Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Hydrocarbons found on Saturn moon


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#16    oldie

oldie

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 176 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2006

Posted 22 July 2007 - 07:04 AM

"Life finds a way" Jeff Goldbloom - Jurrasic Park



#17    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 22 July 2007 - 02:10 PM

Quote

Are we the "lucky" ones or the engineered ones? Maybe luck and chance has nothing to do with origins. If it did, one would think that winning the lottery a 1000 times in a row is not impossible...



Quote

Cytochrome c consists of a sequence of about 110
amino acids and cytochrome c from over 100 organisms have been sequenced . Thus for
this protein we can have a fairly sophisticated estimate of exactly what would be needed
to make a functional molecule. At each of the 110 amino acid sites we can determine
what substitutions are allowed across the whole spectrum of sequenced proteins. For
example, at position 93, the amino acid present may be Phe, Met, Ile, or Leu. Each
variety of cytochrome c protein is fully functional, so we can say a functional protein can
result with any of four of the twenty amino acids at position 93. A similar calculation for
each amino acid position can give us a useful minimal probability of obtaining a
cytochrome c from random permutations of amino acids. Careful calculations by Hubert
Yockey (1992) demonstrate that with all amino acids present in equimolar amounts and
no competing molecules besides stereoisomers, a functional cytochrome c molecule
could be obtained in only 2 x 10^75 tries. If one accepts Sagan’s optimistic estimate for the
number of amino acids present in his primeval soup of 10^44 amino acids, and if we could
simultaneously add one new amino acid to each of 10^44 growing chains, once each
second, proceeding only until failure, only 10^23 years would be required to have a 95%
probability of obtaining a functional molecule of cytochrome c in this system. That's ten
trillion times the generally accepted age of the universe. As it turns out cytochrome c is a
very liberal molecule compared to, say, histone H3 protein which is so invariant that only
three of 125 amino acids are different between histone H3 of a pea and that of human. To
make a single correct histone protein in the same system would require nearly 10^60 years
at the 95% confidence level, if only alpha linkages were formed and only l-amino acids
were present and no competing non-proteinous amino acids were present and if we had a
system where such trials could be accomplished. Both of these stories are assuming that
we have such a system, and we have already seen that we have already seen that we do not. In short the synthesis of
protein or nucleic acid with information cannot happen.


The problem with both of these, is you are assuming that all proteins were given rise too by spontaneous generation. This is hardly true. Evolution works on building upon previous structure. Only Michael Behe and the ID camp think there is irreducibly complex proteins, which they were, flat our wrong about. Because some of the parts are already in place that greatly increases the probability of the evolution of a protein. That you use an article about cytochrome c from the early 90's also shows your lack of attention to detail. Cytochrome c is a well known protein and its mapping actually allows you to see the evolutionary divergence of its history.

I am not going to debate the origin of life with you, it is still unknown at this time, but being unknown is no reason to appeal to supernatural explanation. If that were the case imagine what the world would be like if Newton quit studying gravity for appeal to the supernatural. I am sure people wish he had.


Quote

DNA, RNA and proteins break down outside a cell.

So maybe it did not happen that way. It is simply unknown, but again that does not imply supernatural intervention. For instance, phospholipids are made of C,H,N,P and O. All elements found on early earth. We also know that phospholipids spontaneously arrange themselves in micelles, because of simple chemistry. Since you dont like the term "simple chemistry" Ill explain it. The head of the phospholipid is highly polarized, it arranges itself in water with the polar head in water because of van der walls attractions. The tail, a simple hydrocarbon chain, is non-polar. Because of its lack of polarization it does not form weak attractions with water, so the tail gets "pushed" away from water.

Small vacuoles like this could have provided an environment for the first simple metabolites to form (simple proteins). Again though, this is just an example, its currently unknown, but ignorance does not mean a god had to have done it.


Quote

The type of hydrocarbons are more important than the volume. Any type of hydrocarbons that suits chemistry to form life? We cant even form life in a petri dish that simulate abbiotic conditions, and yet you believe life will emerge. Faith and hope is all you have. All you need is some naturalistic religion and you have a movement.


Yes the type of hydrocarbon is important. Because we can not simulate life currently does not mean it can not be done. We do science to understand our natural world, no one is claiming science currently has all the answers. Simply saying, We dont know so god must have done it is an appeal to the supernatural. Saying we don't know, but like with everything we have not known, it is reasonable to believe there is a natural explanation. If you look at everything that has been learned through science, it is logical to think there is a natural explanation, if you look at all the evidence for religion and supernatural beliefs and think appealing to this is logical you are sadly mistaken. It requires faith to want to stop scientific endeavor and believe we were created by another life form.

Quote

1) Polymerization canīt be done in the presence of water.
2) Aminoacids canīt be built in the presence of oxygen.
3) Aminoacids canīt be built in the presence of an uncontrolled source of energy" because lightning, heat or UV destroys amino acids faster than they are built.
4) No natural means for the formation of Cysteine


1. Actually, that is wrong. Polymerization is carried out water for many different substances. For an example, glycogen synthase polymerizes glycogen chains. This reaction is carried out in the cytosol of the cell. And with your clearly elite understanding of biology you should be able to deduce that the cytoplasm being mostly water, means polymerization is carried out in water.
2. Why is this a problem? Earth's second atmosphere was almost all CO2 and NH3, the build up of oxygen happened as a result of the first photosynthetic bacteria. Oxygen was toxic to the first forms of life, it was metabolic waste.
3. Your right UV does destroy amino acids, good thing we had a magnetosphere to help displace solar winds. Lightning is kind of arbitrary, I think it is safe to assume not every spot on earth was being hit by lightning at once. If life in the presence of lightning was impossible then there would be no life on earth at all. As far as heat goes, by our second atmosphere the earth was much cooler. Yes heat can denature proteins but unfortunately biology 101 wont cut it here. There are plenty of organisms that have been found that live in extreme temperatures. There are some thermopiles whose optimal growth temperature is 105 degrees C, thats ~221 degrees F by the way. You can get a brief intro here Thermophiles, if you wish to delve more in depth, might I suggest a class in comparative physiology.
4. You mean random assembly? If so that is not important, there are other amino acids that do not form randomly. No one is saying that cysteine must have formed first for life to occur. Other enzymes catalyze the synthesis of cysteine. For instance, in most plants cysteine is made from O-acetyl-L-serine, by cysteine synthase.



QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Jul 17 2007, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Now if not even a simple protein can polymerize, how simple are you willing to classify life?

Again see above, thankfully in evolution we dont need to go from 0 to complete complexes.


QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Jul 17 2007, 03:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Then show yours, i've heard nothing but speculation, hope and faith. Absolutely no science. All you say is "probably", "would've", "almost certainly" etc with no scientific reasoning or back up. And then you say it [b]is[b] what happened.


Saying there is a natural explanation, but we dont know the exact mechanism at this time is hardly faith. Nothing has ever been proven to be the result of supernatural explanations, I would think saying life had to help to form is faith.

QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Jul 17 2007, 03:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you believe so... so be it. Just dont say you have scientific knowledge to back it up. At least give a peer reviewed published article that points in the affirmative instead of saying "if", "maybe", "could've" etc


A rather flawed logic.  Scientists do not claim to yet know the exact origin of life. Using that to argue, however, that life could not have happened naturally is extremely ignorant. If there is one thing history has shown, its that appeal to supernatural has never been correct. Whether you are talking about Newton thinking god had to reset the alignment of the planets or Behe thinking the flagellum is irreducibly complex.

Edited by camlax, 22 July 2007 - 02:17 PM.

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#18    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 22 July 2007 - 02:11 PM

Quote

Firstly, this is getting way off topic. There are plenty of threads on the origin of life and evolution throughout the science and the spirituality forums. This is the Space and Astronomy section could we try and stick to that please.

Secondly this is thread is degenerating into a petty bickering match. I dislike closing threads but as the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want". So please let's stop the bickering and name calling.



Sorry, WD I had hit reply before I finished reading the whole post.

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#19    Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere and nowhere

Posted 22 July 2007 - 07:13 PM

Quote

The problem with both of these, is you are assuming that all proteins were given rise too by spontaneous generation. This is hardly true. Evolution works on building upon previous structure. Only Michael Behe and the ID camp think there is irreducibly complex proteins, which they were, flat our wrong about. Because some of the parts are already in place that greatly increases the probability of the evolution of a protein. That you use an article about cytochrome c from the early 90's also shows your lack of attention to detail. Cytochrome c is a well known protein and its mapping actually allows you to see the evolutionary divergence of its history.

I am not going to debate the origin of life with you, it is still unknown at this time, but being unknown is no reason to appeal to supernatural explanation. If that were the case imagine what the world would be like if Newton quit studying gravity for appeal to the supernatural. I am sure people wish he had.
So maybe it did not happen that way. It is simply unknown, but again that does not imply supernatural intervention. For instance, phospholipids are made of C,H,N,P and O. All elements found on early earth. We also know that phospholipids spontaneously arrange themselves in micelles, because of simple chemistry. Since you dont like the term "simple chemistry" Ill explain it. The head of the phospholipid is highly polarized, it arranges itself in water with the polar head in water because of van der walls attractions. The tail, a simple hydrocarbon chain, is non-polar. Because of its lack of polarization it does not form weak attractions with water, so the tail gets "pushed" away from water.

Small vacuoles like this could have provided an environment for the first simple metabolites to form (simple proteins). Again though, this is just an example, its currently unknown, but ignorance does not mean a god had to have done it.
Yes the type of hydrocarbon is important. Because we can not simulate life currently does not mean it can not be done. We do science to understand our natural world, no one is claiming science currently has all the answers. Simply saying, We dont know so god must have done it is an appeal to the supernatural. Saying we don't know, but like with everything we have not known, it is reasonable to believe there is a natural explanation. If you look at everything that has been learned through science, it is logical to think there is a natural explanation, if you look at all the evidence for religion and supernatural beliefs and think appealing to this is logical you are sadly mistaken. It requires faith to want to stop scientific endeavor and believe we were created by another life form.
1. Actually, that is wrong. Polymerization is carried out water for many different substances. For an example, glycogen synthase polymerizes glycogen chains. This reaction is carried out in the cytosol of the cell. And with your clearly elite understanding of biology you should be able to deduce that the cytoplasm being mostly water, means polymerization is carried out in water.
2. Why is this a problem? Earth's second atmosphere was almost all CO2 and NH3, the build up of oxygen happened as a result of the first photosynthetic bacteria. Oxygen was toxic to the first forms of life, it was metabolic waste.
3. Your right UV does destroy amino acids, good thing we had a magnetosphere to help displace solar winds. Lightning is kind of arbitrary, I think it is safe to assume not every spot on earth was being hit by lightning at once. If life in the presence of lightning was impossible then there would be no life on earth at all. As far as heat goes, by our second atmosphere the earth was much cooler. Yes heat can denature proteins but unfortunately biology 101 wont cut it here. There are plenty of organisms that have been found that live in extreme temperatures. There are some thermopiles whose optimal growth temperature is 105 degrees C, thats ~221 degrees F by the way. You can get a brief intro here Thermophiles, if you wish to delve more in depth, might I suggest a class in comparative physiology.
4. You mean random assembly? If so that is not important, there are other amino acids that do not form randomly. No one is saying that cysteine must have formed first for life to occur. Other enzymes catalyze the synthesis of cysteine. For instance, in most plants cysteine is made from O-acetyl-L-serine, by cysteine synthase.
Again see above, thankfully in evolution we dont need to go from 0 to complete complexes.
Saying there is a natural explanation, but we dont know the exact mechanism at this time is hardly faith. Nothing has ever been proven to be the result of supernatural explanations, I would think saying life had to help to form is faith.
A rather flawed logic.  Scientists do not claim to yet know the exact origin of life. Using that to argue, however, that life could not have happened naturally is extremely ignorant. If there is one thing history has shown, its that appeal to supernatural has never been correct. Whether you are talking about Newton thinking god had to reset the alignment of the planets or Behe thinking the flagellum is irreducibly complex.


Well I hate to ride coat tails, but great post!  I am not educated enough on this subject to make acurrate posts.   Obviously the origin is unknown as you put it and to argue the way the earth formed is futile due to that.   I know Fearisgood is trying to make a point about creation here which is a whole nother story.  Now is he is trying to say an advanced race of aliens created us then lets here more!


Formerly known as Damon2000

#20    Fearisgood

Fearisgood

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 123 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2007

Posted 23 July 2007 - 01:36 PM

Quote

You keep asking me why I bring up religion and this post again is the reason.  He says life started in a petri dish called earth, you say believe what you want.  Well there are only two ways earth formed and that would be by God or evolution.  You just said you did not believe in evolution, so would you like to quote some scripture for us now?


Quote

The problem with both of these, is you are assuming that all proteins were given rise too by spontaneous generation. This is hardly true. Evolution works on building upon previous structure. Only Michael Behe and the ID camp think there is irreducibly complex proteins, which they were, flat our wrong about. Because some of the parts are already in place that greatly increases the probability of the evolution of a protein. That you use an article about cytochrome c from the early 90's also shows your lack of attention to detail. Cytochrome c is a well known protein and its mapping actually allows you to see the evolutionary divergence of its history.

I am not going to debate the origin of life with you, it is still unknown at this time, but being unknown is no reason to appeal to supernatural explanation. If that were the case imagine what the world would be like if Newton quit studying gravity for appeal to the supernatural. I am sure people wish he had.
So maybe it did not happen that way. It is simply unknown, but again that does not imply supernatural intervention. For instance, phospholipids are made of C,H,N,P and O. All elements found on early earth. We also know that phospholipids spontaneously arrange themselves in micelles, because of simple chemistry. Since you dont like the term "simple chemistry" Ill explain it. The head of the phospholipid is highly polarized, it arranges itself in water with the polar head in water because of van der walls attractions. The tail, a simple hydrocarbon chain, is non-polar. Because of its lack of polarization it does not form weak attractions with water, so the tail gets "pushed" away from water.

Small vacuoles like this could have provided an environment for the first simple metabolites to form (simple proteins). Again though, this is just an example, its currently unknown, but ignorance does not mean a god had to have done it.
Yes the type of hydrocarbon is important. Because we can not simulate life currently does not mean it can not be done. We do science to understand our natural world, no one is claiming science currently has all the answers. Simply saying, We dont know so god must have done it is an appeal to the supernatural. Saying we don't know, but like with everything we have not known, it is reasonable to believe there is a natural explanation. If you look at everything that has been learned through science, it is logical to think there is a natural explanation, if you look at all the evidence for religion and supernatural beliefs and think appealing to this is logical you are sadly mistaken. It requires faith to want to stop scientific endeavor and believe we were created by another life form.
1. Actually, that is wrong. Polymerization is carried out water for many different substances. For an example, glycogen synthase polymerizes glycogen chains. This reaction is carried out in the cytosol of the cell. And with your clearly elite understanding of biology you should be able to deduce that the cytoplasm being mostly water, means polymerization is carried out in water.
2. Why is this a problem? Earth's second atmosphere was almost all CO2 and NH3, the build up of oxygen happened as a result of the first photosynthetic bacteria. Oxygen was toxic to the first forms of life, it was metabolic waste.
3. Your right UV does destroy amino acids, good thing we had a magnetosphere to help displace solar winds. Lightning is kind of arbitrary, I think it is safe to assume not every spot on earth was being hit by lightning at once. If life in the presence of lightning was impossible then there would be no life on earth at all. As far as heat goes, by our second atmosphere the earth was much cooler. Yes heat can denature proteins but unfortunately biology 101 wont cut it here. There are plenty of organisms that have been found that live in extreme temperatures. There are some thermopiles whose optimal growth temperature is 105 degrees C, thats ~221 degrees F by the way. You can get a brief intro here Thermophiles, if you wish to delve more in depth, might I suggest a class in comparative physiology.
4. You mean random assembly? If so that is not important, there are other amino acids that do not form randomly. No one is saying that cysteine must have formed first for life to occur. Other enzymes catalyze the synthesis of cysteine. For instance, in most plants cysteine is made from O-acetyl-L-serine, by cysteine synthase.
Again see above, thankfully in evolution we dont need to go from 0 to complete complexes.
Saying there is a natural explanation, but we dont know the exact mechanism at this time is hardly faith. Nothing has ever been proven to be the result of supernatural explanations, I would think saying life had to help to form is faith.
A rather flawed logic.  Scientists do not claim to yet know the exact origin of life. Using that to argue, however, that life could not have happened naturally is extremely ignorant. If there is one thing history has shown, its that appeal to supernatural has never been correct. Whether you are talking about Newton thinking god had to reset the alignment of the planets or Behe thinking the flagellum is irreducibly complex.

Quote

Well I hate to ride coat tails, but great post!  I am not educated enough on this subject to make acurrate posts.   Obviously the origin is unknown as you put it and to argue the way the earth formed is futile due to that.   I know Fearisgood is trying to make a point about creation here which is a whole nother story.  Now is he is trying to say an advanced race of aliens created us then lets here more!


Will it be appropriate to reply to these posts in the following thread, WD?:
Evolution thread

Edited by Fearisgood, 23 July 2007 - 01:37 PM.


#21    Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere and nowhere

Posted 23 July 2007 - 06:21 PM

Quote

Will it be appropriate to reply to these posts in the following thread, WD?:
Evolution thread



Nope but should we move your posts to the creation threads?

Formerly known as Damon2000




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users