Abiogenesis - Is It Possible (Creator, Earth, beliefs, evolution)

[kbc_1963]

Abiogenesis - Is it possible when all the evidences provided by science are considered?

I have debated a number of different subjects in the forums but this is one that I have had a shortage of raw up to date information on, so for a few weeks now I have been gathering & studying the most recent info on this theory and from the piles of collected information I have learned many new things involved with this concept. I have been a creationist for many years but I am still able to put aside arguments based on faith alone in order to follow the path of true science to see what may play out from strictly scientific evidences, so all that will follow is based on scientific facts that have been generated by professionals in their specific field of study. I am submitting the sum of my collective understanding on this subject for others to be able to falsify anything that they can with scientific proofs or science backed theories.

I have noted that in many arguments on this subject that the overall process is not addressed and time after time I see the argument only dealing with one specific part of the concept but the true way to address the subject must take into account how each thing interacts with every other, so I ask that any theories proposed should have a scientific basis to work off of and address the concept as a whole. My stance on this subject is this, true science is supposed to make assumptions (theories) based in part on existing scientific observations/ evidences so any good theory with any hope of being true must cover the whole subject and not just one isolated piece of the puzzle so please look at how your answers towards any one part of this theory may affect its other parts.

First let me define what is meant by Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is the belief that life came from inorganic matter, or that life came to exist by NATURAL chemical actions/reactions.

Now with that definition of the subject I can logically imply a few things;

1) That any chemist should be able to setup experiments that can reflect the premise of each step in the abiogenesis theory by setting all the variables needed to allow the natural actions/reaction of the chemicals theorized to make it happen.

2) That all the steps required to attaining life, even in its simplest form could only have occurred as a byproduct of these natural chemical actions and should be attainable in the environment that existed on earth.

3) That since everything we do in a lab with chemistry is intelligently controlled we have a distinct advantage over the natural environment which can only obey laws of chemistry and has no intelligence on its own to control things.

I will start with the environmental factors as we must set the stage for the theory to have happened in first;

It is believed by many that there was a prebiotic soup that allowed an ocean wide environment for the initial chemicals to be able to act and react in, and this belief allows the believers to say that with such a vast expanse for the
chemicals to do their thing in, that it makes the near impossible chemical combinations more probable by having the multitude of trials occurring, so if there is any truth to their belief we should be able to find some evidences in the earth (environment) to backup that claim and It should be easy to find evidence since the process had to occur for a period of time in the billions of years so a decent account of that history should show up in the geological record.

Here are my findings on this subject;

1) If there was a soup then any of the Precambrian rocks should contain high levels of non-biological carbon, because when carbon is biologically produced it contains an excess of isotopically light carbon. At this time the oldest sedimentary rocks show only isotopically light carbon which says to us that as far back as science can see complex life has existed to produce the light carbon.

[Gustaf Arrhenius and graduate student Stephen Mojzsis recently discovered the oldest chemical evidence of life in sedimentary rocks from Greenland. The rocks are estimated to be more than 3.85 billion years old. Carbon in these rocks had an isotope profile seen only in remains of organisms (S.J. Mojzsis et al., Nature, 384:51-9, 1996). "The evidence of the carbon signatures is crucial in arguing that life on Earth was present before 3.85 billion years ago," maintains Mojzsis. "Furthermore, the carbonaceous matter was found in intimate association with the phosphate mineral apatite, a common biologically formed substance." Phosphates exist in cell membranes, enzymes, genetic material, and biological energy molecules.
Yet even this most ancient evidence indicates life far more complex than the molecular entities of an RNA world. "The chemofossil evidence in rocks at least 3.85 billion years old indicates that these organisms had already developed the enzyme mechanisms, used by present-day life, for converting inorganic chemicals to living matter," explains Arrhenius. "These enzymes produce the uniquely strong carbon isotope fractionation characteristic of today's microorganisms."

Higher levels of carbon-12 in carbon chemicals extracted from rocks 3.8 billion years old is evidence that photosynthesis has been around for almost 4 billion years (by the evolutionary timescale). (Nature, Vol. 333, p: 313-318 1988)

“The finding of algal filaments dated at only slightly more than 1 billion years younger than the earth itself restricted the time required for the evolution of the living cell." (S. Aw, CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p: 302 1996, see Nature, Vol. 284, p: 441-443 1980; Nature, Vol. 284, p: 443-445 1980; Nature, Vol. 291, p: 218-220 1981; & Nature, Vol. 319, p: 489-491 1986)

2) In order for Nucleosides and amino acids to form you MUST have an environment without oxygen, and yet all the rock tested as far back as 300 million years before life was detected show oxides and this can only happen when oxygen is present:

“Alternating layers of oxidized iron in the so-called banded iron formation from Akilia Island in West Greenland demonstrates that free oxygen has been present on earth longer than 3.85 billion years.”
(Bortman, H. 2001 - Life under Bombardment from the NASA Astrobiology Institute.)

Most of the rock that makes earth home is made of granite, or rock similar to granite. Granite is made up of quartz, feldspar, and mica. The chemical formula of quartz is SiO2. Feldspar comes in three forms--KAlSi2O8, CaAlSi2O8, and NaAl2Si2O8. Mica comes in several forms, all of which end in O10(OH)2. So, every molecule of quartz contains two oxygen atoms. Every molecule of feldspar contains eight oxygen atoms. Every molecule of mica contains twelve oxygen atoms. The rock is full of oxygen and it would be a miracle if all the rock that was formed with oxygen, being one of the most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust, occured without good old oxygen in the atmosphere from the beginning.

3) In order for any of the base chemicals to occur you MUST have an environment with a reducing atmosphere of methane, hydrogen and ammonia as there is no other method found by science that allows for any chemistry to happen.At this time there is no corresponding time found by science that this environment ever existed on earth. According to all chemical testing of early earth, science shows that earth’s earliest atmosphere contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide & oxygen, which doesn't allow for the necessary chemical interactions at all.

So according to the current evidence provided by science none of the theorized conditions necessary for the logical beginning environment of the abiogenesis theory are possible, so how does the theory continue? In order to keep this errant theory going they must go beyond science and imagine a scenario with not 1 scrap of scientific backing and keep in mind that science has had a lot of time since the abiogenesis theory began to find environmental evidence to back up this most important aspect of the process.

There is however one thing the scientific evidence does point towards and it is that life suddenly began with complexity, a strong indicator of intelligent design. Hmmm am I basing creationism on scientific evidence?


END PART 1

[kbc_1963]

PART 2

In this part I will address the logical second and third phases of the Abiogenesis theory;

The build up of simple chemicals into simple molecules

According to the theory, the natural chemicals existing at the time of the (imaginary) great soup would by natural action / reaction (in the imagined environment) begin the process of polymerization or joining together in chains to form more complex molecules which are the building blocks of the first replicating thing in nature (theorized to be) RNA (a precursor to DNA). Now at this point in the process everything would be dependant upon random chemical action to provide everything needed to create these precursors, so by all rights this should be easily replicated in a laboratory.
It is only chemistry right?.

1) The very act of Polymerization produces a water molecule and according to one of the basic laws of chemistry i.e. Le Chateliers Principle "the presence of a product (water) will slow the reaction" and according to laboratory experiments when trying to polymerize monomers into polymers using water as the solvent they have been unable to get any reasonable amount to justify the abiogenesis claim and that is with all the chemicals readily available and in sufficient amounts. Since the basis of multiple trials overcoming improbability depends on a sufficient rate of Polymerization to sustain the trials over time, then this immutable law of chemistry blows a big hole in the idea that there were vast seas of chemicals just bristling with reactions to support multiple trials. Think about it, it requires a certain constant amount of base chemicals in the mixture to even initiate polymerization and the fact that when the chemicals polymerize they produce a water molecule effectively making their environment (water) bigger and they become more diluted so figuring that you could get constant reactions is not conceivable.

"Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating theoretically possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides (the subunits of DNA and RNA) presents great difficulties. In any case, nucleotides have not yet been produced in realistic experiments of the kind Miller did. (Cairns-Smith 1985, p.90)."

It seems that I don't need to be a creationist to rule out this theory, since from the ground up the BASIC rules of chemistry appear to do it for me. Maybe we need to makeup new chemistry rules for the “Abio” people.
I would also like to point out that a pile of information on how base chemicals react with each other points to the fact that basic chemistry just doesn’t allow for the amount of positive reactions that would be necessary to accomplish the Abio theory.


The build up of simple molecules into complex molecules/compounds

Now we move on to the next stage of chemical complexity, keep in mind that all of these steps require a pile of time nearing the billions of years and there would have to be an inumerable amount of trials occurring over that time period to have any hope of overcoming the improbability issue and to complete all the steps needed to attain to our first abiogenesis life form.

[As I look at these few steps my first thought is how does the earth keep the environment constant enough to sustain the (supposed) natural chemical reactions required for the multiple billions of years needed to accomplish the goal? Has no one considered the massive asteroid bombardments the earth has suffered, through which organism survivability is a major question? So far I have found no scientific evidence for any type of environment other than the nitrogen, carbon dioxide & oxygen environment noted earlier. which doesn’t work for the abiogenesis theory anyway, but I would still like to hear how it would be possible to keep the environment stable enough for the length of time needed for the theory to work when lab conditions can barely make any reactions happen themselves in controlled conditions.
It is so easy to theorize environmental variables the way you want them and assume that everythings works as envisioned but it seems unthinkable to imagine our world keeping a stable environment for the billions of years it would take for the multitude of stages that would be required to make abiogenesis work.]

At this point in the Abiogenesis fairytale there would have to be many different compounds ranging in amount by complexity all existing at the same time as the base components needed to be able to form the foundation of RNA. It must also be noted here that there would be many combinations occurring that not only would have nothing to do with the ones needed but could also have reactions inhibiting the formation of the ones needed if basic chemistry were to follow the abiogenesis theory, so getting just the ones together that would form RNA would be no minor feat as these are quite complex and highly improbable to occur in each instance of each compound, if it was possible that they ever existed that is. So let’s find out just what is needed for our most basic molecular start of life.

Scientist state that there are 4 compounds that are required for the possibilities of life to exist these are; Adenine, Uracil, Guanine & Cytosine.

Robert Shapiro published a detailed study of the ‘prebiotic’ synthesis of cytosine in the Proceedings of the NAS. Previous studies of his had noted that neither adenine nor ribose were plausible prebiotic components of any self-replicating molecule, but the problems with cytosine are even worse.Shapiro noted that not the slightest trace of cytosine has been produced in gas discharge experiments, nor has it been found in meteorites. Thus, he notes, either it is extremely hard to synthesize, or it breaks down before detection.
As pointed out above, cytosine is deanimated/hydrolyzed (to Uracil) far too rapidly for any ‘hot’ origin-of-life scenario. But it is still very unstable at moderate temperatures — half-lives = 340 years at 25°C. This shows that a cold earth origin-of-life scenario would merely alleviate, but not overcome, the decomposition problem. And a low temperature also retards synthetic reactions as well as destructive ones.

2) There is one more problem with cytosine, it has a problem staying together when there is UV radiation present and since most scientists believe that the early earth had a lot higher UV radiation hitting it than it does today would make it seem that the only place cytosine could be figured into the mix is in a very dark place which rules out the ocean being full of this raw component. (There go them multiple trials again)

Hmmm how can abiogenesis proceed without its base chemistry in place to allow for the multiple trials?
These chemical proofs are all based on real scientific experimentation and to find that it would require the breaking of the laws of chemistry to even remotely make this theory happen makes me wonder how the theory has existed for as long as it has. I have noticed from my study that if you try to theorize the right environmental variables to allow for the forming of one of these base chemicals then it keeps one or more of the others from forming so it seems at this point that there is no stable environment that allows for the natural forming of all the base chemicals at once.


END PART 2

[kbc_1963]

PART 3

On we go to the next logical stage of the abiogenesis fairytale;

Combining complex molecules into our first RNA (((POOF)))!

Experiments by several scientists have shown RNA has the ability to catalyze chemical reactions, similar to what enzymes (proteins) do. (WOW a science backed fact)
But could RNA itself have been synthesized and replicated by chemical means on the prebiotic earth?

Juan Or in 1961 proved that in a laboratory the nucleic acid base adenine could be synthesized in a mixture of hydrogen cyanide and ammonia and scientists have since shown that the remaining nucleic acid bases, guanine, Uracil, and cytosine, could be synthesized from mixtures of hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen, and cyanoacetylene and When the nucleic acid bases are combined with the sugar ribose and phosphate, nucleotides form, which in the presence of an appropriate catalyst, form random strands of RNA.

Uhoh could there be a leg to stand on for the abiogenesis theory?

1) There is no mechanism for the synthesis of ribose in the absence of enzymes. All chemical reactions scientists have tried to synthesize ribose only produce it as a very minor product. The major products are other sugars, which combine with nucleic acids to form products which inhibit RNA synthesis and replication. Additionally, any ribose formed is racemic, that is, both left and right handed. Only right handed ribose can be used to form nucleotides. Left handed ribose interferes with RNA synthesis;

Proteins are made up of specific kinds of amino acids that are called "alpha" which means they are “short” and "left-handed”, just one long or right-handed amino acid attaching into a chain of short left-handed amino acids would prevent the coiling and folding necessary for proper protein function.

2) Phosphate is required to join the base sugar pairs (nucleosides) of nucleic acids. Phosphorus is much less abundant than the other elements found in RNA. Yamagata et al. has reported (1991) “the presence of polyphosphates (chains of phosphate groups) in volcanic emissions, and has suggested volcano’s as a source of the phosphate required for the origin of life.” One difficulty with this proposal is that polyphosphates would hydrolyze in water to form insoluble phosphates, which would precipitate to the ocean floor. There seems to be no other possible source of phosphates. An ocean associated with a carbon dioxide atmosphere will be so acidic that phosphate would not be available for chemical reactions.

3) Nucleotides do not form under prebiotic conditions. If the phosphate is left out, purine nucleosides (adenine and guanine) will form under these conditions, but no pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and Uracil) form. Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication. Even if nucleotides could be formed by some method, both right and left handed versions would be formed.

4) Beyond the problems of nucleotide formation are still more problems regarding how RNA polymers might replicate in the absence of proteins. The addition of nucleotides will produce a complementary strand of RNA. However, there is, at present, no explanation for duplication of the original RNA polymer from the complementary strand, in the absence of enzymes. Hmmm I smell irreducible complexity.

5) Even if we granted that the building blocks were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything because under plausible prebiotic conditions, the Building blocks would be too dilute to actually build anything and the tendency by natural chemical action is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the building blocks, not the other way round. Also, the building blocks are likely to react in the wrong ways with other building blocks, since sugars and other carbonyl compounds react destructively with amino acids and other amino compounds and form imines. Even if the building blocks could have formed polymers, the polymers would readily hydrolyze.

6) Could it have been Meteors?
One of the theories for how the correct chemicals came to exist in the prebiotic oceans is that meteors brought in everything necessary to make it happen…

[Stanley Miller demonstrated in the 1953 that mixtures of reducing gases, theorized to be present in the primordial earth, when subjected to electrical discharges, produced many organic compounds, including several amino acids and Years after his experiments a meteor landed in Murchison, Australia, which was shown to contain the same organic compound and amino acids in roughly the same proportion as those generated through the Miller experiments and Although the Miller experiments and the Murchison meteor suggested that organic molecules could be synthesized in the absence of life, many questions and problems arose. They found that even though simple proteins could be produced by laboratory manipulations of amino acid building blocks, the amino acids which compose all forms of life are exclusively of the "left-handed" variety. Those produced in the Miller experiments and found in the MURCHISON METEOR are both Left and Right handed amino acids. No model could be proposed which would explain inclusion of only one form of amino acids to the exclusion of the other, without the aid of RNA's, in the form of ribosomal RNA, transfer RNA, and messenger RNA. All theorized models would require the spontaneous evolution of both RNA's and proteins simultaneously. In addition, specific proteins are required in combination with rRNA in order for other proteins to be synthesized.]



Oh my, there are so many irreducible complex problems to overcome and we are not even to DNA yet. I will probably address that at a later time as this should be enough for anyone to chew on for awhile.

I think it is also worth pointing out to those who believe "with enough time anything is possible" that according to all known scientific evidence the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago and our earliest provable date that life can be shown to exist is 3.85 billion years ago, so if we allow that the earth cooled for about 500 million years (according to science) then the time allowed to go from chemicals to DNA is less than 1.5 million years and in most scientific beliefs it should take billions of years to reach that point if in fact it is possible at all. So I guess another method must be found to base the multitude of trials on for the abiogenesis theory to work, because without infinite time and an environment that would allow it there can't be infinite trials for near impossibilities to happen.


In conclusion

I have shown scientific evidences that thwart the theory at each proposed stage and I know that there are many theorized ways of circumventing some of the things I have listed here but invariably the hypothesized ways around one thing get the RUBIX CUBE problem in other area's so at this point the only way to overcome these statements would be to take into account how any theorized change would affect every other part of the process. (Awesome problem solving skills are required beyond this point maybe even miraculous)
I have not put everything in this thread that I have learned about this subject but without doubt on my part it seems that there are enough science based proofs shown here to easily take the chance out of abiogenesis, so in my irreducibly complex eye's it has gone from extremely unlikely to impossible based on science itself. Everyone is still invited to try and come up with science proofs that can overcome all of the science based proofs I have cited here but, just remember if you try to theorize a fix for any of the holes presented here make sure that you don’t end up creating a bigger hole elsewhere because as we know we live in a balanced system and its hard to theorize a change in one area without affecting another.

[meogi]

---------------------------Begin disproof #1-------------------------------

"Alternating layers of oxidized iron in the so-called banded iron formation from Akilia Island in West Greenland demonstrates that free oxygen has been present on earth longer than 3.85 billion years." - Bortman, H. 2001 - Life under Bombardment

This quote isn't a quote. Shame on you. Bortman never said anything like this, and he never implied it. Actual quote from the article ( http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories...ail.cfm?ID=231 ):

"Iron and oxygen present in the oceans combined to form rust, which settled to the sea floor in layered sediments. Movements of the Earth's crust later pushed some of these sediments to the surface, where they can now be studied."

So, the iron oxidized from the exposure to the oxygen in the ocean. Yes, there was oxygen in the early stages of the earth. No (most of) it was not free floating.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

The rock is full of oxygen and it would be a miracle if all the rock that was formed with oxygen, being one of the most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust, occured without good old oxygen in the atmosphere from the beginning.

Indeed it would! But wait! The early atmosphere was too hot for oxygen to be floating around by itself! What does that mean?! It combined with other elements that it could exist at those temperatures! Like *gasp* H2O, water! And Granite! No (or very, very little) free oxygen! No ozone (O3)! Amazering! The atmosphere was reducing.

Note that this contradicts your statement: "According to all chemical testing of early earth, science shows that earth’s earliest atmosphere contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide & oxygen, which doesn't allow for the necessary chemical interactions at all."

From http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/Hadean.html :

Hadean sulfide rocks are much less depleted than are modern sulfides in 34S, an isotope that reflects bacterial processing. In culture experiments, Habicht et al. (p. 2372) show that the isotope data limit Hadean ocean sulfate concentrations to 200 micromolar or less, considerably lower than previously thought. These data also imply that the atmosphere had little free oxygen but an abundance of the greenhouse-gas methane produced through the action of more prevalent methanogens.

So 'science' says the oposite. Note the site says that your quote of Mojzsis, was challenged, and defended, but never concluded. So your using it as an argument is not 'scientifically' valid. The article states that life is only certain from about 3.5 billion years ago. Everything before that is still up for speculation (which is fine for science).

"The finding of algal filaments dated at only slightly more than 1 billion years younger than the earth itself restricted the time required for the evolution of the living cell."

That gives 1 billion years for early cells evolve... 4.5 billion years earth has existed... 3.5 billion years life is certain. Sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

So according to the current evidence provided by science none of the theorized conditions necessary for the logical beginning environment of the abiogenesis theory are possible, so how does the theory continue?

Well, since most of the 'current science' you just posted was false, I'll say that's a damn good reason the theory is continuing.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

There is however one thing the scientific evidence does point towards and it is that life suddenly began with complexity, a strong indicator of intelligent design.

I'm just gonna point out the logical fallacies in this, really has nothing to do with anything else. First, since the evidence you provided isn't scientificly accurate, it can't point toward anything. Second, even if what you had said was accurate, it does not imply that life suddenly began complexly and does not point to intelligent design. Just logical problems... everyone has them. Some of us stay away from them more often than not though.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

Hmmm am I basing creationism on scientific evidence?

No, but you are trying. I'll give ya that.

-------------------------End disproof #1-------------------------

[meogi]

--------------------------Begin Disproof #2-------------------------------

I gotta say, part #2 is hard to 'disprove.' Mainly because of the fact that there really is no 'firm' basis abiogenesis stands on this subject. Still many theories. But again, a good thing about science - it doesn't need answers 'right here, right now.' It can wait.

Oh, and since your starting arguements have been invalidated, the logical 'progression' as you put it is as well. But since this part can work on it's own without the starting point, we'll discuss this.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

1) The very act of Polymerization produces a water molecule and according to one of the basic laws of chemistry i.e. Le Chateliers Principle "the presence of a product (water) will slow the reaction" and according to laboratory experiments when trying to polymerize monomers into polymers using water as the solvent they have been unable to get any reasonable amount to justify the abiogenesis claim and that is with all the chemicals readily available and in sufficient amounts. Since the basis of multiple trials overcoming improbability depends on a sufficient rate of Polymerization to sustain the trials over time, then this immutable law of chemistry blows a big hole in the idea that there were vast seas of chemicals just bristling with reactions to support multiple trials. Think about it, it requires a certain constant amount of base chemicals in the mixture to even initiate polymerization and the fact that when the chemicals polymerize they produce a water molecule effectively making their environment (water) bigger and they become more diluted so figuring that you could get constant reactions is not conceivable.

Of course water must be removed to form them together. About this you're right. "... two amino acids can be linked to reach the next stage of complexity, provided a water molecule is removed. Such a dehydration condensation of many amino acids can then build up chain molecules into complex proteins." The removing of a water molecule can be accomplished in 3 ways.

First is heat, by evaporation. This occurs out of water. Clay or other materials could have been used to protect the amino-acids from water and the crazyness of the earth at the time. Sidney W. Fox showed that the amino-acids could form into RNA (and actually very simple cells) in this way. You can check out his findings in his article "My Scientific Discussion of Evolution with the Pope" ( http://www.holysmoke.org/fox.htm ). This theory is later backed up in Origins of Life and Evolution in the Biosphere which's abstract can be found here ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...LEB...29....5S ). Sorry, couldn't find the actual article on the net, you can always pick up the magazine if you want.

Second is cold, by freezing. Freezing water turns it from liquid to ice, which allows amino-acids contained within to link together. Freezing/thawing over time could lead to more and more complex chains.

Third is by catalists. This can occur within water. Our bodies do this all the time, removing water from our cells to form proteins. Chemists speculate that these catalists could have existed 4 billion years ago, from clays with layered, charged surfaces. Oceans wash up amino-acids onto the clay, once again, which act as catlysts to remove the water molecule, and then house the chains protectively, allowing them to grow and form more complex chains.

And you said yourself, that water only slows the process - it doesn't stop it. And then theres the idea that the amino-acids were outside of water when they were formed. And there is no 'certain amount' of base chemicals required, just two amino-acids, with a water molecule between them.

And note that all of these are evidence for abiogenesis. Whether or not the earth's atmosphere was suited for it does not matter. If it's possible, then it's possible.

In any case, nucleotides have not yet been produced in realistic experiments of the kind Miller did. (Cairns-Smith 1985, p.90)."

Miller wasn't trying to form RNA, so of course not. Sidney W. Fox's experiements did form them though, along with simple cells.

From ( http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF1/124.html ) :

"First, they mixed amino acids with water and heated them. The result was a combining of these simple compounds into complex, highly organized giant molecules. Then the solution containing these molecules is made more acidic and the temperature is lowered slightly (as would happen in going from day to night) In some cases the giant molecular bodies develop boundaries similar to cell walls and they divide themselves or grow new bud-like replicas of themselves. These first generation bodies also replicate themselves and a second generation develops."

The only emperical evidence is of what they've done in the lab. The explanations given in the theories fit though... whether or not you'll accept them, well, doesn't matter. Abiogenesis is possible.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

Now we move on to the next stage of chemical complexity, keep in mind that all of these steps require a pile of time nearing the billions of years and there would have to be an inumerable amount of trials occurring over that time period to have any hope of overcoming the improbability issue and to complete all the steps needed to attain to our first abiogenesis life form.

Whoa, billions of years, and an inumerable amount of trials! That does seem impossible! /sarcasm off. You're making strange assumptions with no valid basis.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

As I look at these few steps my first thought is how does the earth keep the environment constant enough to sustain the (supposed) natural chemical reactions required for the multiple billions of years needed to accomplish the goal? Has no one considered the massive asteroid bombardments the earth has suffered, through which organism survivability is a major question?

Many, many, many of those bombardments were small asteroids, only destroying localized areas. Hell, this is even said in the "Life under Bombardment" article you (mis)quoted.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

These chemical proofs are all based on real scientific experimentation and to find that it would require the breaking of the laws of chemistry to even remotely make this theory happen makes me wonder how the theory has existed for as long as it has.

But not the 'real scientific experements' that count. Mainly the ones by Sidney Fox. Not to mention the 'real scientific experiments' you posed do not suggest abiogenesis didn't happen, just that it would take longer in water (which probably isn't where it took place). And again, that's the reason the theory has existed as long as it has. You're divine power of 'assumption' hasn't disrupted it's stance at all.

But again, how it happened on earth is all just theory. But the fact that you can produce life from non-life disproves your 'disproof.' The fact that it is possible, means that it could happen. Maybe not on earth (although it was likely). It also shows the 'emperical evidence' you're using is misinterpreted. The fact that you keep stacking misinterpretation ontop of misinterpretation sucks too... because when trying to refute something based on something I've already refuted, it kinda becomes a double 'disproof.'

----------------------------------End Disproof #2---------------------------------------

[meogi]

---------------------------Begin Disproof #3-----------------------------

I don't even wanna bother with page 3... page 2 already showed how it's possible. So I'm gonna put some comments here instead. I'll also put together a 'problem solving skills model' that is miraculous even.

You seem to be getting a lot of your ideas from the site ( http://www.grisda.org ). Or here ( http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/4-abiogenesis.htm ). I'm just curious if that's where you're getting your info from. Because I'm pretty sure you didn't look all the stuff up on your own... your random assumptions dictate elsewise.

Question, on your 'everything we do in a lab is intelligently designed' statement: At what point does it not become intelligent design? If we can't simulate what the earth was like 4 billions years ago, put chemicals that were present in the correct amounts, and then let simulate the environment at the time, how exactly do you propose we get this emperical evidence you so eagerly demand?

Is it just me, or are your arguments very cookie-cutterish? Stating a true statement based on science, making wildly inaccurate 'logical' assumptions from it, not backing these up, and then you end saying you've 'disproved' it.

Those seem really jumbled together and random, they were just little notes I put down while I was writing the first two pages...

Model of abiogenesis:

Early earth (4.5-4 billion years ago). Reducing-atmosphere, very little oxygen in the atmosphere.
Amino-acids formed by mixture of CH4, H2O, NH3, and H2 with help from an energy source (either lightning storms or intense UV radiation from the sun).
Massive 'prebiotic soup' formed. Amino-acids washed up onto clay, where they are protected; heat up and cool down, formation of RNA.
RNA combine with primative fatty acids, into droplets which resemble the first cells.
These droplets grow/combine and eventually form the first simple cells.

Of course, that's just a theory... I got no emperical evidence the RNA just clumped together, but the fact that they can clump together shows that it is possible. So that brings me back to the topic:

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

Abiogenesis - Is it possible

Of course.

-----------------------------End Disproof #3------------------------------

[kbc_1963]

"Alternating layers of oxidized iron in the so-called banded iron formation from Akilia Island in West Greenland demonstrates that free oxygen has been present on earth longer than 3.85 billion years." - Bortman, H. 2001 - Life under Bombardment

This quote isn't a quote. Shame on you. Bortman never said anything like this, and he never implied it. Actual quote from the article

Let us look at it again then;

The rocks in question appear to be a banded iron formation, or BIF, from Akilia Island in West Greenland. BIFs were deposited on Earth's ocean floors during the first 2 billion years of the planet's history. Iron and oxygen present in the oceans combined to form rust, which settled to the sea floor in layered sediments.

as you have noted there is in fact a difference in the text and I will give that it was an incorrect quoting, however there is a fact that cannot be overlooked,
water is in fact oxygen bonded to hydrogen and as long as its in this state cannot oxydize anything which shows that there had to be free oxygen present in the water in order for the iron to oxydize. as anyone knows flowing water gains oxygen (free oxygen not bonded to anything and allows fish to live in water just as our modern aquariums oxygenate water for our pet fish to live) as long as there is free oxygen in the atmosphere. so even tho the quote was incorrect the conclusion is the same.

[B]The early atmosphere was too hot for oxygen[/b] to be floating around by itself! What does that mean?! It combined with other elements that it could exist at those temperatures! Like *gasp* H2O, water! And Granite! No (or very, very little) free oxygen! No ozone (O3)! Amazering! The atmosphere was reducing

what empirical evidence do you have for this statement?
and what differnce does it make whether oxygen was free when the earth was forming? there could not have been any precursors of life forming when the earth was still cooling right? so we must give that for about 500,000 years the earth cooled before any possibility towards life would be possible anyway.
the evidence I provided dealt with the earth after the cooling period and up to a time when it was shown that life existed 3.85 million years ago as that same article also pointed out;

But earlier study of the Akilia sediments by one of Anbar's collaborators, Steve Mojzsis, had turned up a very different type of signature in the Akilia formation - a signature of biological activity. Mojzsis, also a member of the NAI, performed his analysis of the Akilia sediments while at the University of California San Diego.
Carbon atoms come in two distinct forms, or isotopes. Carbon-12 atoms, the lighter of the two, contain 6 neutrons; carbon-13 atoms contain 7 neutrons. Microorganisms that take in carbon dioxide prefer to use the lighter carbon-12 atoms to construct the organic building blocks of which they are made.
When ancient ocean-dwelling organisms died, the carbon that was formerly part of their living tissue settled to the ocean floor, becoming part of the sedimentary material deposited there. When Mojzsis found that the Akilia sedimentary rock samples contained higher-than-normal quantities of carbon-12, he concluded that biological activity must have been taking place at the time the sediments were formed - at least 3.85 billion years ago.

So 'science' says the oposite. Note the site says that your quote of Mojzsis, was challenged, and defended, but never concluded

If it was challenged and not disproved then guess what it is valid untill there is evidence to disprove it, isn't that how science works or do we have suddenly a new way to use science, if it is that easy to do away with evidence then I challenge all other theories to show incontrovertable evidence that they are true.
there that was easy now all your theories are gone what do you have left? hehehe

So as I have shown there is enough evidence gathered by scientists to show the existence of free oxygen at a time when there should have been a reducing atmosphere and since science believes the earth formed 4.5 million years ago and it then cooled for aprox. 500,000 years then you are left with aprox. 1.5 million years to go from chemicals to life even "abio" people admit that that just isn't enough time.

you still have no empirical evidence that there was a prebiotic soup or a reducing atmosphere to allow it to have occured all you have is theory and theory proves nothing, true science is based on observable things, theories are supposed to be based on scientific observations, my theory says there was never a reducing atmosphere and it is based on observed evidence what evidence is yours based on?

It is nice to have someone give this thread a try and tho I don't have time today to deal with the other items you have listed I will deal with them as time allows. (busy season for me at work)

[meogi]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

water is in fact oxygen bonded to hydrogen and as long as its in this state cannot oxydize anything which shows that there had to be free oxygen present in the water in order for the iron to oxydize. as anyone knows flowing water gains oxygen (free oxygen not bonded to anything and allows fish to live in water just as our modern aquariums oxygenate water for our pet fish to live) as long as there is free oxygen in the atmosphere. so even tho the quote was incorrect the conclusion is the same.

Shall we re-read my quote now, then?

Originally Posted by me

So, the iron oxidized from the exposure to the oxygen in the ocean. Yes, there was oxygen in the early stages of the earth. No (most of) it was not free floating.

So, what exactly is the problem? Dissolved and free floating are two different things. Also, there has to be oxygen flowing over the water for it to dissolve into it. In the reducing atmosphere, there was very little oxygen just floating around, if any. So the oxygen dissolved in the water, is very, very, little, if any.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

what empirical evidence do you have for this statement?

From ( http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowe...arlyEarth.html ):

At the point when the "rock" compounds had largely rained out, Earth's surface and atmosphere would have been perhaps 1800°C, and the atmospheric gases would probably have been dominated by carbon dioxide and water vapor.

After a smidgeon of cooling:

The dense atmosphere might have been 25 times denser than today's, and at a temperature over 200°C. However, at temperatures and pressures like these, it is possible to form liquid water (water at these temperatures exists today, deep in the oceans at the mid-ocean ridges). So in the end, perhaps after a few million years, the interior had lost enough heat that its contribution to the atmosphere was much reduced. As atmospheric temperatures dropped to perhaps 250°, water vapor began to rain out, carrying carbon dioxide dissolved in it, and hot liquid water filled up low places on the crust to make shallow, slightly acid seas.

Now, I don't know if you know how much dissolved oxygen can stay in water. Check here. Mainly:

The amount of oxygen that can be held by the water depends on the water temperature, salinity, and pressure.

So, we've got really hot, salty, pressured water. Which isn't good for DO.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

there could not have been any precursors of life forming when the earth was still cooling right? so we must give that for about 500,000 years the earth cooled before any possibility towards life would be possible anyway.

Who was talking about life forming in these conditions? As far as I know, we were talking about amino-acids. They supplied the basis for what life happened after cooling took place. Ho ho ho, the plot thickens. (And where do you get 500,000 years? Do you know how insignifigant a timeline that is considering 1 billion? And by your timeline, we got 4.5-4.4Ga minus .0005Ga equals 4.3995 at the least. Do you realize how stupid that number sounds now?)

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

the evidence I provided dealt with the earth after the cooling period and up to a time when it was shown that life existed 3.85 million years ago as that same article also pointed out;

So, we got: 4.3995 - 3.85 = .5495Ga... 550 million years for life to have abiogenically formed. And thats going with your idea that life has been found at 3.85Ga ago.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

If it was challenged and not disproved then guess what it is valid untill there is evidence to disprove it, isn't that how science works or do we have suddenly a new way to use science, if it is that easy to do away with evidence then I challenge all other theories to show incontrovertable evidence that they are true.

Whoa now, treading in some rough waters with this one. Because well, your evidence is the one under controversy. And that is how science works, but Mojzsis' work is not a theory. It's evidence. But when evidence is questioned (by the scientific comunity...), any resulting theories that use it must be put on hold, or use other evidence. And right now, the other evidence is that life hasn't been confirmed until ~3.5Ga ago.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

there should have been a reducing atmosphere and since science believes the earth formed 4.5 million years ago and it then cooled for aprox. 500,000 years then you are left with aprox. 1.5 million years to go from chemicals to life even "abio" people admit that that just isn't enough time.

....... I don't even wanna touch this right now. Fix your data, so I can look at your assumptions correctly. (Thanks for the laugh though! )

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

you still have no empirical evidence that there was a prebiotic soup or a reducing atmosphere to allow it to have occured all you have is theory and theory proves nothing

You're right. Asside from the theory statement. But we have no evidence that goes back that far. We can make models and computer simulations, and thats how we get our data. So (I'll take this from another thread) unless you figure out some way that we can zoom back 4.5 billion years ago, to check out what exactly was going on, there will be no evidence. This is where theories come in, btw.

And yet you provide so little of in the way of a creator. You seem so happy to go, well... that (supposedly) didn't happen, so this must have happened. Problem is, this thread is about abiogenesis, and whether or not it is possible. So far, we're pretty damn sure it's possible.

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

theories are supposed to be based on scientific observations, my theory says there was never a reducing atmosphere and it is based on observed evidence what evidence is yours based on?

Glad to know this is your theory... and please, please, please tell me what your evidence against a reducing atmosphere is? As far as my basis? Maybe you missed the Hadean source in my first post?

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

It is nice to have someone give this thread a try and tho I don't have time today to deal with the other items you have listed I will deal with them as time allows. (busy season for me at work)

I got all the time in the world. Well, until I die. Then I won't.

[kbc_1963]

free floating are two different things

shall we agree then that oxygen existed in the atmosphere and dissolved in the ocean, and the amount is still debatable?

And where do you get 500,000 years? Do you know how insignifigant a timeline that is considering 1 billion

oops an error on my part, it was meant to be 500,000,000 sorry will see if I can get that source on the cooling period.

[meogi]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

shall we agree then that oxygen existed in the atmosphere and dissolved in the ocean, and the amount is still debatable?

No. Not until the earth had cooled at least. Before then, the earth was too hot for oxygen to be flaoting around by itself (in numbers great enough to disolve into the pools of water... pools, there more than likely was not an 'ocean' yet that early).