That’s an inaccurate claim about OOL theory, specifically it is the opposite. Your post, scientifically, is a straw man. I don’t have anything to say about whether divine feet were involved. But perhaps consider reading the article I recommended earlier in the thread so you can learn more about the RNA World and work on prebiotic chemistry.
1 Like
I missed this post - I provided details above to show that even if we assume HCN can be formed, and aldehydes, the conditions found in nature prevent these from undergoing the synthetic steps proposed by the ACS paper. I think any serious scientist understand this, and the default position of those who want to believe this did take place, is to argue that these steps must have taken place.
Formamide undergoing chemistry to any complex molecule, let alone ribonucleotides, is a difficult synthetic route that requires careful control of conditions. In complicated mixture and in the presence of oxidants and inorganic compounds, any number of reactions can take place before any complex organic molecules can form.
Thus there is a great deal of speculation, and one prominent chemist who promoted such chemistry was removed as an office holder from the ACS because he kept insisting unlikely chemistry would take place (he then used a backdoor publication to argue others agreed with him, and that cost him dearly)…
[quote=“RalphDaveWestfall, post:101, topic:5604”]
I understand that although people may appreciate satire when it targets perspectives that conflict with their own, they often take offense when it is directed at their own cherished ideas.[/quote]
I understand that when people’s own cherished ideas are threatened, they go to great lengths to misrepresent conflicting ideas. That’s what you are doing, Ralph.
Perhaps you should learn more about the hypotheses you oppose before demanding so much more effort from others.
No. All evolution needs is replication. We can keep the definition of life fuzzy.
Evidence to support your reverse engineering claim, please. That’s just a naked assertion.
On what basis do you make this claim, Ralph?
This is irrelevant, as I certainly don’t hypothesize that the first life was cellular, nor was it complex. You’re setting up a straw man.
Perhaps you should learn more before pontificating?
The idea that RNA itself would evolve into living cells is absurd.
But with no competition, it wouldn’t need to do so quickly nor very well.
Easy. You don’t think that ribozymes are capable of this?
It takes some audacity to write that. Ralph, what enzyme is catalyzing the production of EVERY protein in your body RIGHT NOW?
2 Likes
Is BioLogos really the most productive place for this kind of discussion? There are no rules in the BioLogos mission statement that prohibit supporters, such as myself, from believing God created the first bits of life.
And here you are “worrying” the matter about something that nobody really knows about, and is completely possible within a God-driven scenario.
Wouldn’t it be more useful to discuss the probabilities that God would have used evolutionary processes to accomplish his ends … rather than special creation for the 1+ million terrestrial species that we find in the modern age?
George
Hello Ralph,
Just jumping in here and would like to respond to the following part of your long recent post:
You’re absolutely correct, there is no way that a simple one-cell organism could just form on its own, even the simplest bacterium, it’s literally impossible. However, what OOL researchers now define as a, “cell” is not a bacterium but something much simpler. There is a long article on BBC.com that explains the history of OOL research and current theories, some of which appear promising.
But why can’t researchers create a simpler cell? Processes over longs periods of time are not things that can’t be easily duplicated in a lab. As an analogy, if my wife left me, those outside looking it (lab scientists) could easily see that I need to move on, that’s she’s gone, no use agonizing over it. But that’s not real life. It still would take me time to get over her.
I don’t know if that’s a helpful analogy but the first point is the more important one anyway.
I disagree. The new roof on my house has a 40-year warranty. The materials manufacturer did not conduct tests over 40 years to establish that. Instead testing simulated the weathering processes at a very speeded-up rate.
The same approach can be applied to simulating the origin of even the simplest forms of life or their predecessors. That would likely require the generation of a lot of individual components, many of which would occur very rarely under natural conditions, and some which might deteriorate fairly quickly after formed. And some that might not occur at all under the conditions where others might occur.
In a laboratory such components might be synthesized simultaneously and then brought together to form more complex assemblies. Although this obviously would not represent natural conditions, doing this kind of work could provide a lot of insight on the possible conditions that would be required in nature for the same thing to happen.
BTW I recently finished The logic of chance: the nature and origin of biological evolution, by Eugene V. Koonin (2011). Although it’s over 400 pages and requires some previous knowledge, it’s available free online. He has been doing a lot of recent research on the topic and is very candid about the obstacles to the origin of life through natural causes.
Since Koonin is a materialist, his solution to the great improbabilities of abiogenesis is the Many Worlds in One hypothesis (MWO), whose support is much more conceptual than empirical. Or as someone sarcastically put it, “Evolution is Easy: It Just Takes An Infinite Number of You.” However it may be more appropriate in this discussion to replace the word ‘evolution’ by the phrase ‘origin of life’ in that jab.
Hi George:
Did I say or imply a belief in special creation of a large number of species? If you think so, please provide quotes that lead you to that inference. I try hard to avoid ambiguities, so seeing such examples could help me to be more precise in the future.
I do happen to believe that divine intervention (even just at a low level) is the most credible explanation (via abductive reasoning) for the origin of life. I’m also open to the idea that such intervention might have occurred occasionally after that. However I absolutely do not believe that all or a large number of species were specially created.
I have talked to a number of engineers about this. Every one of them has said that given an adequate budget, they can replicate a fully functional Harley Davidson from industrial raw materials by reverse engineering a sample. Do you know of any biologists who can reverse engineer an extremely simple cell? Or to make it easier, just disassemble and reassemble one?
1 Like
Hello Ralph,
I’m thinking that your roof may be a little less complex than the first forms of biological life. But, back to my original point, we don’t know where the first forms developed and therefore the conditions, so how can we duplicate something that is unknown?
I recently read a long article on BBC.com that summarized the latest developments of OOL research. Though I don’t think we’ll ever figure out how life started, but some of the research avenues seem pretty promising.