Oxygen levels were only 0.1 percent of today's levels for roughly billion years before rise of animals

October 31, 2014 by Iqbal Pittalwala
The photo shows a sample collected in northern China with abundant large grains coated by iron oxides. The grains, deposited in shallow, nearshore settings in the ancient ocean, can capture the chromium isotope composition of river water draining the ancient continents. Those waters, in turn, can record reactions in ancient soil in the presence or absence of appreciable atmospheric oxygen. In this way, the iron-rich grains are something like an oxygen paleobarometer for the ancient atmosphere. Credit: X. Chu, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

(Phys.org) —Geologists are letting the air out of a nagging mystery about the development of animal life on Earth.

Scientists have long speculated as to why animal species didn't flourish sooner, once sufficient covered the Earth's surface. Animals first appeared and began to prosper at the end of the Proterozoic period, about 600 to 700 million years ago—but what about the billion-year stretch before that, when most researchers think there was also plenty of oxygen?

Evidently, the air was not oxygen-rich enough then, a team of researchers has found. In a study published online Oct. 30 in Science, the researchers report that oxygen levels during the billion or more years before the rise of were only 0.1 percent of what they are today.

"In other words, Earth's atmosphere couldn't have supported a diversity of creatures, no matter what genetic advancements were in place," said coauthor Timothy W. Lyons, a distinguished professor of biogeochemistry in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of California, Riverside.

According to the researchers, while there is no question that genetic and ecological innovation are ultimately behind the rise of animals, there is also no question that for animal life to flourish a certain level of oxygen is required.

"We're providing the first evidence that oxygen levels were low enough during this period to potentially prevent the rise of animals," said Yale University biogeochemist Noah J. Planavsky, co-lead author of the research along with Christopher Reinhard of the Georgia Institute of Technology. Planavsky and Reinhard, recent graduates of UC Riverside, began these studies while in Lyons' lab.

The scientists found their evidence by analyzing chromium isotopes in ancient sediments from China, Australia, Canada and the United States. Chromium is found in the Earth's continental crust, and chromium oxidation, the process recorded by the chromium isotopes, is directly linked to the presence of free oxygen in the atmosphere.

Specifically, the team studied samples deposited in shallow, iron-rich ocean areas, near the ancient shoreline. They compared their data with other samples taken from younger locales deposited in similar settings but known to have higher levels of oxygen.

The question about the role of oxygen in controlling the first appearance of animal has long vexed scientists. "We were missing the right approach until now," Planavsky said. "Chromium gave us the proxy." He explained that previous estimates, which put the at 40 percent of today's conditions during pre-animal times, were based on very loose constraints, leaving open the possibility that oxygen was already plenty high to support animal life, and shifting the absence of before the end of the Proterozoic to other controls.

In their study, the authors acknowledge that oxygen levels were highly dynamic in the early atmosphere, with the potential for occasional spikes. However, it also seems clear that there are first-order differences in the nature of Earth surface chromium cycling before the rise of animals versus the time interval coincident with their first appearance—implying vanishingly small oxygen conditions before.

These differences are recorded in a dramatic shift in the isotope data, with clear signals of cycling beneath a more oxygen-rich atmosphere at the time the animals appear. "If we are right, our results will really change how people view the origins of animals and other complex life and their relationships to the co-evolving environment," said Lyons. "This could be a game changer."

Explore further: The ups and downs of early atmospheric oxygen

More information: "Low Mid-Proterozoic atmospheric oxygen levels and the delayed rise of animals." Science 31 October 2014: Vol. 346 no. 6209 pp. 635-638 DOI: 10.1126/science.1258410

Related Stories

The ups and downs of early atmospheric oxygen

February 19, 2014

A team of biogeochemists at the University of California, Riverside, give us a nontraditional way of thinking about the earliest accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere, arguably the most important biological event in Earth ...

Extreme climate change linked to early animal evolution

September 26, 2012

An international team of scientists, including geochemists from the University of California, Riverside, has uncovered new evidence linking extreme climate change, oxygen rise, and early animal evolution.

Oxygen's ups and downs in the early atmosphere and ocean

October 23, 2012

Most researchers imagine the initial oxygenation of the ocean and atmosphere to have been something like a staircase, but with steps only going up. The first step, so the story goes, occurred around 2.4 billion years ago, ...

Recommended for you

Greenland now a major driver of rising seas: study

June 26, 2017

Ocean levels rose 50 percent faster in 2014 than in 1993, with meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet now supplying 25 percent of total sea level increase compared with just five percent 20 years earlier, researchers reported ...

Biodiversity loss from deep-sea mining will be unavoidable

June 26, 2017

Biodiversity losses from deep-sea mining are unavoidable and possibly irrevocable, an international team of 15 marine scientists, resource economists and legal scholars argue in a letter published today in the journal Nature ...

98 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

robertgr
2.1 / 5 (22) Oct 31, 2014
Climate alarmists need to learn where Oxygen comes from.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2014
With a Master of Science in this field, I know.

We can live without an economy, and without money, but not without an environment suited to us, to make our Oxygen, clean our water, and provide us with food.

More than half comes from the now-acidifying oceans, Where did you think it came from? Do you think we get it from the Koch Brothers?
verkle
Oct 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2014
When talking about millions of years ago, scientists always speculate. What else can they do when there is no witnesses of this distant past. Even to assume hypothetically that the gas composition of the planet in the past is reflected in the different types of rocks, the problem of dating them is inevitable. We do not know the initial conditions of the environment, concentrations of isotopes and intermediate events since then that may affect them. Oxygen atmosphere prevent the synthesis of amino acids necessary for the synthesis of proteins. But lack of oxygen in atmosphere is even worse because of the UV light due to a lack of ozone. There are plenty of conflicting requirements for sintesis by chance in one place at the same time for necessary elements for life.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (20) Oct 31, 2014
Robert---good one!

Whether or not Oxygen was in the atmosphere is mute when considering the possibility of evolution of animals. There are a lot more impossible barriers to cross if evolution rely did take place. Oxygen is not one of them. The magical appearance of new genes and the billions of intermediate organisms is what is impossible to fathom. Because they don't exist.



Stupidy squared.
Jeffhans1
4.5 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2014
Verkle, just because you don't understand the reasoning and science behind the conclusions, doesn't mean you get to ignore reality and declare it wrong. God never told you he created the earth and everything on it in 6 days. That story came from someone who lived over 6k years ago who was writing it down based on traditional oral stories. It was then put into a collection of other writings from men declared to be prophets. After being transcribed hundreds of times by people who used shorthand to skip letters like vowels, punctuation and spacing, it was translated by fallible humans into their particular native language. No where in that entire process is there any indication that the story from genesis is the literal truth as opposed to the parables and stories used as teaching methods. Even the Pope has acknowledged that none of the science behind the Big Bang theory or the age of the earth contradicts the existence of God.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (16) Oct 31, 2014
@viko: Just because you don't understand science, doesn't mean you can ignore reality and declare that there "is no witnesses of this distant past". [Thanks, Jeffhans!]

The article describes the usual witnesses, here sediments, and we have many thousands such witnesses talking to scientists every day.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2014
@Jeffhans: Mind that the leader of the catholic sect is accepting some of the observations (and last I heard they still didn't accept that humans were never under 10 000 breeder pairs, but thinks it was an impossible single 1). But such buffoons are not accepting the science, they replace the natural mechanisms with magical action.

That is after all what creationists of all stripes want to do, conjure up magical beings where none can be found, and declare based on nothing that these imaginations magically do stuff we see natural mechanisms do.
grondilu
5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2014
> Animals first appeared and began to prosper at the end of the Proterozoic period

Proterozoic is not a period, it's an eon.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2014
verkle conceded its impossible for him to understand with this admission
The magical appearance of new genes and the billions of intermediate organisms is what is impossible to fathom.
Too true that un-intelligent uneducated people just cannot understand that all you need for evolution to take place is:-

a. Material with discontinuous properties, ie Atoms
b. Rules of interactions ie Bonding types
c. Time for permutations to occur with variations in environments

It has been proven many times that applying genetic algorithms in computing creates immense complexity from simple components, any singular act of creation is not needed.

verkle muttered
Because they don't exist.
They do exist, complex variations arise from chance interactions on the scales of billions upon billions across long time scales.

I have told you this before, why not check out genetic algorithms, are you unable to search, unable to comprehend, struck dumb with surprise - what ?
viko_mx
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
I want someone of proponents of evolution theory to explain what is the probability for accidentally synthesized protein composed of 100 amino acids to be happen by chance? I see that someone talk about permutations but in general, not with specific numbers and examples. However, I am interested in specific numbers because they put a boundary between the possible and the impossible. Also I would like to be explained under what conditions can be synthesized the necessary for proteins amino acids and to be demonstrated that these conditions are possible and ever happened on planet Earth in distant past.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
viko_mx with a fair question
I want someone of proponents of evolution theory to explain what is the probability for accidentally synthesized protein composed of 100 amino acids to be happen by chance?
I will offer a perspective.

1. I'm not a proponent (as such) of any "particular" evolutionary theory.
2. I focus on evidence which might not be connected with a theory in obvious ways as I apply cross-discipline paradigms to deduction.
3. One can look at predisposed patterns re chemistry & apply educated speculation which can be tested in computing models & that part, although indicative, is helpful & in its relative infancy.

A. Accepted early Earth had Ammonia (NH3), O2, C & UV, these leading to amines
B. All life is composed of amino acids ALL have amine (NH2), ie Bond to C not to H
C. All proteins composed of combinations of amino acids
D. All life has same basic proteins, some species specialise variants

Start with A.
http://en.wikiped...ormamide

TBC
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

There is no need to demonstrate a banal attitude that those who see no way evolution has occurred on Earth, do not understood science. Give specific examples instead qualifying the opinions of yours opponents. Because it can become clear that you do not understand science.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
@Mike_Massen

To date it is known that every attempts which have been made in the laboratory for the synthesis of amino acids necessary for proteins, did not provide satisfactory results, regardless of expensive laboratory equipment and intelligent approach to the experiments. It is paradoxical that an intelligent researchers fails where pure chance create miracles. Ultraviolet light breaks down complex biological molecules and DNA (RNA), and not at all desirable for appearance of life. Оxygen atmosphere has oxidative action and makes it impossible synthesis of proteins.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2014
Continuing perspective later, other compelling but, for time being useful to comment on viko_mx's post
... But lack of oxygen in atmosphere is even worse because of the UV light due to a lack of ozone.
Makes more UV energy available as additional source of energy to catalyse/activate less favourable reactions over that which we have now, less oxygen also means less oxidation to denature amino acids & proteins.

viko_mx
There are plenty of conflicting requirements for sintesis by chance in one place at the same time for necessary elements for life.
Although I have done microbiology as part of a post grad in Food Science I don't have any formal training in biochemistry & molecular biology so I am unfamiliar with the term "sintesis". Rough google search finds several Spanish definitions, most salient:-
http://translatio...Dntesis/

Google can't do your context so please clarify your use of 'sintesis' ?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2014
viko_mx claimed
To date it is known that every attempts which have been made in the laboratory for the synthesis of amino acids necessary for proteins, did not provide satisfactory results, regardless of expensive laboratory equipment and intelligent approach to the experiments.
Beg pardon, 'every' is a wild absolute. Guanine is easily generated, it is one of the key amino-acid of base pairs of DNA.

Which particular experiments have you information on that Fail to show simple reaction from ammonia to formamide to guanine ?

viko_mx added
Oxygen atmosphere has oxidative action and makes it impossible synthesis of proteins.
In this context the word "impossible" comes across as an emotional defense claim, not consistent with scientific enquiry ie An absolute, not probabilistic

Synthesis occurs easily yet we have much more O2 than early earth so 'chemical logic' suggests it would happen even more easily long ago.

btw: Do you have any high school chem background ?
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014

I mention only the facts. Proteins are composed of 20 basic amino acids. How many of them are synthesized in the laboratory of simple gases and catalysts in the same place under the same conditions, so as to mimic the hypothetical environmental conditions in the distant past on Earth? How many after synthesis are left-handed and how right-handed. Proteins in living organisms in 99.99% of cases are made of left-handed amino acids and in very rare cases, there are those containing right-handed amino acids, which have a special purpose. The same problem as the presence of matter and the lack of antimatter in the universe.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 01, 2014
viko_mx misunderstands importance of assumptions in arriving at a question
I mention only the facts
Be complete then please.
Proteins are composed of 20 basic amino acids.
You excluded & diluted, U should have said "..up to 20 basic..".

Doing so U have cut off means to grow an understanding of foundational increase in complexity as it should be obvious amino acids MUST be 1st then & obviously ONLY then are there protein permutations subsequently !

Remainder of your question seems predicated upon anti-evolutionist dogma re the paradigm of Shakespeare's work punched out complete by monkeys hitting random keys on a type-writer.

Obviously that's NOT how simple chemicals interact to for bonding/complexity, ie It is from activation energies & intermediate metastable products a foundation.

Why R U crafting question to place narrow sole importance on simultaneity to narrow thought, which religious group does propagandise this ?

Did U not see formamide link ?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2014
I wouldn't ordinarily respond to trolling, but since I am directly addressed and there are fair questions (but see below), I will attempt so.

Let me first note that it is unrealistic of creationists to think that a 150+ year old science would be erroneous and still pursued, or worse as here underlying all biology. It is no secret that evolutionary methods have been heavily relied on to track and understand the current ebola outbreak. Most crucial here, creationists must refuse to use any ebola vaccines when they come, because according to them vaccine antibodies are random accidents and are unlikely to work.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2014
[ctd]

Reversely, we can rely on these methods to see why the basis of biology is the best tested science we have. It predicts that fossil traits must form nested hierarchies as they evolve, and in 150+ years that has been true - no precambrian rabbits. Now that we have phylogenies reaching down to the geophysical systems we are descendants of, finally and successfully predicting emergence of life, it still holds true as life emerged after these systems appeared.

Q: "I want someone of proponents of evolution theory to explain what is the probability for accidentally synthesized protein composed of 100 amino acids to be happen by chance?"

A: Again, it is unrealistic to think biologists haven't posed and answered that question in some form, even to say "we don't know yet". And of course the question is totally irrelevant to the article discussing oxygen levels and its effects on life.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2014
[ctd]

As it happens, the answer is as old as evolution and the question has uselessly been asked by creationists for some decades - I am sure there is a standard response in TalkOrigins. And the answer is that the fundamental biological process doesn't work that way. It is like asking "how can gravity transport our Moon orbiting Earth to orbit Neptune in the blink of an eye?"

Darwinian processes must be gradual and survivable because they happen over generations with descendants. That is why we know that they are not unlikely accidents, or all chance (because they happen under the process, that incorporates natural selection). That doesn't preclude that such an unlikely polypeptide occured in nature and evolution co-opted it. But it precludes that it was crucial for life.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2014
[ctd]

Now to the folly of creationists, and seeing how placing questions are fair:

- We would like proponents of creationism to explain what is the probability for accidentally synthesized animals composed of 10^12 cells to be happen by chance? That is after all how creationist myth describe how life come to be, independent random occurrences.

(Pro tip: It can't happen within the lifetime of the universe.)

- What is the probability that they had genomes that just happened to make those accidental humans (say) manage procreation?

- What is the probability that there were enough such random human accidents that there were enough males and females to procreate?

- How do you explain the fossil record? Why do we not see humans before there were enough oxygen to live?

- Do you know that already Pasteur refuted your idea of spontaneous generation 200 years ago? That isn't how organisms appear, either by chance or by some form of magic, and we know this.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
[ctd]

Q: "How many of them are synthesized in the laboratory of simple gases and catalysts in the same place under the same conditions, so as to mimic the hypothetical environmental conditions in the distant past on Earth?"

A: That is irrelevant, since phylogenies place systems that produce simpler carbon compounds before evolution of proteins. Metabolism by environmental catalysts preceded amino acid evolution.

But as it happens, there are 10 out of the 20 that are found produced by nature in meteorites and there is a signal of co-option. First, those 10 are the most common in nature (where 100s of abiotic amino acids are found in meteorites). Second, the genetic code shows that those were the first used by evolution.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
[ctd]

Q: "How many after synthesis are left-handed and how right-handed [?]"

A: Usually the products are racemic of course, but chiral breaking as seen in cells (using L-amino acids and D-sugars) are easily produced abiotically by amplification of chemical fluctuations. E.g. clay surfaces do this all the time.

Now astrobiologists know that in a racemic solutions of nucleotides, amplification to heteropolymers is not easy. But as it happens, Joyce et al published how it could be broken - a 2-3 days ago! In RNA, which evolved before proteins as we know from ribosome phylogenies.

The amplification was hidden in plain sight. D-sugar nucleotides enzymes can synthesize L-sugar nucleotide heteropolymers, and L-sugar nucleotides enzymes can synthesize D-sugar nucleotide heteropolymers. The last barrier that astrobiologists have seen for emergence of life is broken.

[ The site doesn't like my link. I'll try again in the next comment. ]

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
[ctd]

Ref link attempt again: [ http://arstechnic...of-life/ ]

As it happens, for technical reasons I think chirality was broken already at the sugar metabolic stage. (Glycolysis/glucogenesis, known to happen non-enzymatically in a Hadean ocean.) All it took was for a set of related metabolic chains to be self-amplifying (say, ease the production of a metabolite). It is unlikely that didn't happen.

@viko: The one that had a banal attitude ("no witnesses" - really?) was you. The article has examples of sediment use.

"it can become clear that you do not understand science."

Oh, that is funny.

I readily admit that astrobiology is just a hobby. But I have done research for many years, on a physics process called sputtering that has astrophysical and technological use. You can google me in Google Scholar.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2014
viko_mx never heard of ice core samples with entrapped gases.

Where do these folk come from?
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
@Mike_Massen

I do not believe in the dogma of evolution, because there is no facts to catch. The history of this theory is full of flying hypotheses, wishful logic, forgery, ego and politics. More than embarrassing is that for 150 years there is not a solid fact in favor. I believe in the Creator, because the facts speak for all his creativity. I do not know man ever be relied on pure chance in its conscious activity. All products of the human intellect are well thought out and created by preliminary plan, using energy and material in a targeted way. Even machine for nuts is much more complex than the nuts themselves, but not more simple as it should be expected from evolution principles. In our universe complex forms are COMPOSED of simple building blocks (structural hierarchy), but complex form of life and consciousness CREATES the simplest form o
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
@Mike_Massen

of life and consciousness and structural hierarchy. You argue that in real life the opposite happens for which there are no facts.

By the way I had to write "up to 20 amino acids" if I had written "A protein consists of 20 amino acids." but this is not the case.

The simplest living organism can not occur by chance even the whole eternity is available. Something contrary to the fundamental principles of the universe can not happen under any circumstances by accident. If you think that the probability 1/10 ^ 4,300,000 for the appearance of the simplest form of life by chance under ideal conditions on Earth and in space could happen, this dispute becomes meaningless. Not to mention that all necessary components for the simplest living organism can not occur together because of conflicting conditions for their synthesis. Things are simple enough when you consider the basic principles.

viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2014
@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

You blame me for what you actually do.

"- We would like proponents of creationism to explain what is the probability for accidentally synthesized animals composed of 10^12 cells to be happen by chance? That is after all how creationist myth describe how life come to be, independent random occurrences. "

Comment what I have written without trying to read my mind.

"But as it happens, there are 10 out of the 20 that are found produced by nature in meteorites and there is a signal of co-option. First, those 10 are the most common in nature (where 100s of abiotic amino acids are found in meteorites). Second, the genetic code shows that those were the first used by evolution."

So on the Earth there are not suitable conditions for the synthesis of amino acids, so we rely on asteroids that when falling to the ground are evaporating at temperatures of thousands degrees? With roasted amino acids life is easier.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2014
the dogma of evolution, because there is no facts to catch. The history of this theory is full of flying hypotheses, wishful logic, forgery, ego and politics. More than embarrassing is that for 150 years there is not a solid fact in favor
TROLL comment
proof of your stupidity:
http://myxo.css.m...dex.html
http://www.tim-th...ils.html
http://www.talkor...nal.html
http://www.talkor...ses.html
http://www.talkor...ids.html
http://www.talkor...ryx.html
Please note the citations used for argument are studies, not just conjecture like viko states

also note that you've ignored empirical data for the sake of a delusion/faith/belief, so you cannot comprehend science

there is no science in viko's arguments, therefore they are troll arguments designed to inflame and denigrate science

argument from religion is for religious sites, not science sites
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

Can you identify which of everything I have written is not true by solid facts and serious scientific sources for information? But not this funny links that you give me and wich only for person with poor knowledge and without advanced critical thinking can be seen as reliable evidence for enything.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2014
viko_mx claimed
@Captain Stumpy
Can you identify which of everything I have written is not true by solid facts and serious scientific sources for information?
As I'm different timezone, reminding u some posts that dont have 'serious scientific sources':-

- There are a lot more impossible barriers to cross if evolution rely did take place.
- the problem of dating them is inevitable.
- Oxygen atmosphere prevent the synthesis of amino acids necessary for the synthesis of proteins
- But lack of oxygen in atmosphere is even worse because of the UV light due to a lack of ozone.
- sintesis by chance in one place at the same time for necessary elements

@viko_mx, pick the easiest top 3 listed above.
Also you havent defined "sintesis" all I have is a Spanish translation.

Fundamentalist creationist dogma RELIES on idea at its core matter doesn't self organise !

All Matter DOES obvious!

Eg p+/e- self organise to atoms/orbitals --> BONDING --> rules, permutations

TBC
barakn
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2014
I want someone of proponents of evolution theory to explain what is the probability for accidentally synthesized protein composed of 100 amino acids to be happen by chance?
This is a fallacious argument that presupposes there is exactly one sequence of amino acids that will allow some hypothetical protein to perform a certain function. However, It turns out that in real proteins many different sequences can do the same job, and there are may be as few as 5 amino acids in a protein that would severely degrade the performance of the protein if replaced with some other amino acids (collectively known as the active site). This makes it for more likely that random chance would come up with something that would work well enough.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2014
cont @viko_mx step by step, atoms form according to rules of proton(p+) -> electron(e-) interactions & is absolutely indisputable, (so far) never refuted.

Obviously atoms have orbital arrangements based on incremental atomic number & by charge equalisation leading to orbitals many not filled either wanting more or must lose some to become more stable, EVIDENCE of SELF organisation.

Only conclusion is if a being did to make universe he/she/it MUST have built in SELF organisation at its very CORE & most basic fundamental EVIDENCE & it's inescapable.

Look at most common of atom-atom interactions clear EVIDENCE also SELF organising governed by rules of bonding & activation energies (high school stuff), these energies are precise, more EVIDENCE of SELF organisation - everywhere all the time !

Take simple H2O, at core has SELF organisation eg Dissassociation & dissolves gases ie CO2, O2 etc EVIDENCE of SELF-organised predisposition throughout !

TBC
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2014
cont @viko_mx

It therefore is obvious it is the arrangements that develop combinatorial complexity based on permutations of stable arrangements ie H2O, O2, NH3 etc which are more complex forms of protons & electrons - that is indisputable. To suggest a creator being has to STEP IN each & every time to "make" water out of protons & electrons not only has no evidence of external cause & it happens without prayer too ;-)

So clearly, if you accept a combinatorial proposition of:-
"Atoms/Molecules SELF organise AND creator doesnt step in EACH TIME to make stuff"

then all it takes is to appreciate our feeble intellects have difficulty with scale in terms of immense time & immense space (BOTH of which we have in extreme abundance) does lead to more stable & more complex arrangements.

A Very simple example is one key DNA base pair Guanine forms EASILY by SELF organisation from Ammonia & Carbon Monoxide to make Formamide leading to Guanine.

TBC
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2014
cont @viko_mx

Given demonstrated (at least) one DNA/RNA base pair is EASILY generated by organised protons/electrons leads to atoms leads to molecules, what could definitively prevent all other base pairs arising from different arrangements of the SAME basic constituents made Guanine ?

In any case, you have to think, if was an all powerful creator then he/she/it would be easily able to "think ahead" or perhaps forsee all eventualities in terms of and and all desired outcomes of all complex lifeforms knowing what precise rules to furnish in the very beginning so as to enforce a fate-accompli by virtue of what I have demonstrated in terms of SELF organising :-)

The massive problem however, that arises from this is how does "any" creator communicate & why should they even need to do that & if they ever did would it be to all children to be fair or be selective based on human ego of one human over all history.

ie. What method does a creator use to communicate ?

TBC
viko_mx
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2014
@Mike_Massen
Again wishful logic. You call the elementary self-organizing reality, as they are designed with mind and reason to be building blocks of the universe and obey strict physical laws. Anything left to itself without intelligent support decays with time. It is not become better and more functional. The more complex a machine or biological life form are, the stronger are these effects for them and they lose functionality quickly and easily. I can understand why it is so difficult to change certain concepts in academic society and to abandon not working ideas. There are inertia of thinking, careerism, lack of leadership, financial considerations, ego and many other reasons. Basic nature laws and principles that we observe are simple and effestive. They are enough to make evolution widely advertised myth. But if some scienties recognize these theories wrong, the may lose their jobs and to become in the stupid position to realize that they have wasted their time chasing the wild.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2014
@Mike_Massen
Reasons for maintaining this theory by many people are basically unscientific.

@barakn
Even a single atom can change the behavior and reactivity of a protein. То count on the fact that the random change of several amino acids in the protein composition that will not allow it to get its correct geometry, will not make it ineffective, but it will improve, is too daring position. Many mechanisms in the cells depend on the proper function of proteins and their random change can only lead to a worsening of the synchronization between the biological processes in the cell. Furthermore, in addition to mutations that alter the genes, they may alter the control information is DNA, that occupies the greater part of the DNA. This is even worst option because it can confuse the work of many genes simultaneously.
pandora4real
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2014
Mon dieu. Deniers with the first (irrelevant) comment, egos indulging them, Adblade fraud at the bottom of the page...yeah, like this is a serious...ANYTHING!

We don't live on the planet, we live on plants. The only relevance here to climate change is how easy it is to do. That's what I've never understood about deniers. Humans can be uniquely characterized in the historical record by their level of environmental modification. We've modified everything in nature. But this tiny little thin envelope- we're not affecting that! Seriously, how could we NOT be affecting its composition. 5 billion vermin using it as a toilette...
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2014
viko_mx claimed
@Mike_Massen
.. call the elementary self-organizing reality, as they are designed with mind and reason to be building blocks of the universe and obey strict physical laws.
Observable at many scales depending on persons intelligence, patience & willingness to explore recent computing to test propositions Eg genetic algorithms - proven rather effective in "design" !

viko_mx further claimed but, missed time factor
Anything left to itself without intelligent support decays with time.
That is ONLY "relatively" true over long periods & subject to equilibria.

Gave U Eg. Formamide --> Guanine, occurs BECAUSE Guanine has less energy comparatively vs components (don't forget kinetic energy). It does not decay over short times of ~1000+yrs, in any case regenerates infinitely, it is SELF organised to do so.

To digress a bit & look from your perspective, what method does creator communicate that "he/she/it did it" & HAS TO keep doing it eg mutations ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2014
viko_mx asked
@Mike_Massen
Reasons for maintaining this theory by many people are basically unscientific.
What theory ?

That p+/e- SELF organise into atoms - observed.
That atoms SELF organise into molecules - observed.
That molecules interact by simple changes in relative energy equilibria - observed.
That the same principle applies when more complex molecules interact - observed (Eg. PCR).

What didn't U understand about foundational chemistry ?

Why do U viko_mx, seem to have immense mental block in understanding Guanine arises from common components of universe easily via simple chemistry ?

btw: Did U do high school physics & chemistry, please answer, it's crucial, because if you didn't then you can't appreciate essentials such as chemical equilibria & activation energy, without such education U will be going around in circles & unable to appreciate mechanism - U will be then be predisposed to some unknown creator HAVING to do things always ?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2014
funny links that you give me and wich only for person with poor knowledge and without advanced critical thinking can be seen as reliable evidence for enything
@viko-matic
well, skipping past your atrocious spelling and grammar, which you can correct for free with spell/grammar check, lets look at your idea of "funny links... without advanced critical thinking":
-Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. Tetrapod or near-tetrapod fossils from the Upper Devonian of Scotland. Nature 354:298-301
-Barnosky, A.D. 1987. Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism: some facts from the Quaternary mammalian record. Chapter 4, pp 109- 148, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. H.H. Genowys. Plenum Press, New York
-Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new Lower Carboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770

where in these references is the lack of "advanced critical thinking"?

(p.s. accidentally 5-starred you for stupid comments to Mike_M)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2014
Can you identify which of everything I have written is not true by solid facts and serious scientific sources for information?
@veggie brain viko
Mike got to this first, so i am letting him take the ball there

i would also like to note that you are giving zero references for your faith based delusional beliefs as well
no scientific references from reputable peer reviewed sources with an impact in the subject
not one
and to anyone reading, that means you have no means of proving your comments, you are simply making unsubstantiated conjecture without evidence and attempting to undermine actual science with your faith/religion

religion serves only to segregate others by forming a dogmatic approach to reality, while the small number of elite control those followers who are blinded by stupidity

that is why there is no science in your creationist beliefs
if there were science, it would undermine itself

stop trolling with blatant stupidity !
gkam
4 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2014
The Earth was infected by life long before any god was created by us.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2014
viko_mx needs to appreciate scale
Even a single atom can change the behavior and reactivity of a protein.
Yes but, it won't form a comparatively stable compound able to be part of any chain to more complexity, in any of the billions of other interactions that event doesn't factor as it does not SURVIVE hence you have a (more) stable outcome - isnt it obvious ?

viko_mx
То count on the fact that the random change of several amino acids in the protein composition that will not allow it to get its correct geometry, will not make it ineffective, but it will improve, is too daring position.
Daring is not a scientific term. You don't actually have to consider this improbable aspect as the foundational aspect re earlier interactions already predisposes to more favourable compounds and random perturbations wouldn't have sufficient potential or rather activation energy to distrupt already survived stable forms,..

TBC
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2014
Ren82 claimed oddly
Random binding of atoms in the molecules can not produce life.
Did you not read ANY of the other posts on this thread, please have the integrity to get up to speed as to what has been offered to the group reading this.

Summary of refresher:- Protons/electrons form atoms by some SELF organisation, it is NOT random, what is random is the subsequent interactions with other atoms but, then the process of bonding is NOT ramdom, there are specific energy levels preset and make for SELF organising equilibria.

Why can you not see that ?

Perhaps you are blinded by a dogma that some creator HAS to make everything along the way, such as all the nasty things that cause suffering constantly, what sort of creator is that ?

Can it/she/he ever be trusted ?

How does that creator EVER communicate & by what precise method so people don't covet that communication to gain status & power - that is, if the creator does actually care of ALL creations ?

Details ?
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2014
Ren82 claimed
However, the complex molecules and the systems are very unstable structurally and energetically, and can dissociate more easily than can be synthesized and constructed. In contrast the simplest systems and molecules are more stable.
Nature (& physics) seems to disagree with you at many levels.

Eg Protons are simpler than H2O yet water persists as do all the constituent molecules we need for breathing & food, they are ALL more complex than hydrogen & do not "dissociate easily".

Guanine, one of the DNA/RNA base pairs is easily produced by natural process from Formamide, which is also easily produced by natural process from Ammonia & Carbon Monoxide both of which were present in early earth.

Also Guanine is regenerated by relatively simple (for biochemists) interactions of those same components and others, there are many paths.

DNA Amino base pairs can last a lot time in nature and often beyond the life-time of humans, it depends on environment.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2014
Ren82 either lies or shows common ignorance of Science
In contrast the simplest systems and molecules are more stable.
No. Take prions, produced as a byproduct by all cells in mammals and equivalent variants in other life-forms.

Prions are VERY stable, can survive boiling water, decades in soil etc. Some are deadly such as causing Prion diseases eg CJD. They are MUCH more stable than most amino acids !

Ren82 claimed
This means that the biochemical processes necessary for the synthesis of complex organic molecules needed to build living organisms must occur in a special isolated and controlled environment such as a cell.
No U R wrong. It has been shown for ~ two decades or so that complex molecules (for life) can be easily produced outside cells eg PCR & there are myriad other examples.

To suggest that billions upon billions of interactions cannot lead to more complex molecules that only last long enough to replicate robotically Eg PCR etc is only dogma !
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2014
Ren82 muttered
Scientists now can not create working model of an artificial organism from A and B. They have neither the knowledge nor the necessary brainpower to do that very complicated task.
This might have been the case 15-20 years past, not recently, creating DNA sequences & amending them such as adding an email address to DNA & having bacterial components replicate them in an essentially artificial bacteria has been done.

More advanced processes have been modeled in high end computing which show that genetic algorithms function & do NOT require any singular act of creation.

The old world view was determinism ie "something did it".
The new world view is "with preset rules & enough time & space, complexity (easily) arises".

The latter is becoming more evident, not only in chemistry but also in biochemistry & even organisational structures, something no religion was ever capable of - that is moderating & alleviating human suffering claimed as some "gods" punishment !
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2014
you have exhausted your arguments is when you start with personal attacks. You just admitted that you capitulated
@renORstimpy?
you misinterpret the reality of the situation, much like always

you can only repeat the same argument so long before you get irritated at the other side's inability to comprehend basic english and read the science

it becomes an argument based upon stupidity... those who deny the science are stupidly ignoring evidence while those who have given evidence supporting their position are tired of repeating it over and over while the idiots keep squawking like jackA**es caught in a foot-snare

at that point, as the evidence is already above the blatantly stupid proving the point, it is equally important for those who promote science to point out that there are incredible ignoramuses within society and they are more prevalent than those willing to attempt comprehension or read the science
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2014
your intolerant attitude towards people with different thinking.
@ren
i have no problem with people who think differently
I don't always agree with everyone... Including Mike_M
BUT i will listen to his argument, especially if he is willing to bring evidence and science to the table

case in point: Blacklight power and e-cat
I don't agree... Mike has supported it
it doesn't affect the way i think about the person... I only read the argument

and your argument seems entirely based upon religious fervor rather than scientific principles.

provide science and you will find the discussion more suited to sides conversing with equality and respect...
there is no respect for someone who denigrates science but cannot prove their point

and you are not bringing proof to the table... only conjecture

no links/proof? no studies supporting your POV? faith based conjecture?
this means you are promoting PSEUDOSCIENCE, not science
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2014
Ren82 claimed
Process of self-organization is not self-sustaining process
No. Or show your proof protons & electrons do NOT orgainise into atoms ALL THE TIME.
Ren82 claimed
Its needed a source of energy and various catalysts
We have in abundance, have you not seen the sun a great source of energy ?
For H2 & O2 to form H2O all you need is activation energy & predisposition to SELF organise as in electron exchange, the catalyst IS the orbitals at that level of simplicity, natural.

Its also KNOWN some atoms reduce activation energy, they are also abundant.

Obviously as complexity rises you need more opportunities for permutations, don't we have billions of these possibilities ?

http://en.wikiped...ormamide

Re Random, obviously if chemicals are not present you don't get a molecule, so has to be present Eg NH3, CO, H2O so when present ALL you need is time & variations in environment.

The same outcome occurs each time the parts are present.

TBC
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2014
Captain Stumpy suggested
I don't always agree with everyone... Including Mike_M
... Blacklight power and e-cat
I don't agree... Mike has supported it
Captain Stumpy, pretty sure I havent, supported either.

ie. Both have problems re proper construction of validation reports.
BLP
Massive problems re experimental methodology re hydrino energy masked by prodigious thermite reaction which anyone can do easily, BLP refuse to show potential energy of source chemicals vs quantification of output energy, a fail.

e-cat
'seems' a bit better but, even their best validation reports have experimental methodology problems & their so called validation reports show signs observers have had the brief narrowed for type of the report Rossi want, that & type of language is not consistent with independent experiment observation.

Re cold fusion per se', might be something in it re wave function interference & probabilisitic peaks causing some F events, good evidence still needed.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2014
Ren82 claimed
So when you say that cemical self-organizing can produce complex organic molecules from random chemical reactions in the external environment is quite unserious.
Wrong. See Formamide for simple organic molecule from basic parts
http://en.wikiped...ormamide

Also ook up PCR for production of VERY complex organic molecules in the millions
http://en.wikiped...reaction

Latter above is VERY good example, all you need is have constituents together for long enough at a suitable temperature for the reaction to occur naturally !

Do you think such conditions never occurred in all the billions of years the many trillions of molecules were around in all the millions of different combinations of temperature with minerals with sunlight with agitation with affect by other molecule combinations ?

Look at permutation space for organic molecules, which is ~ 10^60

NOW Ren82 , work out (10^60)! ie 10^60 Factorial

Big huh ?
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
Have you heard of exothermic and endothermic processes? In the first case the reaction between reactants releases energy, while the second case the reaction happens only with supply of external energy. Synthesis of organic molecules to which type of reactions usually belongs? And the oxidation of organic molecules to which type reactions belong respectively? In this sense, which is more likely to happen? Synthesis of complex organic molecules into the environment, or the oxidation and reduction of them to simpler molecules? The sun provides enough energy to the planet Earth, but this is not enough for most living organisms. So you have to eat and get energy from food. Carbohydrates are the main source of energy that organisms transformed into ATP, which is the main energy source of the cell. Without It assistance the synthesis of proteins is impossible. How you got this molecule or its precursor in the distant past? Try to guess.
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
The main conclusion is that when some processes are fundamentally impossible, all the time of the universe will be not enough for a miracle to happen.
Mayor__Dooley
4 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
For someone like viko, who start with their personal answers and then seeks questions, there can be no reasoned discussion.
It will be a relief when we can finally medicate the religious condition by targetting the superstitous 'god genes'.
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
My advice is less emotions and more thought. More interesting is to stick to the topic. Can you say something on the subject?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx muttered
Have you heard of exothermic and endothermic processes?
Yes, this is basic (early) high school chemistry - did U do ALL of high school chem ?

viko_mx
In the first case the reaction between reactants releases energy, while the second case the reaction happens only with supply of external energy.
Only partly true, when you claim "supply of external energy", what specifically do U mean & please include temperature as reflective of the heat of the reactants at the time ?

viko_mx
Synthesis of organic molecules to which type of reactions usually belongs?
Read the link I offered:- http://en.wikiped...reaction

Did U read & Understand above link, if not, be honest, then ask ?

If U had U would notice EVIDENCE of generating complex organic molecules naturally with existing energy available from reactants with heat of environment in any number of regions.

Y did you fail to appreciate & ignore direct EVIDENCE ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
The main conclusion is that when some processes are fundamentally impossible, all the time of the universe will be not enough for a miracle to happen.
No.
You are mistaken, misled, had your head in the sand & seem to want to maintain ignorance, it seems is the only way you can support a belief in some idea of a (missing) god.

IF U can read:- http://en.wikiped...reaction

Then U will NOTICE generation of VERY complex organic (life) molecules in the millions happens with so called non-living environment ALL THE TIME. As I stated before its SELF organising & at complex levels !

Answer this viko_mx:-

Do you accept water is a SELF organised molecule of protons & electrons as is CO2, NH3 ?

& if so, where do U draw the line ?

ie Water H2O is a SELF organised arrangement of protons/electrons, then why should Guanine (DNA base pair) NOT be ?

Did U read it happens easily:- http://en.wikiped...ormamide
Mayor__Dooley
4 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
viko,
If you wish to refute the most probable scientific causes of life, then please try to propose a plausible scientific alternative.
If you have no plausible alternative and genuinely wish to learn of evolution, then you should be more careful in denying what you do not understand.

Absolutes have no realistic place in science. To claim that science has a religious framework, as you have done, is an attempt to insult it. To use religion as an insult is something that insults the sincerely religious. Therefore it would seem probable that not only do you bear contempt for science, but you are not sincerely religious either. The most likely soulution then, is that you are Trolling.

Oh, and please do not be so eager to play the martyr card again, it is nothing but cheap when you come with such an emotive agenda.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
The sun provides enough energy to the planet Earth, but this is not enough for most living organisms. So you have to eat and get energy from food.
Where do you think this (extra) food energy comes from in the first place - isnt it the sun ?

viko_mx
Carbohydrates are the main source of energy that organisms transformed into ATP, which is the main energy source of the cell. Without It assistance the synthesis of proteins is impossible. How you got this molecule or its precursor in the distant past? Try to guess.
Not a guess, ATP/ADP is founded upon other earlier (bio)chemicals one of which I have shown you links to. Eg Foundational.

In order to have intellect to appreciate complexity of how SELF organisation extends beyond simple molecules & is EVIDENT in PCR here
http://en.wikiped...reaction

Then & only then will U NEED an education in chemistry beyond high school with probability & statistics.

R U so educated ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx muttered
My advice is less emotions and more thought.
YES please viko_mx !

THINK how PCR occurs in a petri dish from non-living matter which can also be synthesised by a sequencing machine ?

Did U know that, DNA base pairs can be synthesised by completely non-living processes (one example was Formamide), such that these base pairs can be added to DNA sequences and cells CANNOT distinguish their source ?

Doesn't this go towards a "rather substantive" proof life (although amazing) is a significant (chemical) extension in terms of permutation & combinatorial complexity over even moderately complex organic molecules of which the spectra are also observed in space ie Very common !

viko_mx
More interesting is to stick to the topic. Can you say something on the subject?
Not yet, its much more fun responding to YOUR lead by U opening up a tangential subject :-)

Please (don't be shy) tell us how ANY claimed god (all of them) communicate, what method ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
Without It assistance the synthesis of proteins is impossible.
No.
It is easy to make proteins in the lab from commonly available chemicals found in the early earth's atmosphere. Did U not notice the link I showed U re Formamide:-

http://en.wikiped...ormamide

viko_mx
How you got this molecule or its precursor in the distant past?
That particular one was easy and happens within HOURS.

The others could well take longer. Bear in mind once you have Formamide, Guanine, O2, NH3, CO, H2O and others all doing their dance of interactions then its feasible other amino acids can be generated - the parts are there in abundance, the energy is there in abundance, the minerals (potential catalysts) are there in abundance, the varying environments are there in abundance.

All U need is there in abundance. You really need to get a grip on "Activation Energy" in chemistry then you will understand relative equilibria re generation/oxidation, high school ?
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
You give me vikipedia as a reliable source of information? Do not joke with serious science in this way. But nevermind.

You trying to tricking me with this inappropriate example. Here, the DNA and DNA polymerase, which have been taken of the biological cell in order to make multiple copies in a controlled by human environment. First DNA and DNA polymerase did not appear in the external environment and second the environment of the experiment is isolated and controlled by human.

It is true that can happen many random chemical reactions with varying degrees of probability to some structural and chemical complexity. From this level onwards to have a synthesis of complex molecules are needed assistive processes and isolated and controlled environment, so to be excluded the the increasing effect of reduction of the complex molecules with inceasing their complexity. Especially under oxygen atmosphere or UV light.
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
"Absolutes have no realistic place in science". This is just your opinion.

If science wants to study and understand reality correctly, must comply with absolutes. Otherwise will constantly fall into ridiculous situations that are not even funny but sad. And will have to invent strange unintuitive assumptions and invisible phenomena to fix temporarily fundamentally mistaken theories.

It's good to get used to the idea that this world is governed by absolutes. Absolute authority in the face of God and absolute moral code in the face of his law. The sooner you accept this idea, the more clearly for you will be the world and will not fall into many doubts and internal conflicts in every aspect of your life.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx muttered
You give me vikipedia as a reliable source of information? Do not joke with serious science in this way. But nevermind.
For those just introduced to wikipedia that is a fair objection as the assumption is wikipedia can be easily edited. All that changed for the better, U need to have some authoritative/qualified background to edit scientific articles. Your objection was valid years ago but, not in contemporary times, so don't complain :-)

Also, good wikipedia value in 2 areas

- Relational ie linking to disciplines/terminology of associative value
- References scientific journals, often peer reviewed

Interestingly wikipedia has same essential probabilistic basis as the chemicals that generate complex organic molecules, it reaches a stable state asymptotically, ie NOT deterministic.

Creationists require a deity steps in deterministically - NO evidence !

Science observes probabilistic interactions - Evidence !

How does a creator speak ?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
You trying to tricking me with this inappropriate example.
No. You did notice however that these complex organic chemicals DONT decay as you had claimed !

viko_mx
Here, the DNA and DNA polymerase, which have been taken of the biological cell in order to make multiple copies in a controlled by human environment.
Sure. Now U have seen how they can be easily replicated by non-living mechanisms.

So life is not necessary to reproduce life-only chemicals - can u see the irony which also goes towards the paradigm a creator is NOT necessary. ie he/she/it does NOT have to MAKE anything later.

He/she/it ONLY sets up the rules, supplies energy (sun) & huge variations in environments to:-
"Let the program run" ie Nature explores all permutations - this takes TIME !
..DNA & DNA polymerase did not appear in the external environment
R U sure in all history ?
.. the environment of the experiment is .. controlled
Still shows u don't need life !

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx might get there
It is true that can happen many random chemical reactions with varying degrees of probability to some structural & chemical complexity.
AND when you understand "Activation Energy" & relative stable states in respect of equilibria you can see it is INEVITABLE if you have enough time AND Earth & Universe is VERY old !

viko_mx
From this level onwards to have a synthesis of complex molecules are needed assistive processes..
Are U sure ?
ie. Although we only see NOW end result of several states, there is NO proof metastable intermediate states didnt exist (for short periods) before. There is evidence in biochemistry & other branches of Physical Chemistry that short lived (organic) molecules exist for LONG enough to allow more complexity to occur.

viko_mx
Especially under oxygen atmosphere or UV light.
Mutually exclusive, high O2 makes for lower UV via Ozone.

Y do U imagine low O2 didnt happen in caves, underground, in oceans >100m ?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
@viko:

"You blame me for what you actually do.

"- We would like proponents of creationism to explain what is the probability for accidentally synthesized animals composed of 10^12 cells to be happen by chance? That is after all how creationist myth describe how life come to be, independent random occurrences. "

Comment what I have written without trying to read my mind."

Thus showing how meaningless it is to respond even to fair questions, when they are put by a troll. You didn't even read my comment, where I responded to every question you put. Please do so, before I respond further to you.

The above is the creationist problem: the strawman of evolution you propose is your own idea, spontaneous generation of all organisms (in a week in the abrahamist creationist myth).

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
[ctd]

"So on the Earth there are not suitable conditions for the synthesis of amino acids,"?

Where in my comment did I claim that? I described how metabolism (and the RNA world) preceded the RNA/protein cell, we know this from ribosome phylogenies among other things. The meteorites are the best witnesses to the abiotic biochemistry of the pristine Earth, since we don't have sediments reaching that far back, and that is why I mentioned them.

FWIW: Meteorites are deep frozen (temperature of space) beneath their descent hot shell. Most meteorites are too small to evaporate at impact. When people open them, they see ices.

They are estimated to have contributed a large portion of the biomolecules that evolution started out with. But as I said, the importance goes to ease of production, and why life started out with 10 easy ones.

TL;DR: I noted that we now know how life emerged and what geophysics it descended from. You seem to be untroubled by that, I expected questions.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
In the external environment occur random chemical reactions with low level of complexity. But I do not understand why you hope for a miracle to occur and complex biochemical molecules to be synthesized by chance in the external environment? If it was possible, in the classes of organic chemistry would make permanent such demonstrations. But this thing is not easy even in the artificial environment created by man. What is this magical "Activation Energy" which works wonders and why not help the researchers in their experiments simulating natural conditions of the hypothetical past? What should be the concentration of the input substances, what catalysts and assistance molecules are needed, how to exclude the oxidation of organic molecules and their reduction? Interesting questions without a clear one-way answer?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
@Ren82:

"Random binding of atoms in the molecules can not produce life."

And that is why we know some form of evolution, which isn't all "random", was responsible.

BTW, do you know that "random binding of atoms" describes chemistry at large, which works quantum mecanically so stochastically? And chemistry is why evolution works. There is no similar force in rock slides, emerging "stone life".

"This means that the biochemical processes necessary for the synthesis of complex organic molecules needed to build living organisms must occur in a special isolated and controlled environment such as a cell."

Not necessarily, but we now know from phylogenies that Earth life derived that way. The geophysical systems that we descend from had inorganic, membranated cell compartments in a controlled environment (alkaline hydrothermal vents in the Hadean ocean).

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
[ctd]

"Much easier is to destroy something than to build it. Empirical fact."

Wrong. It is very hard to make a water kettle stop boiling without taking it off the stove, or kill life (has survived 4 billion years).

Systems in steady states or equilibrium are by definition (based on observation, of course) hard to destroy, sometimes (some forms of equilibrium) harder than to achieve them.

But life is a steady state. That is why we easily emerge and why we easily die. Compare with soap bubbles, which seldom are in equilibrium, easy to make and easy to unmake.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
@viko: I have already responded to your question, and I noted that you have to read my response and respond to its contents before I continue answering. I don't want to repeat myself, obviously, and I want to see fair effort from you.

What in my longish comment is a problem for you? (E.g. I say evolution, not "random chemical reactions", occurred before life did, in some environments (which we now know the identity of) chemical evolution eventually segued into biological evolution. Yet you repeat the error.)
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
In the external environment occur random chemical reactions with low level of complexity.
You are wrong, I have given you examples but, are you claiming that when Guanine is produced from Formamide it does NOT react with anything else EVER ?

viko_mx
But I do not understand why you hope for a miracle to occur and complex biochemical molecules to be synthesized by chance in the external environment?
I have show U its not chance, the relationships between protons/electrons leading to atoms leading to molecules are NOT chance - there are fixed rules. Why don't U answer my questions, shall I list them for your bad memory ?

viko_mx stated
If it was possible, in the classes of organic chemistry would make permanent such demonstrations.
They do & I have given you some small examples, there are more but, bear in mind google is useless for the educated. You NEED university education predicated upon completing high school chemistry to raise intellect.
Mayor__Dooley
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
... have to invent strange unintuitive assumptions and invisible phenomena to fix temporarily fundamentally mistaken theories.
...
Absolute authority in the face of God and absolute moral code in the face of his law


LOL, your desperate hypocrisy made my day there.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
But this thing is not easy even in the artificial environment created by man.[/q[You are wrong, speak to a microbiologist/biochemist - U know those people that cultivate bacteria to make drugs or create vaccines so your suffering is alleviated, all the things a god NEVER did to care for us !

viko_mx
What is this magical "Activation Energy" which works wonders and why not help the researchers in their experiments simulating natural conditions of the hypothetical past?
Are you now being stupid, I already showed you Formamide --> Guanine, so Y do U ignore that ?

Re Activation Energy - it is part of observed SELF organisation, go learn chemistry.

viko_mx
What should be the concentration of the input substances, what catalysts and assistance molecules are needed, how to exclude the oxidation of organic molecules and their reduction?
Temperature favours some reactions over others, does dead or live skin catch fire from air & what temperature ?
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
If science wants to study and understand reality correctly, must comply with absolutes.
No because you misunderstand science, probabilistic interactions & asymptotes.

viko_mx
Otherwise will constantly fall into ridiculous situations that are not even funny but sad.
Like believing in a god that cannot communicate except through claims of ONE human.

viko_mx
And will have to invent strange unintuitive assumptions and invisible phenomena to fix temporarily fundamentally mistaken theories.
Like ghosts, spirits, prayer making things happen like brakes working, like planes not crashing, like laying hands to cure physical injuries ?

Answer my key question please viko_mx, how does ANY god ever communicate, by what method ?

Why do U seem as impotent to answer questions as ALL gods that have gone before you ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
It's good to get used to the idea that this world is governed by absolutes.
Good for who, children to be told their father will always care for them - tell that to the millions that die each year from malnutrition. violence, disease etc

viko_mx
Absolute authority in the face of God and absolute moral code in the face of his law.
Ah now we r getting somewhere, what face, never seen a face - have you ?

Is this the law about must have a beard or must not mix clothes or gods example of him kiling 50,000 people for looking inside a box ?

Do U really want such a violent god to watch u always to force u to bow down ?

viko_mx
The sooner you accept this idea, the more clearly for you will be the world and will not fall into many doubts and internal conflicts in every aspect of your life.
Where is the evidence for any idea of ANY god ?

viko_mx please answer by what method does an all powerful god communicate ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
But this thing is not easy even in the artificial environment created by man.
You are wrong, speak to microbiologist/biochemist - U know those that cultivate bacteria to make drugs or create vaccines so your suffering is alleviated, all things a god NEVER did to care !

viko_mx
What is this magical "Activation Energy" which works wonders and why not help the researchers in their experiments simulating natural conditions of the hypothetical past?
Are you now being stupid, I already showed you Formamide --> Guanine, so Y do U ignore that ?

Re Activation Energy - it is part of observed SELF organisation, go learn chemistry !

viko_mx
What should be the concentration of the input substances, what catalysts and assistance molecules are needed, how to exclude the oxidation of organic molecules and their reduction?
Temperature favours some reactions over others, does dead or live skin catch fire easily from air & at what temperature ?
Mayor__Dooley
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
Absolute authority in the face of God and absolute moral code in the face of his law.


From this, I do not think you fully understand morals either. You cannot be freely moral when it is only coerced by the fear of a god.

Is your denial of science is also fear based? That you will find that you do not really understand the world, a fear that you have abandoned your capacity to reason for too long, that you will find that capacity has been diminished.

Take heart, if you step away from the darkness of superstition, your mind will regrow.

viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2014
>Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
A fundamental principle in science is that a theory can not serve as proof of itself. And why not rundom? What makes evolution not accidental? Original causeless fluctuation of hypothetical primary vacuum, whatever that means, as the expert theorists claim? They argue that there was no time, space, and defined physical laws. Only a very small and hot naughty point that at one point began sharply expansion. But when there are no physical laws there is chaos in the system. How is it possible to change the state of the system, when time is stopped? Lack of physical laws cause disorde. This means that each individual conditional element in this system is completely independent of the other elements and the change of it condition does not cause any effect on others elements, and a chain reaction is not possible. Which means that this point will remain in this state forever.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2014
>Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

When quantum mechanics intervened in the dispute, I know that there will be great outwitting. So better leave this matter aside, because this micro world almost everything is speculation.
What do we know and prove to phylogenies? Give more details. What conclusions offer this science? What is this controlled environment of the ocean floor. Give me details? If this environment is the cradle of life, why is the most sparsely populated area on par with deserts?

viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2014
>Mayor__Dooley

Why fear? Creator would like peoples to love him, as he loves us, and not be afraid of him. So he has given us free will and choice. Inadequate understanding of one thing does not give you reason to deny this thing. However, it is advisable to stick to the topic.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2014
>Mike_Massen
You have already refused to think. We discuss hypothetical distant times when there were no living organisms? What bacteria interfere in the dispute? It is true that they are living laboratories and employed by researchers for different purposes. They are used to synthesize substances that are difficult, costly or impossible for synthesis in an artificial environment without their participation. But this proves what?

"Re Activation Energy - it is part of observed SELF organisation, go learn chemistry !"

Understand. Activation energy was invented term which in itself should prove a very strange hypothesis of self-organization of complex organic molecules, but it should sound science for the layman.
Mayor__Dooley
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
"Absolutes have no realistic place in science". This is just your opinion.


Also, you will find this is not just my opinion.

As Mike indicates, we live in a probabalistic world. There is a chance that we are the product of sudden jumps in mutation that were not guided by natural selection, that every single mutation was pure chance. But the probability of that giving rise to the consistent species we now have is so preposterously small that it can be generally disregarded. Maybe it's something daft like a googleplex-to-one, but it is non-zero.

What would be even less likely, but I do admit is still non-zero, is that some god spontaneously created itself and then created everything else, going to great effort to make sure that every natural law appeared to contradict his own existence. Trouble is, that is hardly testable and this is a science site.
Mayor__Dooley
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2014
[q
Why fear?


Because fear is a cornerstone of religion, particularly the one you seem to subscribe to. The idea of ethics in religion stems from it.
But again, this is a science site, so I suggest you relocate to a more appropriate forum.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
Captain Stumpy, pretty sure I havent, supported either.
@Mike M
my mistake then, Mike
you seemed to support it, or at least give pro-arguments when posting on another comment page
I am not so sure about it given certain things like the hydrino paper e-cat published etc

My advice is less emotions and more thought.
@v-tard
your posts are completely biased and based upon religious conditioning and lack of scientific acumen
there is no scientific thought involved, only attempts at buzzwords and word salads (which i now call kohl-slaw) trying to disguise the issue and promote pseudoscience
show ONE published peer reviewed journal paper impacting evolution proving your point... I have given you more than a dozen, where you have given NONE
You give me vikipedia as a reliable source of information?
if it has references, read them, moron
otherwise you look even WORSE (scientifically)
at least there are references in "vikipedia", unlike in YOUR posts
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
This is just your opinion
@v-mixed up
no, it is a reality
religion/faith alters perceptions and skews reality for the sake of the religion
science is about objective empirical data
must comply with absolutes. Otherwise will constantly fall into ridiculous situations
argument from logical fallacy as well as religious fallacy, proven by your continuation of post
Absolute authority in the face of God and absolute moral code in the face of his law
you've based your argument on a book that was transposed and created as a mixed complement of other religions, authored by people that didn't exist and then cherry picked by a religious order that didn't want things to look too bad in the light of the deleted books...
all that spells MAN, not any authoritarian deity with unlimited power

your arguments are invalid because they are based upon a fallacious book that is not original
who's religion is best?
surely not yours
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
But I do not understand why you hope for a miracle to occur and complex biochemical molecules to be synthesized by chance in the external environment?
@v-mixed up
WTF?
your entire fallacious book starts out with this very assumption
What is this magical "Activation Energy"
argument from fallacy and strawman
science has SHOWN that peptides can be made from energetic reactions
http://link.sprin...58803255
we also know that proteins can be self assembled
http://link.sprin...54856.59
http://www.scienc...02003915
http://www.pnas.o...41.short

your argument assumes without any evidence and without justification other than a faith in delusional fallacious books that are self contradicting

Is your denial of science is also fear based?
@Mayor_D
definitely
his entire religion is about fear, not love
just read his posts!

Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 03, 2014
Captain Stumpy replied
Captain Stumpy, pretty sure I havent, supported either.
@Mike M
my mistake then, Mike
you seemed to support it, or at least give pro-arguments when posting on another comment page
I am not so sure about it given certain things like the hydrino paper e-cat published etc
If you do find it again please advise. I guess it's likely is the way posts can get munted by nested answers from people together with occasional typos with quote codes giving false impression re author of a comment.

Fusion incidence probabilities are a bit like those of chemistry re evolution. Random fusion events do happen but the probability is extremely small, Sandia has arranged a chip to increase that which u can hold in the palm of your hand

https://share.san...nerator/

It might well be possible others have crafted scenarios to increase reaction probability but evidence is thin & cluttered by commercial issues.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
>Mike_Massen
You have already refused to think.
I refuse to arbitrarily believe in a creator who cannot communicate any better than any human !

You viko_mx, failed to get an education in high school physics & chemistry, therefore U are clearly the one who CANNOT think outside of blind faith that some god "did it".

viko_mx
We discuss hypothetical distant times when there were no living organisms?
AND I showed you Guanine, a DNA base pair, is made with simple common non-living parts when there is no life.

Why do U ignore that ?

viko_mx muttered
What bacteria interfere in the dispute?...But this proves what?
It proves DNA is easy to manipulate on very short time scales of a few hours, so why can you not see it can happen by millions upon millions of interactions over very long time scales.

Why did u not understand my information re foundation ?

Why do u refuse to appreciate all matter SELF organises ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
Activation energy (AE) was invented term which in itself should prove a very strange hypothesis of self-organization of complex organic molecules, but it should sound science for the layman.
Sure its a term, isnt everything from language a term with appropriate defintions, why can't u think that is how people discuss ?

AE is observed & 100% repeatable.

Please learn ALL about AE. Just reading its a term proves you havent learned it is one of the cornerstones of chemistry. All chemical reactions have their AE, they can all be discovered & are used routinely to make ALL chemicals for ALL products EVERYWHERE at ANY TIME !

Tell me about your creator, I have asked before, why don't you answer ?

What method does your creator use to communicate with anyone ?

What are the key attributes of your creator ?

I have asked you before why can't u think about it ?

Do you know Provenance, where does the idea of a creator come from before Eg Moses ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2014
viko_mx claimed
Creator would like peoples to love him, as he loves us, and not be afraid of him.
Where is there evidence Eg a book that which does not show god punishes the innocent & he is jealous ?

viko_mx
So he has given us free will and choice.
How can any anyone have free will without education. Was Eve educated in Guile ? Was Adam educated the serpent can manipulate people & hypnotise the uneducated ?

viko_mx
Inadequate understanding of one thing does not give you reason to deny this thing.
Show me your 'adequate understanding' of any god, how about yours ?

viko_mx claimed
..advisable to stick to the topic.
You started this but, you havent answered my questions, why are u afraid to ?

How does your god communicate ?

What are attributes of your god ?

What evidence is there your god loves human more than animals ?

Y does a god treat humans & animals the same ?

How does your god stop oxidation of any animal so it doesn't get old & die ?
viko_mx
3 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2014
Nobody answered the question what percentage of mutations we can assume conditional useful and what is useful mutation by definition? Give the mechanism by with mutation create new functionality. Why every generation in animals and humans differ little from their parents and what caused it? How many mutations are needed to amoeba became human and how many of them are useful, assuming that this is possible? Why there are mechanisms for recombination of genes between parents when mutations can do the same work? Ultimately why mutations will create cellular mechanism that is trying constantly to destroy them? It is rather embedded system support, the same as podrrazhkata machines in conscious human activity. How have appeared both sexes and what is the reason to individuate X and Y chromosomes?
viko_mx
3 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2014
Could the reason for the existence of two sexes is to ensure biodiversity within species through recombination of genes in gene pool between the parents based on integrated functionality? By the way why people get old?

>Mayor__Dooley

Universe is transcendent, which means eternal and infinite in its hierarchy and fractal structure. God who governs our universe is also eternal. It is hard to imagine something that is infinite in time and space, because we live in a world with limited sizes and quantities. The world is only partially knowable to man and that is the reason the Creator to saves us wandering in a different contradictory theories with giving us the Bible, in which are recorded the basic laws and principles in the universe. Adoption gives to us a solid foundation for developed and fairly society.
Physical laws and basic principles of nature act since the dawn of time and does not seem to have the limitation period and there is not fashion trends.
viko_mx
3 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2014
Physical laws and basic principles of nature act since the dawn of time and does not seem to have the limitation period and there is not fashion trends. They are always valid at any time. Argument for the minimum complexity is really good. As the laws of physics are eternal in our reality, so it is with the principles embodied in it. One of these principles is the requirement for the minimum complexity of a living organism or machine to be able to function and this requirement is enshrined in their very definition and this functionality can be achieved only with the design and targeted action. Random events do not work because they are chaotic.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.