And you class yourself as exempt from that? After using a fanatical bible thumping preacher as your support? In hindsight we all probably have a bias...you included. Mine though is science guided as much as possible.
So, if I understand correctly you are not opposed to the idea of abiogenesis per se, it's just that it required a motivated intelligence rather than a probabilistic process. IOW, a synthetically induced process? Does Tour explain exactly how the Intelligent Designer managed to create the first bio-molecule from the available resources in the early Universe? Biomolecule Part of a series on Biochemistry Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Key components Metabolism Index Outline History of Biochemistry History Biochemistry Cell biology Bioinformatics Enzymology Genetics Immunology Molecular biology Plant biochemistry Structural biology Branches of biochemistry List of biochemists Glossaries Glossary of biology Glossary of chemistry Portals: Biochemistry v t e Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A representation of the 3D structure of myoglobin, showing alpha helices, represented by ribbons. This protein was the first to have its structure solved by X-ray crystallography by Max Perutz and Sir John Cowdery Kendrew in 1958, for which they received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Only a Nobel prize for these scientists? I'd Canonize them for being able to copy God's sacred creations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomolecule Maybe it wasn't all that difficult after all.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your habitual overuse and inappropriate use of 'fanatical' etc. has cheapened the literary currency for such words much.
The exact folding sequences required to produce that protein actually screams 'extremely difficult'. And I take it you still can't be bothered to read either article I linked to? That would explain your most recent post here.
He [James Tour] was the only one actively cheapening anything, by admitting that even in the face of evidence supporting Abiogenesis, he would not alter his "fanatical" adoration for the obscure bible. perhaps you may also see the need to add "obscure" to your many excuses and obvious conspiracy nonsense with regards to mainstream.
Actually quite amazing how these IDers, [of any form] 'YEC's, and other religions, will always fall back on their "God of the gaps" excuse....first it was the BB as the work of God, [One can understand why poor old Freddy Hoyle wanted no part of it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! as he foresaw the opening for gullible believers to hang their hat on] and now Abiogenesis. Historically laughable actually. And all that bullshit and excuse making, while the simple facts of natural possibilities are more and more realised. Poor old Lawrence Krauss copped it after some reasonable assessment of a universe from nothing, now as our knowledge increases on the possible outcome of natural chemical processes, along with certain conditions, we see the gap God installed ever again. One must ask, [as Krauss asked] is there really anything for any mythical God to do!! The simple quandary of the unscientific nature of any proposed deity or supernatural as unevidenced and unexplained, doesn't bother them...just listen again to Tour!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Stringing together as many negative words as possible and aiming them at ones ideological foes works a treat - in your mind that is. Wham bam biff, you've given em a knockout blow! In your mind that is. Actually you should but never will carefully consider what Tour has to say - on the subject of abiogenesis/OOL. His afaik latest plea for sanity to prevail: https://inference-review.com/article/time-out The usual know-it-alls here won't bother to even click on the link - they 'know' it must be bunkum. What a pity.
"Extremely difficult" is merely a relative term, given the universal spaces, conditions, and exponential chemical interactions over a period of some 14 billion years. Do you have any idea of how many chemical reactions have occurred in the universe? Your problem is that you are always using the earth as your base-line. I have already given you the number of chemical reactions that have occurred on earth alone. Pay attention now! Earth has performed some "2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion" chemical interactions over its relative short lifespan and small spatial surfaces. Do you know how big a number that is? Now multiply this number by the number of stars, planets, cosmic clouds in the entire Universe! Do you understand the mathematical probability of a series of events occurring in some accumulative linear fashion? Ever Heard of a Prillionaire? by Carol Castellon? Do you watch the TV show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” hosted by Regis Philbin? Have you ever wished for a million dollars? "In today’s economy, even the millionaire doesn’t receive as much attention as the billionaire. Winners of a one-million dollar lottery find that it may not mean getting to retire, since the million is spread over 20 years (less than $3000 per month after taxes)."1 "If you count to a trillion dollars one by one at a dollar a second, you will need 31,710 years. Our government spends over three billion per day. At that rate, Washington is going through a trillion dollars in a less than one year. . or about 31,708 years faster than you can count all that money!"1 I’ve heard people use names such as “zillion,” “gazillion,” “prillion,” for large numbers, and more recently I hear “Mega-Million.” It is fairly obvious that most people don’t know the correct names for large numbers. https://faculty.math.illinois.edu/~castelln/prillion_revised_10-05.pdf
What's up q-reeus? You remind me somewhat of schmelzer, with your complaints, accusations and whinging, yet are pretty apt at handing them out yourself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I've state the facts...They still stand. [1] Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer for life: [2] The exact pathway as yet is unknown. [3] Any inferences of deities, Gods or any other magical spaghetti monsters is simply unscientific crap, that gullible people accept after being handed down from generation to generation, starting of course when science was virtually non existent.
Those immense numbers Hazen's calculations furnish are deceptive. Biological molecules are typically very long homochiral chains of precisely interconnected base units. Prebiotic random chemical interactions will overwhelmingly produce junk molecules. On the rare occasion something actually useful as a starter compound comes along, it's chances of progressing further in the right direction steeply decline since a myriad of the wrong kind of reactions will out compete continued growth of the very specific right ones. Huge numbers and immense time scales are of no help and in fact will guarantee failure. And that just to produce a single specifically ordered strand molecule. Which is so far short of even the most primitive cell as to be laughable.
But you accept the bible thumping agenda laden views of Tour without blinking an eye. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nonsense. And that's why the majority of the science world have ignored the claims of Tour and in fact as I have shown, refuted them.
Which runs straight into the obvious - clays and crystals and such replicate successfully even now, in a far more hostile world than replicators of the distant past faced. Snowflakes fall by the billions - the ones in my driveway last for months, sometimes. And so forth. The assumption that "reactive molecular species" that can chew up the stuff we find around hydrothermal vents would not themselves replicate seems shortsighted, as well. And to cap it: "essentially" 100% and actually no kidding guaranteed 100% discovery and degradation are quite different - if one in a hundred billion little chiral silico/sulphur/carbon compounds gets a bit of a jump every so often, it's Katie bar the door - Darwinian evolution doesn't need it easy.
Snowflakes don't replicate - they nucleate and grow individually often on seed dust particles. Famously - no two exactly the same. As for inorganic clays 'replicating' - they are the weathered byproducts of granites and similar primary minerals. They would? Which species pray tell? How would that yield homochiral biologically useful macro-molecules? Oh I'm sorry. My wording not quite precise enough. Substitute 'essentially 100% probability at or near the outset'. With zero chance of replication to a useful length of several hundred base units. But we'll allow a miracle. Even then, without homochirality and specified information content being built in *somehow*, all you could have at best is a useless molecular strand without biological activity and a sitting duck for the next reactive molecule poisoning any hope of repeat replication.
Please ...... and you want to replace this with a motivated intelligence, who has figured this all out 14 billion years ago? Q, you are going places where the buses don't run.
I'll check the next issue of Nature and find out the general view re Abiogenesis OK?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Or alternatively show me some reputable scientific consensus that dismisses Abiogenesis. No, your bible thumping fanatical James Tour certainly will not do.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00409 Introduction: Chemical Evolution and the Origins of Life Chemical evolution and the origins of life is a topic that spans and transcends many domains: all disciplines of science, eras, cultures, and even space.(1,2) It is a topic that enduringly captures the imagination of scientists and the general public alike.(3−5) Understanding how life arose on the Earth and elsewhere is a historical and reconstructive endeavor, but it is also very much a contemporary and ever-refreshing scientific undertaking.(6) These efforts have rich histories and have been driven by competing ideas ranging from protein-, RNA-, metabolism-, and lipid-world hypothesis to “far-out” ideas such as panspermia.(7−12) From the perspective of chemists this pursuit is focused on understanding how elements and molecules that accumulate on a young planet can transform—under the abiotic geochemical constraints—into self-assembling, self-sustaining interactive systems with emerging patterns and behavior, and begin to evolve into what could be considered as living entities.(13) From the viewpoint of astrochemistry, prebiotic-chemistry, and biochemistry, this thematic issue covers our current understanding of a spectrum of topics associated with the chemical origins of life. Along with their compilations of impressive advances, each contribution also acknowledges remaining unsolved problems and challenges that are to be faced as we aspire to address the grand question “Can the origins of life be demonstrated or understood experimentally?” While answering that question in a historically accurate context may be not possible, it is indeed within the grasp of chemists (with guidance from observations in astrochemistry, geological constraints of early Earth and its atmosphere, prebiotic organic chemistry and extant biochemistry) to demonstrate in the laboratory the transformations of molecules—by chemical reactions—to systems that approximate the behavior/phenomenon observed in biology.(14) Although this may fall short of “recreating life in a test tube”, it surely would be a more modest—but still a powerful—substantiation of the emergence and evolution of chemical processes that can lead to the origins of life. more.................. Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy was born in Chennai, India. He received his B.Sc. from Vivekananda College (University of Madras) and M.Sc. from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Bombay. He obtained his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University (OSU), under the guidance of David Hart. He was a postdoctoral researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zürich with Eschenmoser and was a NASA-NSCORT fellow with Gustaf Arrhenius at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He then rejoined Eschenmoser at the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, resulting in a 13-year collaborative partnership. He is currently an associate professor of chemistry at the Scripps Research Institute. He is a scientific collaborator with the NSF/NASA Center for Chemical Evolution (CCE) and a member of the Simons Collaboration on the Origins of Life (SCOL) and has been appointed as a colead of the Prebiotic Chemistry and Early Earth Environments (PCE3) Consortium, one of the five Research Coordination Networks within the NASA Astrobiology Program. Prof. Krishnamurthy was elected a fellow of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life in 2011. NIH postdoctoral fellow in biophysics at UCLA with Prof. Juli Feigon and Prof. Frank Anet. He joined the faculty of the School of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Georgia Tech in 1999 and was named Regents’ Professor in 2016. He currently serves as Director of the NSF/NASA Center for Chemical Evolution (CCE), and as Associate Director of the Parker H. Petit Institute of Bioengineering and Bioscience. Prof. Hud was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2019 and Fellow of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life in 2014 and was a Sigma Xi Distinguished Lecturer in 2015–2017.
Here is a lengthy paper covering the subject of Abiogenesis.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5413913/ Chemical roots of biological evolution: the origins of life as a process of development of autonomous functional systems: Abstract In recent years, an extension of the Darwinian framework is being considered for the study of prebiotic chemical evolution, shifting the attention from homogeneous populations of naked molecular species to populations of heterogeneous, compartmentalized and functionally integrated assemblies of molecules. Several implications of this shift of perspective are analysed in this critical review, both in terms of the individual units, which require an adequate characterization as self-maintaining systems with an internal organization, and also in relation to their collective and long-term evolutionary dynamics, based on competition, collaboration and selection processes among those complex individuals. On these lines, a concrete proposal for the set of molecular control mechanisms that must be coupled to bring about autonomous functional systems, at the interface between chemistry and biology, is provided. Conclusion: In this prospective critical review, we have focused on the first steps of the process of the origins of life, which have important implications for subsequent stages. Ours constitute a non-conventional approach to prebiotic evolution, because it shifts the attention from homogeneous populations of molecules to populations of heterogeneous, compartmentalized and functionally integrated assemblies of molecules. The consequences of such a shift of perspective are multiple, both at the level of the individual units—which require an adequate characterization as self-maintaining systems with an internal organization—and also in terms of their collective and long-term evolutionary dynamics, based on competition, collaboration and selection mechanisms that are in need of further investigation. The fact that such compartmentalized individuals possess an internal organization allows speaking about function in a physiologically relevant sense, because one can distinguish between parts of the system that contribute in a distinctive way to its maintenance as a whole. Immediate research goals to be targeted, in this context, will be: (i) the implementation of feasible versions of these composite systems, under specific experimental conditions; and (ii) the careful analysis and characterization of the roles played by the various kinds of molecules involved in the integrative process, ascribing functional properties to each of them. In this way, the concept of function has good chances to get naturalized, opening a scientific research programme to discover its deep chemical roots. As a result, new perspectives and theoretical approaches to understand evolvability as a general property of matter, well-grounded in experimental data, should also be brought forth.
You know better. Materialism, a fundamental dogma of mainstream science, has by definition no room for the supernatural. Hence the absolute commitment to a wholly naturalistic answer. Says the mathematically totally illiterate scientism fanatic who is incapable of doing any science. What's more, shacked up with a bible-believing missus who believes in a 'flying spaghetti monster deity' and sucks it up from bible thumping preachers. Wow. Conflicted much? Does that sound offensive? Far more accurate than your totally unwarranted dismissal of a renowned scientist with credentials and track record the envy of most of his peers. I warned you before about throwing stones while living in a glasshouse. You never learn. I refer you back to p5 #97: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/chemical-evolution.163475/page-5#post-3656038
