Likelihood of abiogenesis considering environment

Lukang · September 7, 2023, 8:58pm

I never said chemical evolution wasn’t capable of creating order of any kind. It can, a snow flake is an example of this. Tour problem comes when we discuss life. Even if everything did come together to create a cell, we are talking about dead matter. It’s the Frankenstein experiment over and over again. The Bible calls it the breath of life, something God is only capable of creating. Man does not possess such an ability. Even if you could construct a whole human being from dead matter in a lab, it will never have life. None of you will ever understand anything regarding the spiritual realm unfortunately, but you will. There won’t be any atheists after the true antichrist comes. The God that proves himself with miracles will be here on the planer, and his doctrine will be extremely convincing. I wish you guys didn’t see this as mythology. There isn’t anyone talking on here and responding, laughing or not, that shouldn’t go to heaven. I understand I’m talking from a different world view, but if I’m right, you do need a savior. Please, if anyone has any issues that are reasons they don’t wish to give Jesus a chance, email me for a private conversation. Lukew0480@gmail.com I’m not on here to annoy you. You all matter.

CyberLN · September 7, 2023, 9:06pm

I don’t think we matter to you. I think only our dis/agreement matters to you.

Nyarlathotep · September 7, 2023, 9:10pm

That is a common strawman, but continue:

The plants in my yard make matter I would call living, out of matter that I would call dead. Also there is no measurable difference between a hydrogen atom in a water molecule of something that is dead; vs a hydrogen atom in a water molecule of something that is alive. We don’t need some magical transform to turn one into the other as they are already the same.

Nyarlathotep · September 7, 2023, 9:22pm

Well IF that day comes I will certainly believe. Until then; why should I believe your magical claims V.S. the magical claims of others? Shouldn’t I just reject magical claims until such time as you describe? Doesn’t that seem like a reasonable decision?

Kevin_Levites · September 7, 2023, 10:13pm

There are many fallacies here, so I’ll try to explain.

Life is a chemical process.

My body loses water all of the time, so I replace it with new water when I drink. This also applies to almost every other substance in my body.

Over time, my body becomes composed of new molecules that have replaced old molecules. I can do this even though I’m eating dead things.

If there was some magic breath of life, it would gradually drain away as the substances of my body are replaced.

Or I should be expected to eat living things to replace the lost breath of life, yet I’m fine even though I don’t eat live animals.

If there was a breath of life, then what happens to it if I freeze a tissue (or sperm, or ova) for a long time . . . often years. These cells are living and viable as soon as they’re thawed out. What happened to the breath of life in the meantime? Was God’s breath of life frozen, too? That doesn’t seem likely to me.

Lukang · September 7, 2023, 10:57pm

This is absolute nonsense. This discussion has been in reference to the origin of life. Whether God or it came to life on its own.

Nyarlathotep · September 7, 2023, 11:10pm

It seemed you were appealing to the difference between living and dead matter. I was explaining that there is no (known) measurable difference between them. I’m recommending that you avoid appealing to things we can’t be sure even exist; because you are never going to convince a skeptic that way. You need to produce measurable results to do that (for example: telling us how to measure the difference between a living and dead atom, and perhaps some sample data).

skriten · September 8, 2023, 12:19am

Sure, you bet…keep telling yourself this nonsense. At the moment just preceding your taking of your last breath, you will realize what Peggy Lee was referring to…

Hahaha…well I guess we’ll just have to have faith that you are being truthful…

Edit to put on a different record

Calilasseia · September 8, 2023, 12:26am

Oh look, the in tray is full again … let’s take a look at this shall we?

But you did assert the following, quoted directly from your initial post:

I presented to you, a detailed exposition of the relevant research in the prebiotic chemistry field, that destroys this assertion. As I keep repeating to every mythology fanboy who peddles vacuous apologetics on this matter, over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the laboratory experiments establishing that every chemical reaction implicated in the origin of life WORKS. I have, wait for it, four hundred and fifty eight papers from that literature in my collection, all of which document the requisite steps in detail, and the experimental verification of those steps. By the way, in preparation for this post, I’m about to add to that collection - stay tuned for some interesting finds.

Indeed, I’m tempted to ask if you even acknowledged the existence of that detailed exposition I provided, let alone read it, or attempted even a cursory examination of any of the scientific papers cited therein. My deep suspicion is that you did none of this.

Moving on …

No, this isn’t a “problem”, except of course for appropriate rigorous technical discussion of what is meant exactly by “life”, a topic that I assure you has been covered in more depth by the scientists working in the field than you can possibly imagine.

I already dealt with your specious apologetic waffle on this matter in my previous post, in which I stated explictly that you would be completely unable to distinguish between a sample of glucose taken from my blood, and a sample of glucose synthesised in a laboratory. Both would be “dead matter” as they sat in the vials.

But of course, this brings me to another salient point you manifestly don’t understand. Quite simply, life IS chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions STOP, then you DIE.

Indeed, this is how poisons work - by shutting down critical metabolic pathways. Cyanide, for example, shuts down the operation of the Cytochrome C Oxidase enzyme in mitochondria, and once this takes place, your life expectancy is measured in minutes. Other poisons may kill you more slowly, but they too operate on the same basis - shutting down critical metabolic pathways.

For that matter, if mythology fanboy assertions about life needing some special magic from a cartoon magic man were other than blind assertions, the pharmaceutica;l industry as we know it would not exist. The mere fact that scientists are able to devise chemical molecules that successfully treat disease, should be telling you something important here. Indeed, I’m currently enjoying an extra 25 years of life that at one point I didn’t think I would have, courtesy of the requisite medical intervention. Atorvastatin is controlling my synthesis of cholesterol, through partial (and reveresible) interference with the mevalonate pathway, while Metformin is controlling my type 2 diabetes. If life needed some special “magic sauce”, none of this would be possible.

Completely and utterly wrong. Prebiotic chemistry is as far removed from gothic fiction as it’s possible to be.

Your mythology is worthless as a source of genuine scientific information. Your mythology laughably asserts that genetics is controlled by coloured sticks, an assertion that was totally and utterly destroyed by a 19th century monk, when he launched modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.

Yawn. Mere mythological assertion.

Your fictional cartoon magic man is just that - fictional. And, as I’ve already told you, vitalism was destroyed in 1828 by the German chemist Wöhler, when he launched organic chemistry as a discipline in its own right.

Those scientific papers inform me that we’re a lot closer than you would even dare imagine.

Well first of all, your preoccupation with fantasy gothic fiction bears no relation to the actual scientific research. But, let’s assume that someone actually succeeds in this endeavour, by way of hypothesis. If that synthesised human being was able to communicate with other humans, exhibit well-known and well-defined signs of functioning human cognition, and was able to engage in at least elementary deductive reasoning, you wouldn’t be able to distinguish it from any other human being. Which destroys your collapsed apologetic soufflé wholesale.

The existence of the so-called “spiritual realm” is merely another unsupported mythology fanboy assertion, bereft of anything even remotely approaching reliable evidence. This assertion can be safely discarded as a result.

Put the mediaeval superstition in the bin where it belongs. This is the 21st century, not the 10th.

Poppycock. More blind assertion.

Funny how your cartoon magic man has failed to convince people with far greater intellects than yours, isn’t it?

It IS mythology, and manifestly so. Genetics being controlled by coloured sticks? Do you expect us to take this cretinous bilge seriously?

The only thing anyone here needs “saving” from, is sanctimonious panhandling by mythology fanboys.

I’ll keep my discussions public if you don’t mind. I’m not afraid to be open and public with my views. If you are, that speaks volumes.

You’re doing a bad job in this regard.

Meanwhile … on to those interesting recent findings. I’ll start with this one:

Protocells And RNA Self-Replication by Gerald F. Joyce and Jack W. Szostak, Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 10(9): a034801 (September 2018) [Full paper available directly online here, PDF download from here]

Joyce & Szostak (2018):

SUMMARY

The general notion of an “RNA world” is that, in the early development of life on the Earth, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA, and RNA molecules were the chief agents of catalytic function. Assuming that all of the components of RNA were available in some prebiotic locale, these components could have assembled into activated nucleotides that condensed to form RNA polymers, setting the stage for the chemical replication of polynucleotides through RNA-templated RNA polymerization. If a sufficient diversity of RNAs could be copied with reasonable rate and fidelity, then Darwinian evolution would begin with RNAs that facilitated their own reproduction enjoying a selective advantage. The concept of a “protocell” refers to a compartment where replication of the primitive genetic material took place and where primitive catalysts gave rise to products that accumulated locally for the benefit of the replicating cellular entity. Replication of both the protocell and its encapsulated genetic material would have enabled natural selection to operate based on the differential fitness of competing cellular entities, ultimately giving rise to modern cellular life.

A little further on, we have:

Joyce & Szostak (2018):

Protocells may be viewed as the products of a series of self-assembly processes that took place in specific early Earth environments that provided the necessary chemical building blocks and sources of energy (Fig. 1). The classical bilayer membrane structure results from the spontaneous self-assembly of separate amphiphilic molecules into a lower energy aggregate state. The self-assembly of RNA is more complex, but given suitably activated ribonucleotides, RNA polymers can form spontaneously on mineral surfaces (Ferris et al. 1996) or simply upon freezing because of the concentration of ribonucleotides in the eutectic phase between ice crystals (Kanavarioti et al. 2001).

As membrane sheets form, the high energy of the membrane edge drives closure into vesicles, which will trap molecules such as RNA that are present in the surrounding solution. Seen in this way, the assembly of protocells appears as a straightforward and perhaps inevitable process, given the right environment. The real problem is not protocell formation, but protocell replication, including growth and division of the protocell membrane and replication of the encapsulated genetic material. Furthermore, these processes must be mutually compatible, and the sources of energy required to drive protocell growth and division must also be compatible with the integrity of the protocell components. The nature of these replication processes and the way that protocell replication led to the evolution of functional RNAs and thus to the complexity of the RNA world is the subject of this review.

With respect to replication, among numerous options considered in that paper, we have:

Joyce & Szostak (2018):

Subsequent studies revealed that a small fraction of phospholipid in a largely fatty acid membrane can also lead to competitive growth (Budin and Szostak 2011). In this case, competition results from the slower dissociation of fatty acid molecules from membranes that contain phospholipids, which results in growth of phospholipid-containing vesicles at the expense of vesicles that do not contain (or contain less) phospholipid. Thus, any vesicle that also contained a heritable catalyst of phospholipid synthesis would experience a strong selective advantage. Other molecules that have a similar effect in slowing fatty acid dissociation, such as hydrophobic peptides, also confer a competitive growth advantage, implying that a heritable RNA that catalyzes the synthesis of hydrophobic peptides could also provide a selective advantage through competition at the cellular level (Adamala and Szostak 2013b).

So, already, scientists have alighted upon relevant options for self-replication of synthetic model protocells, that would render them virtually indistingushable from existing self-replicating single cells. But there’s more, courtesy of, for example:

Early Self-Reproduction, The Emergence Of Division Mechanisms In Protocells by Gionvanni Murtas, Molecular Biosystems, 9(2): 195-204 (2013)

Murtas (2013):

Synthetic Biology approaches are proposing model systems and providing experimental evidences that life can arise as spontaneous chemical self-assembly process where the ability to reproduce itself is an essential feature of the living system. The appearance of early cells has required an amphiphilic membrane compartment to confine molecular information against diffusion, and the ability to self-replicate the boundary layer and the genetic information. The initial spontaneous self-replication mechanisms based on thermodynamic instability would have evolved in a prebiotic and later biological catalysis. Early studies demonstrate that fatty acids spontaneously assemble into bilayer membranes, building vesicles able to grow by incorporation of free lipid molecules and divide. Early replication mechanisms may have seen inorganic molecules playing a role as the first catalysts. The emergence of a short ribozyme or short catalytic peptide may have initiated the first prebiotic membrane lipid synthesis required for vesicle growth. The evolution of early catalysts towards the simplest translation machine to deliver proteins from RNA sequences was likely to give early birth to one single enzyme controlling protocell membrane division. The cell replication process assisted by complex enzymes for lipid synthesis is the result of evolved pathways in early cells. Evolution from organic molecules to protocells and early cells, thus from chemistry to biology, may have occurred in and out of the boundary layer. Here we review recent experimental work describing membrane and vesicle division mechanisms based on chemico-physical spontaneous processes, inorganic early catalysis and enzyme based mechanisms controlling early protocell division and finally the feedback from minimal genome studies.

Then there’s this:

On The Interplay Of Self-Replication And Self-Reproduction In Protocells by Roberto Serra, ALIFE 2019: The 2019 Conference on Artificial Life, July 29-August 2, 2019, Paper No: isal_a_00130, pp. 10; 1 page

Serra (2019):

Modern biological cells are endowed with effective mechanisms which control their division, ensuring that it does not take place before the duplication of the genetic material has been completed. It is unlikely that similar sophisticated mechanisms were in place in primitive protocells, which were much simpler than their present-day descendants. So a major question concerns the way in which reproduction of the whole protocell might take place together with replication of its genetic molecules, absent any kind of high-level control.

This might happen if the rate of duplication of the genetic material and that of fission of the protocell are the same, i.e. if the two processes are synchronized. This possibility can be studied using simplified models of reaction networks (among replicators), assuming that one or more replicators can affect the growth and fission rates of their lipid container. Surprisingly enough, such synchronization does not necessarily require a careful assembly of reactions with very specific reaction rates. On the contrary, it turns out to be a property which emerges spontaneously in a broad set of models, with different parameters, different reaction networks and even different protocell architectures. Note that synchronization, while being a widespread property, is not always achieved for all the models and reaction types. The conditions for emergent synchronization will be discussed, reviewing previous work and showing some new results.

These results are based upon dynamical models which assume that the reactions are known a priori. On the other hand, in models of the origin of life it is often assumed that not all the important chemicals are there since the very beginning, but that some of them are synthesized at later stages. The appearance of new chemicals makes new reactions possible, which may in turn lead to the synthesis of new chemicals, etc. Dealing with this kind of problems requires the choice of a particular model of the replicators and of their interactions; in this paper the random binary polymer model proposed by S. Kauffman, where the replicators are polymers which can undergo cleavage or condensation, will be considered. This model allows, in principle, the appearance in time of polymers of increasing length. Another aspect which has to be taken into account, in order to properly model these phenomena, is that new chemical species may be initially present in very low concentrations, which require a stochastic treatment like the one allowed by the well-known Gillespie algorithm.

The random binary polymer model can give rise in time to collectively autocatalytic sets, which are able to self-replicate; if some chemicals which belong to the core or to the periphery of these sets are coupled to the growth of the lipid container, this may lead to emergent synchronization. However, the interactions can be quite complicated and the overall behaviour can be counterintuitive. Some examples of dynamical behaviours which have been observed in simulations will be presented and discussed, with particular emphasis on features which are always, or frequently, observed. It will be argued that studying the dynamical interaction of autocatalytic sets with the growth and splitting dynamics of the lipid container is crucial to understand the possibility that a population of protocells undergo sustainable growth and evolution.

Then there’s this:

Synthetic Turing Protocells: Vesicle Self-Reproduction Through Symmetry-Breaking Instabilities by Javier Macia and Richard V. Solé, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 362: 1821-1829 (9th May 2007) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Macia & Solé (2007):

The reproduction of a living cell requires a repeatable set of chemical events to be properly coordinated. Such events define a replication cycle, coupling the growth and shape change of the cell membrane with internal metabolic reactions. Although the logic of such process is determined by potentially simple physico-chemical laws, modelling of a full, self-maintained cell cycle is not trivial. Here we present a novel approach to the problem that makes use of so-called symmetry breaking instabilities as the engine of cell growth and division. It is shown that the process occurs as a consequence of the breaking of spatial symmetry and provides a reliable mechanism of vesicle growth and reproduction. Our model opens the possibility of a synthetic protocell lacking information but displaying self-reproduction under a very simple set of chemical reactions.

Oh, and one aspect of that paper I particularly enjoy, is that it relies upon Turing reaction-diffusion equations, which have been demonstrated to control a wide variety of biological processes.

There’s more, but this should suffice to establish that prebiotic chemistry research is destroying naive, mythology based assertions about life.

Cognostic · September 8, 2023, 1:52am

Before god is a possibility, you have to demonstrate it is a possibility not merely assert it is a possibility. Given the exact same evidence you have for your god I can assert ‘Eric the Rainbow Farting Unicorn’ is the creator of the universe.’ 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the Universe." “Blue Universe Creating Bunnies” are the creators of the universe. You can no more debunk these claims that the God of the Bible claim can be debunked. THEY ARE UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIMS. Now, on the other hand, every time you make a claim that can be verified, ‘The effectiveness of prayer,’ for example. We can test these claims. And we have. Never have any of the claims for Gods, any Gods, stood against critical inquiry. NEVER. Not even once, NEVER! If you think there is a god and a ‘breath of life.’ DEMONSTRATE IT.

Man does not have to posess such an ability. Man is a creator. Man creates things. We take things that occur naturally and change them to fit our needs. Some things occur naturally and the rest of the shit we create. Life is one of those things that seems to be an emergent property that occurs naturally. NO GOD NEEDED. If you think a God is needed, your first have to demonstrate such a thing exists. You don’t get to just imagine a super magical being into existence. (SAME BULLSHIT AS ABOVE) DEMONSTRATE YOUR GOD THING.

What spiritual realm. WTF are you on about now? Do you have any evidence at all for this ‘REALM’ you speak of. Any at all? Or are you just spouting more bullshit?

How could you possibly know this… more bullshit… assertions with no foundational support what so ever.

What god and what miracles. Can you cite even one miracle and directly link it to your god with facts and evidence. First you have to demonstrate your God thing is real, Then you have to cite the specific miracle. After that you have to indicate how this miracle thing is the direct result of some action your god thing took. Good luck with any of this.

I don’t see it as mythology. I see it as complete bullshit coming from a warped mind that has been indoctrinated by bullshit. I feel sorry for you. You live in a fantasy world where nothing is real.

I shouldn’t go to heaven. It is full of dweebs like you. Do you know how long I would be able to put up with your bullshit? Not at all. Your blind ignorance and worship of a murdering, amoral, monster, would drive me nuts within minutes. Fuck your asshole god, your delusional heaven, and your desire to wallow in worship of the undeserving eternally. I just feel sorry for you.

Your not annoying… You’re WRONG. You cannot possibly demonstrate you are right, or you would. You are looking for the weakest link and hoping someone will contact you, so you can try and convince them with your bullshit privately. WHY? Because you know your CRAP can not stand against public examination. You are a delusional coward, and a liar. Present evidence for your God and prove me wrong.

1st Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you…

Well, you going to tuck your tail and run or are you going to provide us with actual EVIDENCE of this GOD thing you are speaking of?

WE ARE WAITING!

Sheldon · September 9, 2023, 8:45am

I don’t think demonstrate means the same to you as it does me, as all you have are unevidenced claims about Jesus, and no objective evidence that he was anything other than human, if of course he existed at all.

I have asked you to demonstrate some objective evidence that your deity exists or is even possible, and if course you’ve offered nothing.

Thus I must withhold belief from your claims.

Calilasseia · September 9, 2023, 10:44am

Meanwhile, look what I found … a nice simulation by some French scientists, demonstrating vesicle formation, encapsulation, autocatalytic activity, vesicle growth, repair and reproduction.

I’m already thinking about the possibility of writing my own JavaScript version of this …

Randomhero1982 · September 9, 2023, 3:51pm

Quite possibly the biggest load of bollocks I have read in quite some time.

Sheldon · September 10, 2023, 5:39pm

And you have been asked repeatedly to demonstrate any objective evidence that a deity exists or is even possible, otherwise why would anyone assume a deity did anything?

We know organic life exists, and we know natural phenomena exist, so your questions seems to ab adding a deity we have no objective evidence is possible, and which has no explanatory powers whatsoever. So the unevidenced assumption in your question has a) created a false dichotomy fallacy, and b) appears to be violating Occam’s razor.

It’s bizarre you demand science have all the answers right now, or dismiss even the possibility of natural phenomena, even though we know they at least exist, yet you want to assume a deity is an option despite the claim answering precisely nothing, and being unsupported by any objective evidence?

I don’t believe you, and why would I when all you offer is a bare claim.

I don’t care, unless what was claimed can be supported by any objective evidence.

I don’t believe either claim, and again for the same reason, you are simply making up unevidenced claims, to create an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Sheldon · September 10, 2023, 5:57pm

Sigh another unevidenced assertion.

You seem to have contradicted yourself there, and again until you can demonstrate some objective evidence I will withhold believe.

Oh look another meaningless unevidenced claim. I don’t think you understand how debate works.

Blah blah blah, as some more unevidenced assertions are parotted.

Myth
noun

a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

What you have offered is mythology by definition?

I don’t believe in posthumous supernatural worlds, so once again please demonstrate some objective evidence they are real or even possible? If you;re right then demsontrate this to be the case.

No thanks, if you can’t be bothered to even attempt debate, or offer a shred of objective evidence, then I don’t see any point to an exchange of emails. You have the perfect medium right here to allay my doubts, and have offered nothing beyond bare subjective claims.

Rubbish, you have made a raft of unevidenced and superstitious claims, and @Nyarlathotep’s response is absolutely correct, why should anyone lend your unevidenced superstition any more credence than any other, when you can’t offer any objective evidence for any of the claims you’ve made.

I don’t believe you, please evidence this claim with some objective evidence. A miracle is defined as an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws, and is therefore attributed to a divine agency. This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy by definition, it’s a classic “god of the gaps” polemic.

Lukang · September 10, 2023, 8:34pm

Dead matter in your yard is used to create living matter as pre-existing life continues to reproduce. I’m talking about dead matter becoming alive with no previous life intervening. It doesn’t happen even though it should be more able to happen in earth’s current atmosphere than in the one when it supposedly did. Atheists don’t even have a proposal as to how life enters previously dead matter to make an organism which will spend its life biologically and physically fighting entropy.

Nyarlathotep · September 10, 2023, 8:37pm

I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

Lukang · September 10, 2023, 8:44pm

By physically fighting entropy, I was referring to creating society and order in a universe that is falling more into chaos.

SatanicMechanic · September 10, 2023, 9:03pm

No atheists don’t, scientists do though.

Sheldon · September 10, 2023, 9:22pm

I’m not clear why you think you can simply assume this without a shred of evidence? However ever were it true it doesn’t remotely evidence any deity, you’re lining unevidenced assumption up in tandem.

I don’t need an alternative proposal in order to disbelieve yours, since you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence to support it.

That sounds like gibberish.

Ah, so it was gibberish, thought so.