Primordial Soup

[YoursTrue]

What we do know from the chemical properties of the cells, eg biological “components” (biological macromolecules or organic compounds) such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates & lipids, and chemical composition of each of these “components, life aren’t made from silicate-based soil or the Genesis “dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7).

Nothing in the cells of human body contained silicate, hence no “dust of the ground”. There are no silicates in cells of any living organisms, including human.

Only Iron Age hill-billies - uneducated even basic biology - would believe that Adam was made from silicate-based soil.

Genesis authors are no more educated in sciences than their contemporary Babylonians, whom the Jews ripped off them, where the Babylonians believed humans were made from clay, and the “base” molecule of clay is silicate.

So sorry, @YoursTrue & @Moon , none of the cells in the human bodies are made of silt or clay soil. Genesis is less than plausible, the Adam myth is an impossible myth.

Without going into detail, gnostic, do you think there was soil on the earth when you believe abiogenesis from whatever to life happened? You think it came from water or soil or watery soil maybe?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thought it probably wasn't soup but fairly clear water with traces of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.

It needed to be clear to allow light through to aid the reaction.

Unless of course life started by one of the fumaroles then it would have been pretty murky soup of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.

I watched an interesting show on the topic. The argument is that life could not have evolved in the presence of sunlight as in shallow tide pools in the absence of an ozone layer because of the damage UV light would do to nascent biomolecules, and that therefore life almost certainly arose on seafloors. Eventually, cyanobacteria arose and began releasing oxygen into the ocean, which later oxygenated the atmosphere leading to ozone.

This show also argued for Martian panspermia. Mars is smaller, and cooled faster than the earth, acquiring it oceans first, and thus could support abiogenesis long before the earth was cool enough. Of course, being smaller meant that its core solidified first, and Mars lost its magnetic field, atmosphere, and oceans, so now, the evolution of that first life was transferred to earth. There is no reason that the same couldn't have happened on earth if Mars hadn't been a semi-water world once (terraqueous, if you like technical terms), but if the process takes millions of years and had already occurred on Mars when earth was cool enough to begin to do the same, then a space rock travelling from one to the other during late heavy bombardment might get life jumpstarted on Earth more quickly than abiogenesis occurring de novo there. It was an interesting argument - a two planet version of abiogenesis and evolution.

It was a very comprehensive treatment of the origin of life, and began with nucleosynthesis and supernovae long before there was an earth. Also, I hadn't realized that complex animal life had to wait for an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Molecular oxygen, a waste product of cyanobacterial photosynthesis, is a free energy rich molecule, which is why aerobic glycolysis is much more efficient than anaerobic glycolysis and could support multicellular animal life.

I just don’t see life from that list

"You gotta try to see a little further."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without going into detail, gnostic, do you think there was soil on the earth when you believe abiogenesis from whatever to life happened? You think it came from water or soil or watery soil maybe?

"Soil" is a terrible term to use. I take it that English is not your first language. Soil did not exist before life since soil has quite a bit of decaying life as part of its makeup. When you use very inappropriate terminology it is difficult to answer you properly..

If you use the term "sediments" then the term is obviously yes since sediments are often a product of erosion and erosion existed almost from the very start of the Earth. But "soil" is just wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

What we do know from the chemical properties of the cells, eg biological “components” (biological macromolecules or organic compounds) such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates & lipids, and chemical composition of each of these “components, life aren’t made from silicate-based soil or the Genesis “dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7).

Nothing in the cells of human body contained silicate, hence no “dust of the ground”. There are no silicates in cells of any living organisms, including human.

Only Iron Age hill-billies - uneducated even basic biology - would believe that Adam was made from silicate-based soil.

Genesis authors are no more educated in sciences than their contemporary Babylonians, whom the Jews ripped off them, where the Babylonians believed humans were made from clay, and the “base” molecule of clay is silicate.

So sorry, @YoursTrue & @Moon , none of the cells in the human bodies are made of silt or clay soil. Genesis is less than plausible, the Adam myth is an impossible myth.

Does soil contain silicates? I've been reading about this and don't consider it too important but from what I am reading there's a lot of silica and/or silicates around. So it is interesting. Since the word silicate is different from silica, so it seems from my reading that silica is needed by the human body. Have a good one. P.S. I don't know HOW God did it, the Bible gives us a very brief description. Since I do know that ribs can regrow, and since I wasn't there, I see from my reading that while fossils are there, I do not believe they substantiate the theory of godless abiogenesis or evolution.

 

[ChristineM]

I watched an interesting show on the topic. The argument is that life could not have evolved in the presence of sunlight in the absence of an ozone layer because of the damage UV light would do to nascent biomolecules, and therefore almost certain arose on seafloors. Eventually, cyanobacteria arose and began releasing oxygen into the ocean, which later oxygenated the atmosphere.

This show also argued for Martian panspermia. Mars is smaller, and cooled faster than the earth, acquiring it oceans first, and thus could support abiogenesis long before the earth was cool enough. Of course, being smaller meant that its core solidified first, and Mars lost its magnetic fields, atmosphere, and oceans, so now, the evolution of that first life was transferred to earth. There is no reason that the same couldn't have happened on earth if Mars hasn't been a semi-water world once (terraqueous, if you like technical terms), but if the process takes millions of years and had already occurred on Mars when earth was cool enough to begin to do the same, then a space rock travelling from one to the other during late heavy bombardment might get life jumpstarted on Earth more quickly than abiogenesis occurring de novo there. It was an interesting argument - a two planet version of abiogenesis and evolution.

It was a very comprehensive treatment of the origin of life, and began with nucleosynthesis and supernovae long before there was an earth. Also, I hadn't realized that complex animal life had to wait for an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Molecular oxygen, a waste product of cyanobacterial photosynthesis, is a free energy rich molecule, which is why aerobic glycolysis is much more efficient than anaerobic glycolysis and could support multicellular animal life.

"You gotta try to see a little further."

Sorry no ::WINNER:: frube but it certainly deserves one.

 

[Heyo]

I watched an interesting show on the topic.

Any chance of naming that show or even link to it? There is a lack of good, comprehensive and easy to understand documentation about abiogenesis. There are some videos on YouTube for single aspects but I know of non that I could link to and say "watch this and you'll know what we are talking about".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does soil contain silicates? I've been reading about this and don't consider it too important but from what I am reading there's a lot of silica and/or silicates around. So it is interesting. Since the word silicate is different from silica, so it seems from my reading that silica is needed by the human body. Have a good one. P.S. I don't know HOW God did it, the Bible gives us a very brief description. Since I do know that ribs can regrow, and since I wasn't there, I see from my reading that while fossils are there, I do not believe they substantiate the theory of godless abiogenesis or evolution.

Life of course uses existing chemicals and of them them is silicon. It is a very large part of soil since soil is partially made up of sediments which are often almost all silicates. But the problem for believers in dirt magic, like you, is that the percentages are incredibly far off. Where silicon is gong to be one of the most common elements in dirt, very possibly second after oxygen, it is observed as only a trace element in the human body. So man is clearly not made of dirt, or mud, or soil as in your myths.

 

[idea]

Oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus (sulfur, potassium, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium)

Out of water, and air (nitrogen), and rocks

 

[Subduction Zone]

For those interested there is an upcoming debate between Dr. James Tour, a once well respected chemist that has gone of the deep end, now he is only beloved by the Discovery Toot, and Professor Dave. After getting his donkey handed to him repeatedly by Professor Dave in a series of YouTube videos (Professor Dave recognized the fact that abiogenesis is outside his area of specialization and he had the gall to cheat by interviewing experts in the field, how dare he? While Tour relied on his expertise in his specialty and complained regularly when chemistry that is done to mimic natural conditions is not done the same way that he does when he tries to make a specific compound (and he wonders why he lost). Oops, sorry! Lost the thread of my conversation. At any rate after repeatedly getting his butt handed to him in videos he now wants to has an assectomy live:

 

[Heyo]

For those interested there is an upcoming debate between Dr. James Tour, a once well respected chemist that has gone of the deep end, now he is only beloved by the Discovery Toot, and Professor Dave. After getting his donkey handed to him repeatedly by Professor Dave in a series of YouTube videos (Professor Dave recognized the fact that abiogenesis is outside his area of specialization and he had the gall to cheat by interviewing experts in the field, how dare he? While Tour relied on his expertise in his specialty and complained regularly when chemistry that is done to mimic natural conditions is not done the same way that he does when he tries to make a specific compound (and he wonders why he lost). Oops, sorry! Lost the thread of my conversation. At any rate after repeatedly getting his butt handed to him in videos he now wants to has an assectomy live:

:informative:

 

[Subduction Zone]

:informative:

Have you watched any of Professor Dave's videos? He did explain some of the chemistry that Tour got wrong in the earlier ones, but as they got deeper and deeper into it Professor Dave politely interviewed those that are currently publishing the papers on this topic. One of them knew Tour and Tour felt a bit betrayed. He accused Dave of cherry picking and claimed that his good old buddy did not know what was being done, so in response Dave made it abundantly clear that the man knew what Dave was doing.

One nice thing about being honest in your approach is that if someone accuses you of being dishonest it often child's play to show that is not the case.

 

[metis]

Did life spring forth from this soup? I'm having difficulty believing that.

Oops, I had primordial soup for lunch today.

 

[Heyo]

Have you watched any of Professor Dave's videos? He did explain some of the chemistry that Tour got wrong in the earlier ones, but as they got deeper and deeper into it Professor Dave politely interviewed those that are currently publishing the papers on this topic. One of them knew Tour and Tour felt a bit betrayed. He accused Dave of cherry picking and claimed that his good old buddy did not know what was being done, so in response Dave made it abundantly clear that the man knew what Dave was doing.

One nice thing about being honest in your approach is that if someone accuses you of being dishonest it often child's play to show that is not the case.

I think I have watched all of Professor Dave's videos and yes, they are good. But as they are reaction videos they don't have the quality of a documentary. I'm looking for something like AronRa's Classification of Life series or Erica (Gutsick Gibbon)'s videos on human evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I have watched all of Professor Dave's videos and yes, they are good. But as they are reaction videos they don't have the quality of a documentary. I'm looking for something like AronRa's Classification of Life series or Erica (Gutsick Gibbon)'s videos on human evolution.

Both excellent. Professor Dave does those sorts of videos too. And in a conversation with Aron Ra both of them lamented a bit about how the videos that they both put the most work in often get the fewest views. Reaction videos are much easier to make usually. Though Dave went deep into research and interviews of experts in his later refutations of Tour.

So for views and getting one's name out there the reaction videos are important. To demonstrate integrity one also needs the documentary types.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Any chance of naming that show or even link to it?

The show is How The Universe Works, and the episode was Season 4/Episode 5 The Dawn Of Life

I couldn't find a link to the episode, but there is this. One link looked like it might have been right, but I was informed that it was not available outside the US. This is a transcript, but not a very good one. Still, if it's the best we can do, it's not useless. Maybe you'll do better finding the video.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Abiogenesis seems unlikely

Why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did life spring forth from this soup? I'm having difficulty believing that.

What are the most prominent reasons that you can list on causing your difficulty? Is it issues over chemistry or conditions of the past?

Soup is just a metaphor for a mixed aqueous environment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just don’t see life from that list

Unfortunately, there were no witnesses. But I'm discovering that witnesses are useless most of the time anyway.

 

[Viker]

Primordial soup? Sounds good. I just had some really decent chicken soup.

 

[metis]

Primordial soup? Sounds good. I just had some really decent chicken soup.

LOL! I actually did also, and mine was chicken soup with pin rice and wild rice. Betcha my soup was better than your soup!