Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hydrocarbons found on Saturn moon


Owlscrying

Recommended Posts

July 9

Washington - The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has discovered evidence of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Hyperion.

NASA said the Cassini spacecraft revealed, for the first time, surface details of Saturn's moon Hyperion that include cup-like craters filled with hydrocarbons. That discovery suggests a more widespread presence in our solar system of basic chemicals necessary for life..

Cassini also identified water and carbon dioxide ices on the moon, as well as dark material that fits the spectral profile of hydrocarbons.

Of special interest is the presence on Hyperion of hydrocarbons -- combinations of carbon and hydrogen atoms that are found in comets, meteorites, and the dust in our galaxy," said a planetary scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center.

"These molecules, when embedded in ice and exposed to ultraviolet light, form new molecules of biological significance," he said. "This doesn't mean that we have found life, but it is a further indication that the basic chemistry needed for life is widespread in the universe."

go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

    6

  • Fearisgood

    5

  • keithisco

    2

  • camlax

    2

Maybe one the day the formula will be just right for life. A little bit of sun, a dash of comet, a sprig of hydrocarbons...

and Bam! Life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one the day the formula will be just right for life. A little bit of sun, a dash of comet, a sprig of hydrocarbons...

and Bam! Life

haha. good one! hmm reminds me of a cartoon. anyway. pretty good article here owlscry

* edited for some typo's *

Edited by LiGhTyAgAmi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one the day the formula will be just right for life. A little bit of sun, a dash of comet, a sprig of hydrocarbons...

and Bam! Life

Thats a good assumption, but life is already out there. Its statistically impossible for us to be the only life in the universe. Only the bible thumpers or the scared will tell you other wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do ya think theyre drip-feeding info to the public, getting us ready for the BIG ONE ? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a good assumption, but life is already out there. Its statistically impossible for us to be the only life in the universe.

Assumptions... pff. Actually, statistics and probabilities don't really favour that assumption. You can have 10^5000 (how many do you think there are, an estimate) planets, even habitable ones, your still going to have to explain how complex polymers are going to form consecutively on a single planet. How out of the 10^5000 only 1 or 2 won the "life lottery" 1000 times in a row (You need more than 1 complex polymer/DNA/protein to form at the same time). How did proteins and DNA form simultaneously, because ultimately thats what you need, or you are going to have to demonstrate that less complex molecules are capable of what DNA and proteins can do, prebionts etc. You wont have enough planets to account for that probability, and you're going to have to explain chemical reactions that actually favour macromolecular polymer formation capable of self-replication.

Only the bible thumpers or the scared will tell you other wise.
Nah its only the dogmatic naturalists/atheists that will tell you it's statistically impossible for us to be the only life in the universe. It's actually statistically very possible we are the only ones. Depends on what you believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assumptions... pff. Actually, statistics and probabilities don't really favour that assumption. You can have 10^5000 (how many do you think there are, an estimate) planets, even habitable ones, your still going to have to explain how complex polymers are going to form consecutively on a single planet. How out of the 10^5000 only 1 or 2 won the "life lottery" 1000 times in a row (You need more than 1 complex polymer/DNA/protein to form at the same time). How did proteins and DNA form simultaneously, because ultimately thats what you need, or you are going to have to demonstrate that less complex molecules are capable of what DNA and proteins can do, prebionts etc. You wont have enough planets to account for that probability, and you're going to have to explain chemical reactions that actually favour macromolecular polymer formation capable of self-replication.

Nah its only the dogmatic naturalists/atheists that will tell you it's statistically impossible for us to be the only life in the universe. It's actually statistically very possible we are the only ones. Depends on what you believe.

So 300,000,000 possible planets and or moons is not enough for you to think life is out there? Well Well aren't we the lucky ones 1 in 300,000,000 now thats a great lottery statistic. Just because you paid attention in your science class about basic life formation and make up does not mean its so very very hard for it to come together. I wish I knew who this quote was from but I will say it any way "life finds a way".

Are you baptist, morman, or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 300,000,000 possible planets and or moons is not enough for you to think life is out there?
Is that all? I think it must be more.

Well Well aren't we the lucky ones 1 in 300,000,000 now thats a great lottery statistic.
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...

Just because you paid attention in your science class about basic life formation and make up does not mean its so very very hard for it to come together.
Did you pay attention in your science class? Actually the more we find the more we go "it must have been very very very hard for this to come together through pure chance".

I wish I knew who this quote was from but I will say it any way "life finds a way".
Off course, once you have life, it will find its way, i just don't think simple organisms will find their way to become nuclear physicists over eons of time. What n nice fairytale though.

Are you baptist, morman, or what?

Is this relevant?

Edited by Fearisgood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that all? I think it must be more.

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...

Did you pay attention in your science class? Actually the more we find the more we go "it must have been very very very hard for this to come together through pure chance".

Off course, once you have life, it will find its way, i just don't think simple organisms will find their way to become nuclear physicists over eons of time. What n nice fairytale though.

Is this relevant?

So is the fairy tale called the bible, that I am sure you are basing all your info on. I know even you cannot think that if there is a GOD that he just created earth and then all these millions of other planets for no reason. Space and the universe have a reason and it not a religious one....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that all? I think it must be more.

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...

Did you pay attention in your science class? Actually the more we find the more we go "it must have been very very very hard for this to come together through pure chance".

Off course, once you have life, it will find its way, i just don't think simple organisms will find their way to become nuclear physicists over eons of time. What n nice fairytale though.

Is this relevant?

So you dont believe in evolution either?

Almost certainly life on Earth through recombination of differing molecular structures, ocurred thousands, if not millions of times when the earth was young. Most would have died off in the hostile environment that was our planet. Life probably arose countless times only to be extinguished. But... chemical reaction, And bonding nuclear pairs cannot stop "bonding". Simple chemistry. Hydrocarbons are a very good example of how early life could develop, and hydrocarbons are everywhere in this universe, just needs the right Petri dish and life will always emerge.

Your Math is totally skewed and totally pointless. Your attempt an creating an analogy with winning the lottery 1000 times in a row is also completely inane. :P

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is the fairy tale called the bible, that I am sure you are basing all your info on.

Where did i mention the Bible? Where did i bring in religion? Maybe its a good thing that you compare religious creation and religious naturalism.

I know even you cannot think that if there is a GOD that he just created earth and then all these millions of other planets for no reason. Space and the universe have a reason and it not a religious one....
Philosophying is pointless to me, however feel free to join a non-biased philosophy class to see how these things are being discussed. Of course you are going to give me your philosophical reasons for the universe now...?

So you dont believe in evolution either?
"Molecules-to-horse"... bah no, what a nice fairytale.

Almost certainly life on Earth through recombination of differing molecular structures, ocurred thousands, if not millions of times when the earth was young.
Almost certainly? No science there, just faith and hope. You should start a religion. Differing molecular structures? Recombination? Instead of being vague, describe the possible reactions, the conditions under which it could happen, then show an experiment or a simulation that actually favours the formation of complex replicating polymers under natural conditions. The only thing that you are saying is that some"vague molecular miracle" must have given rise to life with nothing more than belief and faith, nothing concrete.

Most would have died off in the hostile environment that was our planet.
"Died off"? "hostile environment? Do molecules die off, or just form other reactions? What was the environment like? At least show reactions to favour this story.

Life probably arose countless times only to be extinguished.
Probably, maybe or maybe not. Unscientific unfalsifiable statement. Just pure speculation, faith and hope.

But... chemical reaction, And bonding nuclear pairs cannot stop "bonding". Simple chemistry.
Bonding and "simple chemistry happens all the time yes. Which observation makes you think simple chemistry and "bonding" favours the formation of complex polymers capable of replication without inference. DNA, RNA and proteins break down outside a cell. The "metabolome first" theory is enjoying the most interest at the moment only because the "protein world" and "RNA world" hypotheses are not conceptually feasible.

Hydrocarbons are a very good example of how early life could develop, and hydrocarbons are everywhere in this universe, just needs the right Petri dish and life will always emerge.
Hydrocarbons are everywhere yes. 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.

Your Math is totally skewed and totally pointless.
Read and tell me why it is pointless and skewed:

Remember naturally occurring self-replicating proteins just don't happen because.

1) Polymerization can´t be done in the presence of water.

2) Aminoacids can´t be built in the presence of oxygen.

3) Aminoacids can´t be built in the presence of an uncontrolled source of energy" because lightning, heat or UV destroys aminoacids faster than they are built.

4) No natural means for the formation of Cysteine

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.

Yockey, H. P. (1992). Information theory and molecular biology. Cambridge; New York;

Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press.

Now if not even a simple protein can polymerize, how simple are you willing to classify life?

Your attempt an creating an analogy with winning the lottery 1000 times in a row is also completely inane. :P

Yes it makes the origin of life look like a 50/50 chance.

Edited by Fearisgood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Died off"? "hostile environment? Do molecules die off, or just form other reactions? What was the environment like? At least show reactions to favour this story.

Bonding and "simple chemistry happens all the time yes. Which observation makes you think simple chemistry and "bonding" favours the formation of complex polymers capable of replication without inference. DNA, RNA and proteins break down outside a cell. The "metabolome first" theory is enjoying the most interest at the moment only because the "protein world" and "RNA world" hypotheses are not conceptually feasible.

Hydrocarbons are everywhere yes. 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.

Read and tell me why it is pointless and skewed:

So childish.... your maths is so out there.... you dont even understand statistics! You make up some outlandish figure which you then postulate to equate to human lifespan. So..... ignorant.

Are you seriously asking me what the environment was like 4 billion years ago? Haven't you learned any geology??

I think you are wasting peoples time here... people here tend to have a science background. i suspect you are still in high-school (I'm being generous by the way).

One more thing, life did arise in the petrie dish called Earth:lol:

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
So childish.... your maths is so out there.... you dont even understand statistics!
Ok if you want to resort to childish ad hominem attacks, instead of pointing out why you think the statistics is wrong, so be it.

You make up some outlandish figure which you then postulate to equate to human lifespan.So..... ignorant.
Can you point it out?

Are you seriously asking me what the environment was like 4 billion years ago? Haven't you learned any geology??
Was it a reducing or oxidizing atmosphere? Temperature? Gaseous concentrations? Do you know and have you learned some organic chemistry, biochemistry and geology? Show some of your knowledge then, instead of trying to make a few ad hominem attacks.

I think you are wasting peoples time here... people here tend to have a science background.
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 is what happened.

i suspect you are still in high-school (I'm being generous by the way).
Does it matter how old anyone is in a discussion if you cant point out inconsistencies in their reasoning. Instead you focus on demeaning other people. It doesn't work in a discussion.

One more thing, life did arise in the petrie dish called Earth:lol:
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 Edited by Fearisgood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok if you want to resort to childish ad hominem attacks, instead of pointing out why you think the statistics is wrong, so be it.

Can you point it out?

Was it a reducing or oxidizing atmosphere? Temperature? Gaseous concentrations? Do you know and have you learned some organic chemistry, biochemistry and geology? Show some of your knowledge then, instead of trying to make a few ad hominem attacks.

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 is what happened.

Does it matter how old anyone is in a discussion if you cant point out inconsistencies in their reasoning. Instead you focus on demeaning other people. It doesn't work in a discussion.

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

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

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.

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.

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.

1) Polymerization can´t be done in the presence of water.

2) Aminoacids can´t be built in the presence of oxygen.

3) Aminoacids can´t 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.

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.

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 is 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.

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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!

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

Evolution thread

Edited by Fearisgood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.