I have been watching you dance around the subject on Abiogenesis vs Intelligent Design,
@Wildswanderer...
Where did the components come from? And how can life come from non life? We can't even do that in a laboratory.
Chemicals produced by nature. And what a shock!!
. We cannot reproduce an event that likely took millions of years.
But do you know what we can reproduce in the laboratory? Many of the possible steps. That is what can be reproduced
Meanwhile you have no reliable evidence at all for your beliefs.
Nature is magic now? Nature has laws and works certain ways because it was designed.
No,now that is irony considering you believe in magic. And your claim is false. It was refuted almost seventy years ago by the Miller Urey experiment
They got almost everything wrong. No one takes that experiment seriously now.
Chemicals do not produce life; only complex structures such as DNA and enzymes produce life.
Amino acids aren't life. What a crock.
...and you really do talk a lot of illogical and unscientific rubbish,
@Wildswanderer.
The questions are:
- Why do insist on talking or bringing up subjects, subjects such as biochemistry and molecular biology, which you clearly don’t understand and never took the times, even to learn the basics?
- And did you know the basis of Abiogenesis require understanding of molecular biology (eg understanding of biological macromolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and other biological compounds) and understanding of biochemistry?
- Did you know that Abiogenesis is about understanding the origins of these biological matters (macromolecules).
What we already know, is that the earliest species of Bacteria were the earliest organisms to exist on Earth. They existed as far back as 3.7 billion years ago, when there were no free oxygen (O
2) in the Earth's atmosphere at that time, bacteria survived on other sources of chemical energy, such as nitrogen, methane or carbon dioxide.
But in every single living organisms, they are made of cells, and cells are made of 3 essential biological macromolecules that I have already mentioned:
- proteins
- nucleic acids (eg RNA, DNA)
- carbohydrates (which there are many types of carbohydrates, each with specific functions).
Another vital biological compound, is lipid, which have many functions, depending on the types of lipid.
To understand these biological matters that exist in each cells, you need some knowledge on molecular biology.
Until you can grasp the basics of molecular biology, you have no hope of ever understanding how they are connected to life, nor why it is so important in Abiogenesis to understand the origins of each these biological macromolecules.
And the main purpose is about creating life from inorganic chemicals, but how the origins of these vital organic matters (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, etc).
I think you have no ideas what proteins are made of. Or what nucleic acids, like DNA & RNA, are made of.
You just keep spouting a bunch of ignorant and illogical gibberish, follow by your insulting comments.
Proteins, DNA, carbohydrates as well as lipids are essential chemical components in every single cells. They are what make “cell”, “LIVING”, because each of them played roles in all "cellular" life.
One of you ignorant claim is this:
“Amino acids aren't life.”
True, but it is also false.
Amino acids are not “life”, and no one claiming amino acids are life. That's just you making faulty strawman argument.
Your statement is also false because you did not understand any of the linked articles,
@SkepticThinker had provided.
It is true, amino acids aren’t life, but they are important building blocks or components of proteins.
Without amino acids, there would be no proteins. Which leads to another ignorant statement you made in one of above quotes:
“Chemicals do not produce life; only complex structures such as DNA and enzymes produce life.”
What do you think enzyme is?
You have no idea, do you?
And you say chemical don't create life. Plus you claimed nature to be magic:
"Nature is magic now?"
No, nature isn't magic. Nor are chemical reactions.
Every elements and every molecules and compounds, whether they be organic or inorganic, are chemical.
Some chemicals are artificially manufactured, while even more are "natural"
Enzymes are proteins, AND THAT cause chemical reactions. So for you to claim naturally occurring chemical reactions, as "magic", just demonstrated your lack of understanding of both chemistry and biology.
One of the number of functions of enzymes are chemical reactions in metabolism. Metabolism are what help sustain life, producing energy needed, when animals break down food, and they produce sugars and other nutrients.
Plants have their own metabolism, and through photosynthesis process. To illustrate what I mean by photosynthesis:
The plants (eg trees) roots draw water from the soil, and leaves, branches trunks draw carbon dioxide, while the chloroplast organelle in the cell of each leaf, which contained the chlorophyll (eg the green pigment is the chlorophyll) capture the ultraviolet light and stored its energy. This energy break down together the water and carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen (O2) and starch (carbohydrate). That's how NATURAL CHEMICAL REACTION occurred among plants, creating food (starches), the source of light-sustaining energy.
Fungi (eg mushrooms) produce energy (their food) using enzymes to change the composition of the soil, into suitable nutrients for fungi.
Without amino acids, there are no proteins, and without proteins, there would be no enzymes.
Your dismissal on the importance of amino acids, clearly show you have no idea about biology and chemistry.
There are no magic involved with nature.
Magic is something like God creating man from soil or the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7).
You keep saying non-living substances cannot produce life, but soil are not living matters. This is double standard.
The Miller-Urey Experiment were never about producing life, but about the possible origin of organic matters (eg amino acids) from inorganic chemicals (eg water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen). The source of heat came from electric charge from electrodes.
In 1952, 9 of these amino acids were detected. More amino acids were detected in 2007, even when there were no additional heat apply to these original samples, bringing the total number to 20.
Of course, not all amino acids would become protein. How the different protein formed and function, are dependence on the sequence of certain types of proteins.
Like I said early, without amino acids, there would be no proteins, and without proteins, there would be no enzymes (and therefore no metabolism), no tissues (eg no muscles, no nerves, no skin, etc) and no organs (heart, lungs, livers, kidneys, eyes, etc).
I am not even a biologist, and yet I know more than you.
The final question to you would be:
Can you learn from your mistakes or from your misunderstanding?
