Primitive life on Earth

[marcsurtees]

IIRC, Andy states that a machine is needed to get energy to do work. The point is that if the lifeless earth is absorbing electromaganetic radiation all that happens is it gets hot!
A machine is required to make use of the energy. The energy on its own just reduces the world to its equilibrium state whereas life is disequilibrium with its environment.

And all those photochemical reactions are just what? Chopped liver?

They are all tending towards equilibrium.

[marcsurtees]

The energy on its own just reduces the world to its equilibrium state whereas life is disequilibrium with its environment.

Sorry Marc you're just throwing about statements. Can you give a more detailed explanation of what the hell you mean? Which parts of chemistry are in equilibrium and which disequilibrium. Why about irreversible reactions. What on Earth is he on about.

The point is that if the lifeless earth is absorbing electromaganetic radiation all that happens is it gets hot!

And chemical reactions are?

Try looking up equilibrium reactions in wikipedia

[Dagsannr]

And all those photochemical reactions are just what? Chopped liver?

They are all tending towards equilibrium.

Er, perhaps if the Earth was a closed system, but it's not. Solar radiation varies across the surface and during the course of a year, day, season, whatever. There's also inputs from the Earth's core and the occasional asteroid and comet impact. This variance in energy input disturbs the equilibrium constantly.

You're also making the assumption that movement towards equilibrium in this case does not result in the formation of self-replicating long chain organic molecules and on towards amino acids and nucleic acids.

[cathy]

Mard before I look up equilibrium constants in wikk you need to give more details. What specifically are you talking about, equilibriulm constants for what? Otherwise all I'm going to get are a load of equations that I'm already aware of with no figures to put into them.

Go look at some exam questions and find me one that JUST says calculate the equilibrium constant.....and nothing else! You usually find some clues which chemicals and reactions are involved. And other clues like concentrations, temperatures, catalysts, pressures etc all of which alter it. And we've usually done some irreversible reactions as well. So what chemicals are you talking about and what is their equilibrium state? And am I right in assuming you're talking about chemistry at all, in the absence of any clues to the contrary.

The point is that if the lifeless earth is absorbing electromaganetic radiation all that happens is it gets hot!

So we heat lifeless chemicals in chemistry just to warm them through then - rather than get them to react? Can you be more specific. What totally inert chemicals are present and sunbathing on this lifeless earth? Where are the reactive ones? What about catalysts? What is the equilibrium states of any reactive ones that have got past the inert ones and have reacted? Why are none of these reactions irrevesible? Why do conditions never alter? What about changes in little things like solubility?

Sorry you need to give some details. Even Andy Mac tries to explain it with reference to Gibbs free energy tho it's still largely incomprehensible waffle when he does and I haven't managed to get enough of a handle on what on earth he's waffling about to get his point. But he tries.

And why have the various chemists involved in the search for life not realised what someone with a biology qualification and an engineer seem to think is obvious.

And anyway the only reason you are here is because things are getting to hot for you over on the Tiktaalik thread. You've been bombarded with two many inconvenient facts over there. And that is very annoying cos I'm pretty damn sure that misrepresenting devonian tracks will have formed a large part of your talk to Edinburghs liars for jesus so you're hiding here!

The point is that when a mindless creationist is absorbing facts all that happens is they get hot and bothered and run for cover.

[Dagsannr]

The point is that when a mindless creationist is absorbing facts all that happens is they get hot and bothered and run for cover.

[marcsurtees]

And all those photochemical reactions are just what? Chopped liver?

They are all tending towards equilibrium.

Er, perhaps if the Earth was a closed system, but it's not. Solar radiation varies across the surface and during the course of a year, day, season, whatever. There's also inputs from the Earth's core and the occasional asteroid and comet impact. This variance in energy input disturbs the equilibrium constantly.

You're also making the assumption that movement towards equilibrium in this case does not result in the formation of self-replicating long chain organic molecules and on towards amino acids and nucleic acids.

Your statement about the earth being an open system is irrelevant.
No assumptions required; DNA (for example, but the same applies to all biomolecules from amino acids and larger ) is not at chemical equilibrium. It doesn't matter how much energy you provide (nor now much you vary the input) the precusors C, H, N and O, you will never get DNA.
A machine is required to use the energy to make DNA from the precusors.

[Dagsannr]

Your statement about the earth being an open system is irrelevant.

Well, no, not really, since you're insisting that the Earth is bathed in nothing but heat and light from the sun, and will only get hotter, not more complex. You're touching on the erronous 2nd law of thermodynamics claim when in fact, because the Earth isn't a closed system, equilibrium can never be reached.

No assumptions required; DNA (for example, but the same applies to all biomolecules from amino acids and larger ) is not at chemical equilibrium. It doesn't matter how much energy you provide (nor now much you vary the input) the precusors C, H, N and O, you will never get DNA.

Actually we can make amino acids quite easily in the lab using just those elements. It's also disingenous to claim that you'll never get DNA from just those elements as no one is actually claiming that. DNA would've been formed by the combination of less-complex precursor molecules in an environment that allowed it to remain stable. Only creationists claim that super-complex objects suddenly appear from no-where.

A machine is required to use the energy to make DNA from the precusors.

No one is denying this, it's just that whilst you're banging your desk and shout "godgodgodgod", the rest of us are applying science to try and figure it out for real. Chances are, the 'machine' you devoutly believe in (it's nice to see you reducing the concept of your god to a biochemical structure), is just a fairly complex self-replicating organic molecules.

[marcsurtees]

Actually we can make amino acids quite easily in the lab using just those elements.

Exactly, by using carefully arranged lab equipment (a machine) to remove them from the reaction mixture as soon as they form. Because the equilibrium is in favour of the precursors not the products. And it is also rather irrelevent because as Cathy has pointed out this has failed as a route to life from non-life.

[Dagsannr]

Actually we can make amino acids quite easily in the lab using just those elements.

Exactly, by using carefully arranged lab equipment (a machine) to remove them from the reaction mixture as soon as they form. Because the equilibrium is in favour of the precursors not the products. And it is also rather irrelevent because as Cathy has pointed out this has failed as a route to life from non-life.

Is there a special school where creationists go to only answer the parts of replies they know they can score semantical points over?

[cathy]

Exactly, by using carefully arranged lab equipment (a machine) to remove them from the reaction mixture as soon as they form.

'What utter nonsense Marc. And what exactly do you mean as this is a fairly meaningless statement to me. To recreate conditions that may have been present on the early earth requires some lab work seeing as the current conditions are completely different.

And they have also been found on meteorites! And purine, pyrimidine, uracil and xanthine. Are you therefore claiming meteorites are carefully arranged labs or machines? And someone is chucking them at Earth as soon as they form?

Because the equilibrium is in favour of the precursors not the products.

More detail required here? What products, amino acids? DNA? Nucleotides? What exactly, given we can get to amino acids? what precursors? Under what conditions? Where? And what about catalysts and templates? How far along the route have you got?

Just using technical terms is not an explanation.

And it is also rather irrelevent because as Cathy has pointed out this has failed as a route to life from non-life.

I have pointed out nothing of the sort. I have pointed out to Mr Dunday that research is being done and that nobody is looking directly for non life to fully formed life. It has not failed!

And you've neglected to mention the many times I've pointed out your complete failure to point me in the direction of dust to man and rib to woman research? Nor your detailed researching proving abiogenesis from chemicals completely impossible.

[cathy]

s there a special school where creationists go to only answer the parts of replies they know they can score semantical points over?

The one thing they do not learn is the very obvious fact that abiogenesis is not the be all and end all of the long process from the birth of the universe to diverse life on Earth is is a fiddly complicated piece in a jigsaw.

So we have chemicals made in stars, we have early photosynthesising life and we have evolution. All fairly well established in the bigger picture. Abiogenesis fits in as a missing piece.

Marc even if you put God into that missing piece the overall jigsaw does NOT give you Genesis or creationism in any way shape of form. It gives you an odd God who messed up when planning that piece of the existing jigsaw.

That is why even the most devout of the non creationist Christians will have no problem with abiogenesis - Gods involvement is somehow else sometime else in the great plan. And why scientists keep looking.

[marcsurtees]

Chances are, the 'machine' [..] is just a fairly complex self-replicating organic molecules.

And just where did the machine come from?

[marcsurtees]

And it is also rather irrelevent because as Cathy has pointed out this has failed as a route to life from non-life.

I have pointed out nothing of the sort. I have pointed out to Mr Dunday that research is being done and that nobody is looking directly for non life to fully formed life. It has not failed!

Yet another straw man... all we saying is that life does not arise spontaneously from non-living chemicals. This has been demonstrated over and over again every since Paster's first demonstration of the fact. And remember that spontaneously has no duration of time attached to it. We are not asking for evidence of life form no-life in one step. We are saying that there are no steps that get you there. Put is as many steps as you like and take as long as you like. There is no naturalistic explanation for life. And it is not just a tiny gap in the process. It is a vital step.

[Roger Stanyard]

Chances are, the 'machine' [..] is just a fairly complex self-replicating organic molecules.

And just where did the machine come from?

No. You answer the question. Precisely where did Andy McIntosh's alleged machine originate from, what did it consist of, how did it operated, where was it, when did it come into existence...

Scientific answers only as this is a science-only section of our forum.

[cathy]

all we saying is that life does not arise spontaneously from non-living chemicals. This has been demonstrated over and over again every since Paster's first demonstration of the fact. And remember that spontaneously has no duration of time attached to it. We are not asking for evidence of life form no-life in one step. We are saying that there are no steps that get you there. Put is as many steps as you like and take as long as you like. There is no naturalistic explanation for life. And it is not just a tiny gap in the process. It is a vital step.

Marc irrelevant wafflings. It may be a vital step, but not knowing YET what it is does not actually alter all the other steps at all. It's a vital step that HAPPENED. We all know that much - even you!

It has already been pointed out abiogenesis is a complex, fiddly but small gap in a very big jigsaw indeed, from the origins of the universe, to the creation of chemicals in stars, to Earth, 'abiogenesis,' photosynthesising bacteria, evolution. It may be a vital part of the jigsaw, but the piece not being in place yet does not alter the rest of the jisgsaw at all. Understand that?

Shoving God into the abiogenesis gap will not only NOT ALTER the rest of the jigsaw one little bit it will NOT make Genesis suddenly correct, it will NOT prove dust to man or flood or 6000 year old Earth. It will change nothing else at all..

So go ahead and shove God into that particular gap. It doesn't change anything else at all. It doesn't make you suddenly right. It doesn't get rid of any of your problems nor provide positive support for your beliefs. It doesn't effect evolution one iota. It just says the bit between formation of Earth and appearance of life was magic.

And it really doesn't make God big or clever, it just makes him look rather silly in the light of everything else. It makes it look like he really cocked up on the chemistry to life part of the grand plan and had to come down to fiddle about with a magic wand to fix organic chemistry!!

But feel free to listen to C4ID and McIntoshs bullshit and shove him in that gap till he;s shoved out. I'm sure he's absolutely thrilled that the faithful are so keen to diminish him to below the level of an undergrad chemist. If I were you I'd find some cleverer friends to listen to.

Cos the 'abiogenesis is a problem for evolution' line is really rather thick if you stop for just one second to actually engage your brain and think about it. Cos the answer can always be 'well shove god in that gap' and that ressolves it till we know better. Cos we're sure about the bits after life begins and the not knowing how does not alter that one little bit.

God of dimiinishing gaps is all you've got.