Don't get all defensive on me now because I'm questioning your posts....this is finally a decent discussion.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Why there almost certainly is No God!!
- Thread starter Desibaba
- Start date
Don't get all defensive on me now because I'm questioning your posts....this is finally a decent discussion.
grindthegear
New Member
so why cant everyone just let them believe what they want and not try to disprove it? fighting over it doesnt make anything better. everyone should be ok with what other believe cuz in the end it doesnt matter to anyone but yourself .. live and tel live.
The idea is NOT to fight about it but to DISCUSS it since that could lead to better understanding.
So not only is it possible to create AA and NA but AA are found on EXTRATERRESTRIAL objects in the universe meaning their formation is likely relatively common. It is quite possible this planet was seeded by these extraterrestrial objects. Interested to know how creationism deals with extraterritorial sources of organic molecules?
Adv Space Res. 1984;4(12):125-31.
Prebiotic syntheses of purines and pyrimidines.
Basile B, Lazcano A, Oró J.
Collaborators (1)
Source
Department of Biochemical and Biophysical Sciences, University of Houston, TX 77004, USA.
Abstract
The work done in many laboratories during the last two decades has confirmed that hydrogen cyanide and cyanoacetylene are the two major precursors for the prebiotic synthesis of purines and pyrimidines, respectively. Although several different pathways for the synthesis of purines have been described, they are all variations of the initial mechanism proposed by Oró and Kimball, where hydrogen cyanide leads first to the formation of a 4,5-di-substituted imidazole derivative, and then to the closing of the purine ring with a C1 compound. A number of experiments have shown that purines and pyrimidines can also be obtained from methane, ammonia (nitrogen), and water mixtures, provided an activating source of energy (radiation, electric discharges, etc.) is available. However, in this case the yields are lower by about two orders of magnitude because of the intermediate formation of hydrogen cyanide and cyanoacetylene. The latter two compounds have been found in interstellar space, Titan and other bodies of the solar system. They were probably present in the primordial parent bodies from the solar nebula in concentrations of 10(-2) to 10(-3) M as inferred from recent calculations by Miller and coworkers obtained for the Murchison meteorite. These concentrations should have been sufficient to generate relatively large amounts of purine and pyrimidine bases on the primitive Earth.
Chem Scr. 1986;26B:5-11.
Current status of the prebiotic synthesis of small molecules.
Miller SL.
Collaborators (1)
Source
Department of Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 92093, USA.
Abstract
The prebiotic synthesis of small molecules has been accomplished using various simulated atmospheres with CH4, N2, and NH3, H2O being the most effective, but H2, CO, N2, H2O and H2, CO2, N2, H2O also give good yields of organic compounds provided H2/CO > 1 and H2/CO2 > 2. The spark discharge is a very effective source of energy in such experiments, because it is a good source of HCN. Ultraviolet light would also have been important on the primitive earth. Almost all prebiotic amino acids are made by the hydrolysis of an amino nitrile formed from an aldehyde, NH3 and HCN (Strecker synthesis). There are reasonable prebiotic syntheses worked out for the twenty amino acids that occur in proteins, with the exception of lysine, arginine and histidine. The purines are derived from the polymerization of HCN, and the precursor of the pyrimidines is cyanoacetylene. The sugars (including ribose), would have been formed from the base catalyzed polymerization of formaldehyde. There is no good prebiotic synthesis of straight chain fatty acids. Of the vitamin coenzymes, only nicotinic acid has been synthesized under prebiotic conditions. Many of the molecules that are produced in these simulated primitive earth experiments are found in a group of meteorites that contain organic compounds, called the carbonaceous chondrites. Since such prebiotic syntheses took place on the parent body of the carbonaceous chondrites, generally thought to be an asteroid, it is plausible, but not proved, that such syntheses took place on the primitive earth, and that the first living organisms were formed out of these compounds.
Chem Soc Rev. 2012 Aug 21;41(16):5459-72. doi: 10.1039/c2cs35109a. Epub 2012 Jun 15.
Understanding prebiotic chemistry through the analysis of extraterrestrial amino acids and nucleobases in meteorites.
Burton AS, Stern JC, Elsila JE, Glavin DP, Dworkin JP.
Source
Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.
Abstract
The discoveries of amino acids of extraterrestrial origin in many meteorites over the last 50 years have revolutionized the Astrobiology field. A variety of non-terrestrial amino acids similar to those found in life on Earth have been detected in meteorites. A few amino acids have even been found with chiral excesses, suggesting that meteorites could have contributed to the origin of homochirality in life on Earth. In addition to amino acids, which have been productively studied for years, sugar-like molecules, activated phosphates, and nucleobases have also been determined to be indigenous to numerous meteorites. Because these molecules are essential for life as we know it, and meteorites have been delivering them to the Earth since accretion, it is plausible that the origin(s) of life on Earth were aided by extraterrestrially-synthesized molecules. Understanding the origins of life on Earth guides our search for life elsewhere, helping to answer the question of whether biology is unique to Earth. This tutorial review focuses on meteoritic amino acids and nucleobases, exploring modern analytical methods and possible formation mechanisms. We will also discuss the unique window that meteorites provide into the chemistry that preceded life on Earth, a chemical record we do not have access to on Earth due to geologic recycling of rocks and the pervasiveness of biology across the planet. Finally, we will address the future of meteorite research, including asteroid sample return missions.
Adv Space Res. 1984;4(12):125-31.
Prebiotic syntheses of purines and pyrimidines.
Basile B, Lazcano A, Oró J.
Collaborators (1)
Source
Department of Biochemical and Biophysical Sciences, University of Houston, TX 77004, USA.
Abstract
The work done in many laboratories during the last two decades has confirmed that hydrogen cyanide and cyanoacetylene are the two major precursors for the prebiotic synthesis of purines and pyrimidines, respectively. Although several different pathways for the synthesis of purines have been described, they are all variations of the initial mechanism proposed by Oró and Kimball, where hydrogen cyanide leads first to the formation of a 4,5-di-substituted imidazole derivative, and then to the closing of the purine ring with a C1 compound. A number of experiments have shown that purines and pyrimidines can also be obtained from methane, ammonia (nitrogen), and water mixtures, provided an activating source of energy (radiation, electric discharges, etc.) is available. However, in this case the yields are lower by about two orders of magnitude because of the intermediate formation of hydrogen cyanide and cyanoacetylene. The latter two compounds have been found in interstellar space, Titan and other bodies of the solar system. They were probably present in the primordial parent bodies from the solar nebula in concentrations of 10(-2) to 10(-3) M as inferred from recent calculations by Miller and coworkers obtained for the Murchison meteorite. These concentrations should have been sufficient to generate relatively large amounts of purine and pyrimidine bases on the primitive Earth.
Chem Scr. 1986;26B:5-11.
Current status of the prebiotic synthesis of small molecules.
Miller SL.
Collaborators (1)
Source
Department of Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 92093, USA.
Abstract
The prebiotic synthesis of small molecules has been accomplished using various simulated atmospheres with CH4, N2, and NH3, H2O being the most effective, but H2, CO, N2, H2O and H2, CO2, N2, H2O also give good yields of organic compounds provided H2/CO > 1 and H2/CO2 > 2. The spark discharge is a very effective source of energy in such experiments, because it is a good source of HCN. Ultraviolet light would also have been important on the primitive earth. Almost all prebiotic amino acids are made by the hydrolysis of an amino nitrile formed from an aldehyde, NH3 and HCN (Strecker synthesis). There are reasonable prebiotic syntheses worked out for the twenty amino acids that occur in proteins, with the exception of lysine, arginine and histidine. The purines are derived from the polymerization of HCN, and the precursor of the pyrimidines is cyanoacetylene. The sugars (including ribose), would have been formed from the base catalyzed polymerization of formaldehyde. There is no good prebiotic synthesis of straight chain fatty acids. Of the vitamin coenzymes, only nicotinic acid has been synthesized under prebiotic conditions. Many of the molecules that are produced in these simulated primitive earth experiments are found in a group of meteorites that contain organic compounds, called the carbonaceous chondrites. Since such prebiotic syntheses took place on the parent body of the carbonaceous chondrites, generally thought to be an asteroid, it is plausible, but not proved, that such syntheses took place on the primitive earth, and that the first living organisms were formed out of these compounds.
Chem Soc Rev. 2012 Aug 21;41(16):5459-72. doi: 10.1039/c2cs35109a. Epub 2012 Jun 15.
Understanding prebiotic chemistry through the analysis of extraterrestrial amino acids and nucleobases in meteorites.
Burton AS, Stern JC, Elsila JE, Glavin DP, Dworkin JP.
Source
Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.
Abstract
The discoveries of amino acids of extraterrestrial origin in many meteorites over the last 50 years have revolutionized the Astrobiology field. A variety of non-terrestrial amino acids similar to those found in life on Earth have been detected in meteorites. A few amino acids have even been found with chiral excesses, suggesting that meteorites could have contributed to the origin of homochirality in life on Earth. In addition to amino acids, which have been productively studied for years, sugar-like molecules, activated phosphates, and nucleobases have also been determined to be indigenous to numerous meteorites. Because these molecules are essential for life as we know it, and meteorites have been delivering them to the Earth since accretion, it is plausible that the origin(s) of life on Earth were aided by extraterrestrially-synthesized molecules. Understanding the origins of life on Earth guides our search for life elsewhere, helping to answer the question of whether biology is unique to Earth. This tutorial review focuses on meteoritic amino acids and nucleobases, exploring modern analytical methods and possible formation mechanisms. We will also discuss the unique window that meteorites provide into the chemistry that preceded life on Earth, a chemical record we do not have access to on Earth due to geologic recycling of rocks and the pervasiveness of biology across the planet. Finally, we will address the future of meteorite research, including asteroid sample return missions.
Last edited:
Stretch
Subscriber
Not defensive. You are misapplying vocal inflection to my words. It's probably my fault, as my meanings seem to be misconstrued more often than others, but I am enjoying this discussion.
No one is fighting brother. This is a forum for the exchange of opinions, it is being used as intended.
The formation of AA's from simple ketones and aldehydes which would've been abundantly available on the primordial earth
File:Strecker Amino Acid Synthesis Scheme.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Strecker Amino Acid Synthesis Scheme.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
grindthegear
New Member
so why do so many people think that its evolution vs god? why cant it be a higher power is the one that created evolution so we can adapt to the changing times? im not a religious person but i have gone to church to see what it was all about and i dont understand why people knock each other for it. and how people like the westboro baptist church can claim to be godly people and do so much hateful things.
The origin of the RNA world: Co-evolution of genes and metabolism
Shelley D. Copleya, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, Eric Smithb, Harold J. Morowitzc
a University of Colorado at Boulder, CIRES, Campus Box 216, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
b Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87502, USA
c Krasnow Institute, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
Abstract
Discoveries demonstrating that RNA can serve genetic, catalytic, structural, and regulatory roles have provided strong support for the existence of an RNA World that preceded the origin of life as we know it. Despite the appeal of this idea, it has been difficult to explain how macromolecular RNAs emerged from small molecules available on the early Earth. We propose here a mechanism by which mutual catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated a progression of stages characterized by ever larger and more effective catalysts supporting a proto-metabolic network, and the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner. This model suggests that many features of modern life, including the biosynthetic pathways leading to simple metabolites, the structures of organic and metal ion cofactors, homochirality, and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World and were retained as pre-biotic systems became more sophisticated.
Shelley D. Copleya, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, Eric Smithb, Harold J. Morowitzc
a University of Colorado at Boulder, CIRES, Campus Box 216, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
b Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87502, USA
c Krasnow Institute, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
Abstract
Discoveries demonstrating that RNA can serve genetic, catalytic, structural, and regulatory roles have provided strong support for the existence of an RNA World that preceded the origin of life as we know it. Despite the appeal of this idea, it has been difficult to explain how macromolecular RNAs emerged from small molecules available on the early Earth. We propose here a mechanism by which mutual catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated a progression of stages characterized by ever larger and more effective catalysts supporting a proto-metabolic network, and the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner. This model suggests that many features of modern life, including the biosynthetic pathways leading to simple metabolites, the structures of organic and metal ion cofactors, homochirality, and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World and were retained as pre-biotic systems became more sophisticated.
Your question has already been asked....not sure anyone has given an answer.
You can't look at a group like WBC and make ANY assumptions about Christianity as a whole based on their actions. They are crazy fucking nut jobs....most other Christian groups aren't.
Stretch
Subscriber
I don't think people actually feel that way. I think perception is like that because of the way people argue.
When someone is arguing with me about this topic they always tell me that I am anti-science. I respond with the assertion that my opponent is anti-God.
The same way those who are against abortion aren't "against abortion" they are "pro-life".
Pericles
New Member
That is my position, God created the Universe via evolution. We have a massive body of evidence that the world and Universe are much, much older than 6k years.
Bones of Dinosaurs are millennial in age. The Young Earth theory would have them hanging out w/ the Phoenicians.
Pericles
New Member
There is a reason as to why the information is redundant and obvious, because it is true.
YEC is like looking outside and noticing that it is snowing at a rate of 2 inches an hour. There are 12 inches of snow on the ground, so the Earth must be only 6 hours old.
Come on Idster your smarter than this, mate! Why this crap is analogous to the creationist dogma on the 10K earth.
Why of course aldehydes and alcohols, esters and nitrogenous structures were and still are being formed on earth. However the quantities are minute, erratic, dysfunctional or very concentrated to the point of toxicity such as in sulphuric volcanic jets.
It means NOTHING and is evolutionary dogma, propped by scientists as supposed theories to be taken seriously as being responsible for the infinite number of organized sequences required to form a simple nucleic acid or to integrate a phospholipid as FUNCTIONAL component of a cell membrane or in this instance unprotected RNA surviving the catalysmic events of the era without being "unrecognizable" if exposed to isotopic byproducts required in the formation of the elements, oxidized/reduced, denatured, uncoiled or cleaved all of which render this macromolecular RNA fully dysfunctional in a matter of nano-seconds.
Moreover last time I checked RNA was either copied from another strand of RNA or DNA. What initiates effective cleavage or the duplication process without a functional nucleus are not mentioned in their UNTESTED MODEL which is obviously BUNK .
EVERY cell requires a BRAIN (nucleus) which integrates, coordinates or initiates EVERTHING from replication of itself, organelles, legitimate cellular "building blocks" such as proteins, amino acids, protoglycans or even parasitic "pre-organisms" such as virus, prion, or protein coils again the evolutionary theorists are confronted with a HUGE void in legitimate research when this issue is discussed.
JIMMY
Why of course aldehydes and alcohols, esters and nitrogenous structures were and still are being formed on earth. However the quantities are minute, erratic, dysfunctional or very concentrated to the point of toxicity such as in sulphuric volcanic jets.
It means NOTHING and is evolutionary dogma, propped by scientists as supposed theories to be taken seriously as being responsible for the infinite number of organized sequences required to form a simple nucleic acid or to integrate a phospholipid as FUNCTIONAL component of a cell membrane or in this instance unprotected RNA surviving the catalysmic events of the era without being "unrecognizable" if exposed to isotopic byproducts required in the formation of the elements, oxidized/reduced, denatured, uncoiled or cleaved all of which render this macromolecular RNA fully dysfunctional in a matter of nano-seconds.
Moreover last time I checked RNA was either copied from another strand of RNA or DNA. What initiates effective cleavage or the duplication process without a functional nucleus are not mentioned in their UNTESTED MODEL which is obviously BUNK .
EVERY cell requires a BRAIN (nucleus) which integrates, coordinates or initiates EVERTHING from replication of itself, organelles, legitimate cellular "building blocks" such as proteins, amino acids, protoglycans or even parasitic "pre-organisms" such as virus, prion, or protein coils again the evolutionary theorists are confronted with a HUGE void in legitimate research when this issue is discussed.
JIMMY
Pericles
New Member
I agree, too many things had to fall in place, IMO, for there to be no Higher Power.
Having said that, I am about 98% sure that God Created the Universe, my contention is that it took 13 billion years, not a few thousand..
Having said that, I am about 98% sure that God Created the Universe, my contention is that it took 13 billion years, not a few thousand..
I've stated many times in this thread that the BB theory still can't explain who or what preceded and initiated the BB. I've stated many times that I'm open to the idea life wasn't chance. Furthermore Jim, you haven't explicitly stated what you mean when you say you're a "creationist" so I'm not entirely sure what your slant on this is ATM. Are you saying you have a biblical view of how life started or simply God started life via what we know as science?
There are two arguments going on here. 1. Did life start with no outside intervention or was it created by some one/thing we call God? 2. If you believe God was responsible did it happen in ANY way like it's written in Genesis?
Here's my problem with the religious aspects. I KNOW the bible is totally inaccurate when it comes to Genesis and the formation of the world and life. So does that mean the entire bible is inaccurate? Seriously, if they can't get the first chapter right what are the chances ANY of it is correct? Furthermore, does a person need religion to talk to God, to love God or to have a relationship with God?
Science and religion do not have to be incompatible unless you adopt a literal translation of the bible as the word of God.
There are two arguments going on here. 1. Did life start with no outside intervention or was it created by some one/thing we call God? 2. If you believe God was responsible did it happen in ANY way like it's written in Genesis?
Here's my problem with the religious aspects. I KNOW the bible is totally inaccurate when it comes to Genesis and the formation of the world and life. So does that mean the entire bible is inaccurate? Seriously, if they can't get the first chapter right what are the chances ANY of it is correct? Furthermore, does a person need religion to talk to God, to love God or to have a relationship with God?
Science and religion do not have to be incompatible unless you adopt a literal translation of the bible as the word of God.
I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a moment. (I know, it's not the best wording given the topic but I'm tired)
When you say "I KNOW the bible is totally inaccurate when it comes to Genesis and the formation of the world and life," that would make you guilty of using the same literal interpretation you just warned about, would it not?
If you look at Genesis as being allegorical rather than literal, then it's not a question of it being "wrong," but about the message it wishes to convey. Of course the message is overly simplistic, but considering the era in which it was written, I can imagine the difficulty one would encounter in trying to make Bronze/Stone Age people understand the concept of singularity or Euclidean space-time would be substantial. MHOO
Excellent commentary CBS!
The points I've tried to make throughout this entire thread is NOT that of religious doctrine or theology but that which is supported in science based on known EVIDENCE, regardless of how sparse it may be.
Ergo to say I'm a creationist simply means I believe there is as much science which refutes an evolutionary "beginning and end", as there is which supports a creationist beginning (no doubt) and perhaps an evolutionary explanation for the development of GENUS/SPECIES
I also believe just because science collates information based on fossils (and that's all) and thereafter develops some biased nomenclature, with the forethought being, now let's fit the information to the theory of "evolution", does NOT mean there was a progressive process of genetic differentiation which took placed over eons and as such infers evolution is the "theory of everything".
The latter is an idiotic and bigoted idea rather than a theory based on science substantiated by known evidence.
Where all these "lost"
transition fossils? (Yea lost in volcanic ash, lol, why how convenient)
I mean shit you don't have to be an evidence based theorist to understand the advancement of a phylum or order to an entirely different one such as birds becoming fish, ruminators morphing into primates, is analogous to rocks transitioning into oysters, lol.
Or how about the complete resurgence of new species (generically) post the destruction of dinosaurs, fossils please!!!!
In fact the paucity of data which even remotely supports this "idea" is more a reflection of scientists and educators being "dumbed down" by our politically correct anti-God society where the freedom to express party line stupidity is valued more than the duty to voice independent thought no matter how unpopular.
Jim
The points I've tried to make throughout this entire thread is NOT that of religious doctrine or theology but that which is supported in science based on known EVIDENCE, regardless of how sparse it may be.
Ergo to say I'm a creationist simply means I believe there is as much science which refutes an evolutionary "beginning and end", as there is which supports a creationist beginning (no doubt) and perhaps an evolutionary explanation for the development of GENUS/SPECIES
I also believe just because science collates information based on fossils (and that's all) and thereafter develops some biased nomenclature, with the forethought being, now let's fit the information to the theory of "evolution", does NOT mean there was a progressive process of genetic differentiation which took placed over eons and as such infers evolution is the "theory of everything".
The latter is an idiotic and bigoted idea rather than a theory based on science substantiated by known evidence.
Where all these "lost"
transition fossils? (Yea lost in volcanic ash, lol, why how convenient)
I mean shit you don't have to be an evidence based theorist to understand the advancement of a phylum or order to an entirely different one such as birds becoming fish, ruminators morphing into primates, is analogous to rocks transitioning into oysters, lol.
Or how about the complete resurgence of new species (generically) post the destruction of dinosaurs, fossils please!!!!
In fact the paucity of data which even remotely supports this "idea" is more a reflection of scientists and educators being "dumbed down" by our politically correct anti-God society where the freedom to express party line stupidity is valued more than the duty to voice independent thought no matter how unpopular.
Jim
Jim, you understand why I asked for clarification? Every creationist I've met (I have a partner who believed the Bible should be interpreted literally and the earth is 5000 years old) inevitably believes in creationism NOT because they are aware of ANY scientific supporting facts but because the good book says so.
Well fellas I just wrote a book in response with some brilliant shit and my phone crashed and it's gone. My NEVER crashes and I can only conclude God smited my phone....lol.
Anyway I've spent too much time on this so fuck it I'm out.
I declare Stretch the winner because he actually believes everything coming out of his mouth and Jim a close second although I think creationism appeals to his need to love a good conspiracy theory.
Anyway I've spent too much time on this so fuck it I'm out.
I declare Stretch the winner because he actually believes everything coming out of his mouth and Jim a close second although I think creationism appeals to his need to love a good conspiracy theory.
Don't know Jim...I've seen more evidence for than against. On top of that you seem to have an agenda here. While I generally think you're spot on in medicine I give you no such credit outside of medicine. I could ask you where is YOUR evidence and I bet you could dig up a handful of papers to support your ideas but then again we both know it is possible to find papers to support just about anything...lots of junk science out there.
So what are we to do? Just as an ophthalmologist could probably follow a discussion on TRT I doubt he would understand any of the subtleties. He understands the basics but is not an expert. Other than giving your opinion what makes you qualified to comment as expert? I'm certainly not qualified so I rely on others who do understand the nuances of the literature and the VAST majority disagree with you. Could this be a big anti-God conspiracy? I guess but really? As I've said before most PhDs are know are religious and the handful I know who are truely qualified to comment on this have no obvious dog in this fight. The data supports what it supports.
Yeah yeah I know I should think for myself but guess what I'm a busy guy who has neither the time nor desire to be an expert on everything...wouldn't want to be called a no it all.
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
-
Hospira Bacteriostatic water still safe to use?
- Latest: james jwrvey
-
