriles, aldehydes, and hydrocarbons were also formed, constituting the remainder of the products.
>
Relative concentrations of amino acids produced:
- Glycine: Approximately 2.1% of the total yield
- Alanine: Around 1.7%
- β-Alanine: About 0.76%
- Aspartic Acid: Approximately 0.024%
- Glutamic Acid: Around 0.051%
>
>

>
You should be aware that no one knows what the first self replicating molecules were made of.  We definitely do not know that they were linear polymers of anything that you can name.  Researchers have put up possible mineral components.  We already know that amino acids are created in space, but they are not the only components of the first self replicators.
>
About the only thing that you can conclude from what what is known about the initial chemical conditions is that the Biblical scenario has been falsified.  Life was not created as depicted in the Bible.  That has been understood for a very long time.  That is why you have creationists like Denton that just believe that his designer got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and everything unfolded from there.  You still have tweekers like Behe that claim that their designer had to have something to do with the evolution of life on earth, but guys like Behe have also given up on the Biblical scenario.  There is simply no justification for the origin of life denial because no matter how it happened it would not be Biblical, so you shouldn't care how it came to be.  No matter how it comes out it would not support your other biblical beliefs.
>
Ron Okimoto
>

 I am aware that no one knows what the first self replicating molecules were made of. However, the only serious viable candidate for an information-bearing molecule capable of prebiotic replication is a linear sequence of nucleotides. Regardless, if RNA wasn't first, then you have the additional problem of how whatever preceded it transitioned to it. And vague speculation of "metabolism first" and "messy world" seem unconvincing.
 

It doesn't fix your situation.  Whatever happened it is not Biblical. Denial cannot do you any good because no matter how it happened your religious beliefs are not supported.  In fact, if you are in denial in order to support a Biblical designer, any result demonstrating that some god was responsible would mean that you are worshiping a false god.  You need to come to an understanding that the denial is stupid, and no matter what the outcome the Bible is wrong, and you have to accept that fact.  Really, there is no reason for your denial.  Even if some god was determined to be responsible for the origin of life on earth it would not be the god described in the Bible.  You have to become like Denton and Behe, and claim that the Bible doesn't matter in regards to nature. The creation isn't the creation described in the Bible, so it doesn't matter how life arose on this planet, whatever happened should not affect your Biblical beliefs because you should have already acknowledged that the Bible is wrong about nature.  Really Denton is a Biblical Deist and he doesn't care if life arose by natural processes or not.  He thinks that his god got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it as all unfolded into what we have today.
It is not true that nucleotides are the only serious candidate for information bearing molecules.  All molecules have a 3 dimensional structure, so all molecules have the same type of information that nucleotides have.  Nucleotide polymers just have a nifty means of replication.  What about "no one knows what the first self replicators were made of" do you not understand?
Before polymers of nucleotides evolved the self replicators could have been made of anything, as long as they could make other molecules that could make other molecules.  My guess is that the initial "cell" was composed of membrane bound simple self replicators.  Yes there would have to be a process to first have self replicators that likely did other things like make lipids.  Initially it likely would not matter if the self replicators were inside or outside of the membrane bubble just as long as they were attached to the membrane, but once they evolved systems like making nucleotides, polymers would evolve to keep the extra nucleotides from leaking through the membrane.  So there would likely be an inside and outside before nucleotides evolved.  Before there were nucleotide polymers, my guess is that nucleotides evolved to do what they still do today.  They are a means for transferring energy from one reaction to another.  Nucleotide triphosphates are still the energy coin of the cell today.
Ron Okimoto