Evolution versus Creationism

[AngryZealot]

Here's a great video on the origin of life (with a few more details). This is my favorite theory.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Great video. Thanks.

 

[Simple Simon]

However, I find the mica hypothesis more likely... but not in isolation, of course

Indeed, mica may be an excellent catalyzing agent

 

[GoodGame]

Are there any simulations/experiments that actually test the mica hypothesis?

 

[El_Machinae]

That author (Hansma) has 29 papers in pubmed in which she mentions "mica" in the abstract. Though none of the titles leap out as talking about abiogenesis.

I think abiogenesis is going to be like String Theory. They're going to come across a mechanism which 'works', and then another group will come across a mechanism which 'works'. From there, the theory will snowball to show that there are gazillions of scenarios which can create self-replicating molecules which don't overconsume their environment.

 

[GoodGame]

I did find one by Helen Hansma that looks like it might be interesting for RNA World:
1: Science. 2004 Dec 17;306(5704):2068-72. Links

Comment in:
Science. 2004 Dec 17;306(5704):2048-9.

Building programmable jigsaw puzzles with RNA.Chworos A, Severcan I, Koyfman AY, Weinkam P, Oroudjev E, Hansma HG, Jaeger L.
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9510, USA.

One challenge in supramolecular chemistry is the design of versatile, self-assembling building blocks to attain total control of arrangement of matter at a molecular level. We have achieved reliable prediction and design of the three-dimensional structure of artificial RNA building blocks to generate molecular jigsaw puzzle units called tectosquares. They can be programmed with control over their geometry, topology, directionality, and addressability to algorithmically self-assemble into a variety of complex nanoscopic fabrics with predefined periodic and aperiodic patterns and finite dimensions. This work emphasizes the modular and hierarchical characteristics of RNA by showing that small RNA structural motifs can code the precise topology of large molecular architectures. It demonstrates that fully addressable materials based on RNA can be synthesized and provides insights into self-assembly processes involving large populations of RNA molecules.

Seems like a lot of her work uses Atomic Force Microscope (first time I heard of that device), so looks like her specialty is in nanoscale measurements of molecular physics. Haven't found any publications that actually express the idea of a Mica hypothesis.

 

[uppi]

Seems like a lot of her work uses Atomic Force Microscope (first time I heard of that device)

Really? That surprised me, because that's one of the things physics depatments like to show off in public. (I guess because the concept of making "images" of really small things is easy to convey)

 

[AngryZealot]

I did find one by Helen Hansma that looks like it might be interesting for RNA World:
1: Science. 2004 Dec 17;306(5704):2068-72. Links

This is completely unrelated to the original topic, but it is related to your post. BEHOLD, THE DNA SMILIES

They have a computer program that will generate the DNA sequence needed to fold into any arbitrary shape.

Anyway, we're getting very close to figuring this stuff out. I agree with El_Machinae; in the end, there's likely to be a dozen plausible abiogenesis theories, several of which are confirmed in the lab (ie, we make synthetic life through several different techniques), and we'll never truly know how it happened on Earth.

 

[GoodGame]

They have a computer program that will generate the DNA sequence needed to fold into any arbitrary shape.

Anyway, we're getting very close to figuring this stuff out. I agree with El_Machinae; in the end, there's likely to be a dozen plausible abiogenesis theories, several of which are confirmed in the lab (ie, we make synthetic life through several different techniques), and we'll never truly know how it happened on Earth.

I'm surprised at the first point. Protein folding prediction is far from being certain, AFAIK. Interesting that it can be done with DNA.


I have to agree with the second point, but I think with this type of science that's the point, to come up with the most plausible theory given all that we know. Even if we succeed in developing "brand new" abiogenesis in the lab, we won't know what happened in Earth's past without time-traveling cameras. But we at least have some fun and might accidentally discover something new from the investigation, and actually coming up with de nova abiogenesis would be pretty cool too (as long as it doesn't turn into a Frankenstein's monster).

 

[El_Machinae]

The analogy I like to use is that we'll never know what Alexander the Great ate on his 13th birthday. We have a bunch of ideas of what it could be (pig? fish?). We have a bunch of ideas what it couldn't be (e.g., a Big Mac). But this is not really a weakness in our theory of nutrition or our historical knowledge of what people ate back then.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Not necessarily - they may go hand in hand in one respect, but contradict in another. E.g. h-in-h socially (social sciences and church activities), but contradicting scientifically.
Non sequitur, see above. Also, you do not prove this.
There is a giant invisible massless teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Earth.
What, you can't prove me wrong?
So there is a teapot.....
See where you go wrong?

but the difference between that statement you said and my conjecture is that I used the logic that "nothing I see contradicts each other, and they both make sense.... they both must be right"
I never said "I've proven that religion is right through science, therefore they are one in the same, to an extent"

its one thing to use logic to assume something than it is to just randomly state a fact

No, that is nothing but speculation.

either way, speculation or not, if you view it that way (which has no evidence against it) they both fit together

Hu?
what is that supposed to be?
Sorry, but I can't make head nor tail of this! You bring anecdotal evidence for something that certainly isn't common knowledge (Word of Wisdom), which AFAI can tell has nothing to do with either religion or science. Then, you proceed to make a series of generalized claims that are (mostly) false.

the Word of Wisdom is often a piece of MY religion that is common knowledge among many people, often causing controversy with some... often leading to inquiries

EXAMPLES:
No, that was known long before.
No, grains have been the staple of normal human diet roughly since the neolithic revolution. Roughly 12,000 years ago.

the Word of Wisdom was published well before it was common knowledge of the effects of alcohol and the importance of carbohydrates....

You replied to other posts. I was not, as you pretend, commenting on the temporal delay at all.

I replied to those posts that were on the last page, rather than sort through all the reponses

Total misrepresentation. Atoms do not think, nor do molecules.
Will you stop reading thigs into my posts that I never said?
atoms have no will. PERIOD. Go re-read my post, please.

I never said you did. I was implying that seems to be the only logical way for those complex molecules to form.

Finally you get it - but why do you read things into my posts that aren't there?
Here it is again, for those who have trouble with complex sentence structure:
PROCESS 1:
1) Molecules and atoms present in watery solution
2) molecules have chemical properties
3) so do atoms
so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?
4) chemical properties mean non-random distribution
5) chemical properties mean chemical reactions between molecules and atoms
so far, still basic organic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?
6) complex molecules catalyze other reactions
7) this generates more complex molecules
8) possibly, molecules are generated that cause reactions that create copies of themselves.
We achieved self-replication.
so far, still basic organic chemistry. No consciousness. You follow?
PROCESS 2:
1) 1) Molecules and atoms present in watery solution
2) molecules have chemical properties
3) so do atoms
so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?
4) chemical properties mean non-random distribution
5) chemical properties mean chemical reactions between molecules and atoms
6) this lead to lipids (fatty molecules) forming a layer on top of watery fluids
so far, basic chemistry. No consiousness. You follow?
7) wave action can lead to droplets spraying about, folding lipid layer onto itself.
8) wave action can flip doubled lipid layer and film of water adhering to it into a tiny bubble.
We have now a double-lipid cell membrane
so far, basic chemistry. No consciousness.
Now have PROCESS 2 happen on water in which PROCESS 1 has been running. Presto, first basic cell......

in your process one... where do those complex molecules that catalyze reactions randomly appear from? How is it that IF they were to appear as if by random, that they just so happened to be what was required to catalyze that reaction. That's like pulling a random molecule out of the air, pulling a random enzyme from your body, and by chance having them be compatable.

in your process 2, forming a simple phosolipid bilayer is one thing. When you talk about adding in other aspects of cells, like how did ATP synthase form, or other things that would have to randomly occur, such as that double layer folding in on itself and capturing a self-replicating molecule.
and that new cell of yours that just formed. How does IT replicate? It has self-replicating material inside of it, but does that molecule SOMEHOW by the STROKE OF LUCK just happen to ALSO react that it can form ribosomes, necessary for the production of proteins out of amino acids it just so happens to be able to obtain randomly? Life isn't as simple as you're making it

As for your claim that complex molecules are different from 'simple' molecules such as rust: formic acid, e.g., is constantly being created in interstellar gas.

So what do you think, how many atoms does a macromolecule need to contain, so that it cannot be created by nature by a simple process (like heating the constituent atoms enough), without any need for the atoms to be conscious?

combining iron, oxygen, and water to form a simple compound is quite a bit easier than forming a series of nucleotides (not only themselves being more complex, but having several) that form together on a backbone of alternating phosphates and sugars to form a compound that reacts in such a way that it can self-replicate... I still fail to see how you can think otherwise

If it was proved that God exists (which I think would be impossible, but let's assume that it happened), I would believe that he exists, yes.

I was talking about using the scientific method to prove a hypothesis and form a scientific theory - not pulling numbers out of your ass (which is what the bible code people do)

i not only think you can't do it - i don't think anyone could do it. you don't have a scientific hypothesis or theory on your hands, so.. you can't use the scientific process to figure out if you're wrong or not.

all you're saying now is that "I don't agree with you" That seems to be what you're saying now

 

[uppi]

combining iron, oxygen, and water to form a simple compound is quite a bit easier than forming a series of nucleotides (not only themselves being more complex, but having several) that form together on a backbone of alternating phosphates and sugars to form a compound that reacts in such a way that it can self-replicate... I still fail to see how you can think otherwise

I certainly see, that they're more complex. That's why I asked you, how complex a molecule has to be in your opinion that it cannot be formed by a simple chemical process.

We have established that molecules can be established by a simple process. You said, that this somehow isn't possible without the atoms being conscious, for some complex structure. As you seem to be sure of that, you should be able to give some sort of limit, what can be created by simple chemical reactions and what not.

 

[AngryZealot]

in your process one... where do those complex molecules that catalyze reactions randomly appear from? How is it that IF they were to appear as if by random, that they just so happened to be what was required to catalyze that reaction. That's like pulling a random molecule out of the air, pulling a random enzyme from your body, and by chance having them be compatable.

in your process 2, forming a simple phosolipid bilayer is one thing. When you talk about adding in other aspects of cells, like how did ATP synthase form, or other things that would have to randomly occur, such as that double layer folding in on itself and capturing a self-replicating molecule.
and that new cell of yours that just formed. How does IT replicate? It has self-replicating material inside of it, but does that molecule SOMEHOW by the STROKE OF LUCK just happen to ALSO react that it can form ribosomes, necessary for the production of proteins out of amino acids it just so happens to be able to obtain randomly? Life isn't as simple as you're making it

Scientists have evolved enzymes from completely random protein sequences. It's not nearly as unlikely as you might guess. Consider that nearly the entire planet was covered in ocean and volcanic activity. You have an entire planet full of various polymers. We're talking 10^23 or more. It's an incomprehensible number, and all it takes is one. Our minds don't work on that scale. Yes, the individual chances of a given polymer to have the right catalytic activity are low, but when you're exploring a trillion squared of possible solutions, it seems inconceivable to me not to find something. And this is just at one given instant! All this was going on for tens of millions of years. The number of different transient polymers on the early earth is unfathomable.

The video I linked above explains all this in a beautifully elegant way. To summarize:

The first lipid vesicles replicated by sheering. Because of osmotic forces, vesicles that contain lots of solutes suck the insides of other vesicles and grow larger, and thus are more likely to sheer. A vesicle that contains any polymerase activity, no matter what type or what speed, will have a selective advantage (because it traps solutes inside), and evolution takes off from there. It could have been anything: sugars, proteins, nucleic acids, or something we haven't considered. This only increases the solution set farther still. The first polymers could easily have formed from the intense UV radiation on the early earth; there were also many, many more radioactive nucleotides around to initiate various processes. The atmosphere was also reducing, which promotes the formation of polymers. Plus there's all the evidence that various minerals catalyze nucleic acid formation, and the fact that RNA can catalyze the synthesis of its complementary strand through base pair and stacking interactions.

As for proteins, the theory posits that ribozymes initially bound short peptides to act as cofactors -- after all, most of a protein is simply scaffolding for a few important amino acids. Various experiments have shown this is possible. Consider that ribosomes are made primarily of RNA, and the catalytic part of the ribosome is RNA. Protein is not involved at the catalytic site of protein synthesis. The first cells didn't need ribosomes. They only had to create small peptides, and this can be catalyzed by RNA just as modern ribosomes do.

You're falling into the trap of assuming the first protocel had all the machinery of modern cells (ribosomes, protein enzymes, etc). It didn't. In fact, if we saw it today, we probably even classify it as life.

Evolution of ATP Synthase.

 

[Moss]

I met Richard Dawkins wednesday.

Just throwin' that out there.

I heard he was at the U of M, I take it you went...how was his presentation??

Edit: I just came across this:

No one has ever successfully refuted the Bible. Many mock the Bible but avoid challenging it point by point. No one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible.

http://www.believers.org/believe/bel191.htm

I'm too lazy to look that up, but that statement seems, wrong.

Edit again: even more from that site...

The Bible is historically correct. No one has ever proved otherwise.

The more we learn of history, the more the Bible is validated.

Hundreds of statements in the Bible, which in times past have been held untrue by enemies of the Bible, have recently been proven true by archaeologists. The more that archaeologists find from the past, the more the Bible is proven accurate historically.

No archaeological discovery has ever disproved a biblical reference. The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, they're wrong. I guess there's no one to stop someone from being wrong on the internet.

 

[Simple Simon]

but the difference between that statement you said and my conjecture is that I used the logic that "nothing I see contradicts each other, and they both make sense.... they both must be right"
I never said "I've proven that religion is right through science, therefore they are one in the same, to an extent"

Where did I say that you said science proves religion? Be careful what you read into my statements, buddy!

No, you use logic - that is the first thing you may not do when dealing with religion! After all, religion is a-logical, or rather anti-logical.
Second, how can a non-testable claim with no explanatory power 'make sense'? And how dare you conclude from 'making sense' that something 'must be right'?

What you do is a refusal of rationality, because you limit it to idle speculation!

its one thing to use logic to assume something than it is to just randomly state a fact

Yeah, the fact is a fact and remains a fact, while logic can only deliver results as good as your starting assumption. If you fail to fact-check that, your entire logical construction fails.

either way, speculation or not, if you view it that way (which has no evidence against it) they both fit together

False. Let's backtrack to the important and thus far unanswered point, which you now avoided again:

In addition, by proving that science and religion go hand-in-hand, I prove that they don't contradict each other.

You have not brought any evidence that
- science and religion do not contradict each other
- science and religion go hand in hand.

You speculate on that, but if you search the internet you can find trillions of cases where science busts religious myths. Also, religion is without any factual, scientifically tested background - no gods, no miracles, no daily intervention on behalf of those who pray, no prayer healing, etc.

Also, you can easily find many examples where religion undermines and destroys science. Taliban Afghanistan, non-Taliban Afghanistan, Kansas, Florida, Iraq, I can go on for pages.

And do you happen to know what a bijective relationship is? You assume, without any good reason, that 'going hand in hand' and 'do not contradict each other' are such a relation. THat, however, is obviously also false.

the Word of Wisdom is often a piece of MY religion that is common knowledge among many people, often causing controversy with some... often leading to inquiries

Care to finally explain what it is supposed to be? I fail to find any sort of explanation of what it IS! I do not, a this point, care what you think about it, what it may lead to, and who else knows it. TELL ME WHAT IT IS!

the Word of Wisdom was published well before it was common knowledge of the effects of alcohol and the importance of carbohydrates....

Uh, when exactly? About.... 10,000 BC?

Another religious myst busted.......

I never said you did. I was implying that seems to be the only logical way for those complex molecules to form.

Hm, trouble with reading comprehension, anyone?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7914897&postcount=190
so that you can't say you didn't post it....

In that, you said Abiogenesis wasn't random. Your implying that somehow, that atom thought it better to be in a molecule than in its own state. Somehow, those atoms willed themselves to join into a compound. Then, that compound somehow willed itself to recreate itself that it could do it all over again? Tell me... how does that work? Are atoms conscious?

Liar, liar, ass on fire! not 'you were implying that that seems to be...', rather, you were claiming that I was implying consciousness in atoms.

it is exactly this sort of so-so lackadaisical treatment of language and facts why religious people never want to rigorously investigate any issue: their arguments are usually based on NOT being exact, and thus are often false from the very start.

in your process one... where do those complex molecules that catalyze reactions randomly appear from?

Random chance.

How is it that IF they were to appear as if by random, that they just so happened to be what was required to catalyze that reaction.

oh, but that is not the case, don't you see? I tried to explain it before: there will be billions and billions of non-working molceules, but once one works, by pure chance.... off you go!

That's like pulling a random molecule out of the air, pulling a random enzyme from your body, and by chance having them be compatable.

Nope, that's exactly NOT what it is. Imagine playing the lottery - what's you chance of winning the jackpot? Now let the entire population buy 100 tickets each - what's the chance that someone, somewhere, WILL win?

in your process 2, forming a simple phosolipid bilayer is one thing. When you talk about adding in other aspects of cells, like how did ATP synthase form, or other things that would have to randomly occur, such as that double layer folding in on itself and capturing a self-replicating molecule.
and that new cell of yours that just formed. How does IT replicate? It has self-replicating material inside of it, but does that molecule SOMEHOW by the STROKE OF LUCK just happen to ALSO react that it can form ribosomes, necessary for the production of proteins out of amino acids it just so happens to be able to obtain randomly? Life isn't as simple as you're making it

Oh indeed - life TODAY isn't that simple. You fail to grasp the two main points I war trying to drive home earlier: first of all, a trillion chances makes 1 in a billion a rather likely event. Second, when life began it was in a totally different world than today, and life was totally different. Common logic does not work, because it is based on our experiences TODAY.

combining iron, oxygen, and water to form a simple compound is quite a bit easier than forming a series of nucleotides (not only themselves being more complex, but having several) that form together on a backbone of alternating phosphates and sugars to form a compound that reacts in such a way that it can self-replicate... I still fail to see how you can think otherwise

Easier.... but not fundamentally different. it is a bit like winning $10 in the lottery compared to winning $1,000,000.

 

[Moss]

Well, they're wrong. I guess there's no one to stop someone from being wrong on the internet.

Oh, I know they're wrong, but it's a site many people have given me to "prove" the existence of God and firmly believe all that is written there.

But saying that the statements are wrong is never enough...must present evidence, which you didn't do just now.

 

[BasketCase]

A couple days ago, I had a revelation--



Wait. Stop. I'm an atheist. Atheists don't have religious experiences. Lemme try again:

A couple days ago, I had a BRAINSTORM. There, much better.


All you evolutionists in here have no doubt heard the old argument about how the Universe has exactly the right conditions for human life to form. The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun, the Earth's axis is tipped over at just the right angle, and we have a Moon to stabilize tides (most modern science agrees that human life wouldn't have been possible withou a tippy axis or a Moon). This argument goes all the way down to the quantum level--if the gravitational constant had been just slightly higher or lower, humanity would never have evolved.

This argument used to drive me bonkers. Well, I finally found The Answer.

Consider a drinking glass in your kitchen cabinet. In order to make a drinking glass, the guys at a factory somewhere pour molten glass into a mold. The glass shapes itself to match the mold. You remove the mold, and you have a drinking glass. Just be sure to let it cool before you use it.

You never see anybody go "WOW! The mold was exactly the right shape for the glass! THAT'S AMAZING!!!". Well, that's exactly what Creationists are doing. It's the other way around. It is the glass that shaped itself to match the mold.


The Universe does not have exactly the right conditions for human life. Human life has exactly the right conditions to exist in the Universe. It is human life that evolved itself to match the mold, not the other way around.

Try that out on a Creationist sometime, and let me know what the results are.

 

[Moss]

I like that metaphor, at least at first glance.

 

[AngryZealot]

That's a good explanation, with one point: gravity isn't automatically necessary for life. It's only necessary insofar as life as we know it requires planets, but it isn't a strict requirement. Anyway, yes. If the universe were a little different, life would be a little different but still asking the exact question. Statistically, you can't assess probability with N = 1. We have one universe, so there's no way to judge its ability to harbor life, and the argument for or against is useless.

I like this rebuttal as well, because it's a little more direct: The universe is NOT tuned for life. All life on the planet would fit into about 70 km^3. According to Wikipedia, Earth has a volume of about 1,083,207,317,374 km^3. In other words, life makes up about 6 billionth of a percent of the planet's volume. Now consider that there is no more life in the solar system, and the solar system is magnitudes larger than the planet. On the galactic scale, life is such an inconsequential part of the universe that it seems to me more of an accident. If you were going to design a system to support intelligent life, surely there are more efficient ways to go about it.