Scientists discover new chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

ELSI scientists discover new chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life
Prebiotically synthesized heterogeneous polyester microdroplets containing a fluorescent dye, showing the capability of polyester microdroplets to act as primitive compartments. Credit: Tony Jia, ELSI

Before life began on Earth, the environment likely contained a massive number of chemicals that reacted with each other more or less randomly, and it is unclear how the complexity of cells could have emerged from such chemical chaos. Now, a team led by Tony Z. Jia at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and Kuhan Chandru of the National University of Malaysia has shown that simple α-hydroxy acids, like glycolic and lactic acid, spontaneously polymerize and self-assemble into polyester microdroplets when dried at moderate temperatures followed by rehydration. This could be what happened along primitive beaches and river banks, or in drying puddles. These form a new type of cell-like compartment that can trap and concentrate biomolecules like nucleic acids and proteins. These droplets, unlike most modern cells, are able to merge and reform easily, and thus could have hosted versatile early genetic and metabolic systems potentially critical for the origins of life.

All life on Earth is made up of . Cells are composed of lipids, proteins and nucleic acids, with the lipid forming the , an enclosure that keeps the other components together and interfaces with the environment, exchanging food and waste. How molecular assemblages as complex as cells originally formed remains a mystery.

Most origins of life research focuses on how the molecules and structures of life were produced by the environment, and then assembled into structures that led to the first cells. However, there were likely many other types of molecules that formed alongside biomolecules on early Earth, and it is possible that life started using very simple chemistry unrelated to modern biomolecules, then evolved through increasingly complex stages to give rise to the structures found in modern cells.

Previous work conducted at ELSI showed that moderate temperature drying of the simple organic compounds known as alpha-hydroxy acids, which are found in meteorites and many simulations of prebiological chemistry, spontaneously polymerizes them into mixtures of long polyesters. Building on this work, Jia and colleagues took the next step and examined these reactions under the microscope, and found that these mixed polyester systems form a gel phase and spontaneously self-assemble when rewetted to form simple cell-like structures.

The most challenging aspect of this work was devising new methods to characterize the droplets' properties and functions, as no one had analyzed such systems before. Jia noted that the team was fortunate to have such a diversity of multidisciplinary expertise, including chemists, biochemists, materials scientists and geologists. After determining their composition and showing their propensity to self-assemble, the next question was whether these cell-like structures might be able to do something chemically useful. Modern cell membranes perform many crucial functions that help maintain the cell, for example, retaining macromolecules and metabolites in one place, as well as providing a constant internal environment, which can be very different from the one outside the cell. They first measured how stable these structures were and found they could persist for very long periods depending on the environmental conditions, but could also be made to merge and coalesce.

ELSI scientists discover new chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life
Alpha-hydroxy acid monomers are dried, resulting in the synthesis of a polyester gel. This gel is then rehydrated, resulting in the assembly of microdroplets. Credit: ELSI

They then tested the ability of these structures to sequester molecules from the environment and found they accumulated large dye molecules to a remarkable degree. They then showed that these droplets could also host RNA and protein molecules and still permit them to be functionally catalytic. Further, the team showed that the droplets could assist in the formation of a lipid layer on their surface, suggesting they could have helped scaffold protocell formation.

Jia and colleagues are not certain these structures are the direct ancestors of cells, but they think it is possible such droplets could have enabled the assembly of protocells on Earth. The new compartmentalization system they have found is extremely simple, they note, and could form easily in primitive environments throughout the universe. Says Jia, "This allows us to imagine non- on early Earth that could still have had a hand in the origins of life. This suggests there may be many other non-biological systems that should be targets of future investigations of this type." He thinks the development of these or similar model systems could allow better study of the evolution of diverse chemical systems representative of the complex chemistries likely to be found on primitive planetary bodies.

"The early Earth was certainly a messy place chemically," Jia explains, "and often, most origins of studies focus on modern biomolecules under relatively 'clean' conditions. Perhaps it is important to take these 'messy' mixtures and see if there are interesting functions or structures that can arise from them spontaneously." The authors now think that by systematically increasing the chemical complexity of such systems, they will be able to observe how they evolve over time and possibly discover divergent and emergent properties.

"We have this new experimental system we can now play with, so we can start to study phenomena like evolution and evolvability of these droplets. The possible combinations of structures or functions these droplets might have are almost endless. If the physical rules that govern the formation of droplets are fairly universal in nature, then we hope to study similar systems to discover whether they also can form microdroplets with novel properties," adds Jia.

Finally, while the team is presently focused on understanding the , they note this basic research could have applications in other areas, for example, drug delivery and personalized medicine. "This is just a wonderful example of the unexpected ways projects can develop when a team of diverse scientists from around the world come together to try and understand new and interesting phenomena," said team member Jim Cleaves, also of ELSI.


Explore further

Study reveals simple chemical process that may have led to the origin of life on Earth

More information: Tony Z. Jia et al, Membraneless polyester microdroplets as primordial compartments at the origins of life, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2019). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1902336116
Citation: Scientists discover new chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life (2019, July 23) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-07-scientists-chemistry-cellular-life.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
7194 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 23, 2019
This is one of those laughably speculative articles which really tells us nothing. Just because a process can occur in the lab doesn't mean that it has ever occurred in nature.


Jul 23, 2019
This is one of those laughably speculative articles which really tells us nothing. Just because a process can occur in the lab doesn't mean that it has ever occurred in nature.

If something happens in a lab during a short period of observing, it's very likely to happen during millions years of randomness on earth.

Jul 23, 2019
"Before life began on Earth, the environment likely contained a massive number of chemicals that reacted with each other more or less randomly, and it is unclear how the complexity of cells could have emerged from such chemical chaos. "

No, they reacted per the laws of physics not randomly. We do not have a Dr. Seuss-ian universe Another nail in the coffin of creationism nonsense.

Jul 23, 2019
Formation of (the) original lipid membrane suggests interrogation of the physics of what occurs on opposite sides of that structure; perhaps at the quantum level. "It from bit" needs continual reconsideration. If "energy" is "information," what (could be) the carrier?

Jul 23, 2019
But where did it all come from in the first place?!?

Jul 23, 2019
Well, if this hypothesis is correct, it came from chemicals likely to be common on the early Earth, just due to the accretion of chemicals from the protostellar nebula that formed our Solar System.

Jul 23, 2019
There is really nothing new here. The proposition that biology arose from simple micelles has been long discounted. Robert Shapiro's book "Origins, a Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth" gave an exhaustive and definitive explanation of why this is the case.
Today, a far more plausible model that derives from the discovery of the deep-sea alkaline hydrothermal vents. In fact, the only hypothesis that is, so far, consistent with known principles of physics and chemistry
This model provides for the CO-EVOLUTION of proteins, nucleotides and, most importantly, that oft overlooked but absolutely crucial component, a cell membrane equipped with means of selective influx of nutrients and efflux of wastes.
The plumes generated by the vents provide vast matrices of catalytic cell-sized cavities, complete with suitable chemical precursors, flow, and favorable energetics that at last bring the probabilities within reasonable bounds

Jul 23, 2019
Lipid, as well as protein, droplets have long been among suggestions for early evolution pathways, see e.g. Oparin's coacervates. But we have all observed the ease with which lipids also spontaneously form membranes and double membranes as cells do.

We have plenty of evidence that evolution proceeded from geological systems over a half alive common universal ancestor lineage to modern cells [say, https://www.natur...l2016116 ]. Therefore a possible pathway is that gene assemblies in rock pores evolved genes encoding lipid metabolism which cell forming ability increased population sizes.

where did it all come from


Without having specified "it", we know that the environment was Earth (of course), and if you ask about anything biology we also know that the process was evolution (from phylogenies). That is not the question we need study, nor the exact pathways. The interesting area is "the study of early evolution" in general [see link].

Jul 23, 2019
Oh, I did not update before posting, I now see I was ninja'ed by Peter Kinnon. To pitch in, my link is on the phylogenetic evidence for that life evolved from deep-sea alkaline hydrothermal vents.

However as for the details, I don't think that evidence adds much to the evidence for early life, which suggests early evolution was easy,

And Shapiro is just wrong, since the universal common ancestor evolved RNA (as core genetic and transport machinery, as well as producing DNA in metabolism). Nucleobases and pentoses/glucoses were environmentally produced, and Hadean vents could run hot/cold chain reactions reproducing genes without any metabolism involved. It is well known that the late chemist Shapiro did not understood evolution [ https://whyevolut...tatters/ ], so could say nothing on its likelihood. (It is of course common, so has high success likelihood.)

Jul 23, 2019
More on Shapiro as non-biologist with creationist leanings:

https://en.wikipe...lack_Box
https://whyevolut...-theory/

I haven't read his works, but it seems to me it likely cannot contribute to study of early evolution without actually be based in an understanding of the area. And I don't think it has, I haven't seen scientists refer to the works.

Jul 24, 2019
Formation of (the) original lipid membrane suggests interrogation of the physics of what occurs on opposite sides of that structure; perhaps at the quantum level.

And that's what molecular biologists do. They study the biochemistry of the membranes too.

"It from bit" needs continual reconsideration.

A pretty little strawman - did you make it yourself?

If "energy" is "information," what (could be) the carrier?

Energy is NOT information. Energy is a carrier of information. There! Enlightened?

Jul 24, 2019
Nice try. As usual, these researchers are desperately seeking a way to prove that life in the form of cells may be made from chemicals such as polyesters and even go so far as to devise a way for a cell's outer 'skin' to form. Only one huge problem exists. IT AIN'T LIFE.
What they are making is more of a mannequin in the store window. The mannequin looks life-like, but that is all it is.
The thing they've made has nothing that an original type of living cell has, even if it resembles a living cell in every way, which is doubtful. Scientists will never succeed at 'creating' life, and it is good that they can't. it is bad enough that they are messing with the DNA/RNA of human embryos. There aren't enough monsters in this world?

Jul 24, 2019
This is one of those laughably speculative articles which really tells us nothing. Just because a process can occur in the lab doesn't mean that it has ever occurred in nature.

says jayarava

That is very observant of you, and I fully agree.

Jul 24, 2019
This is one of those laughably speculative articles which really tells us nothing. Just because a process can occur in the lab doesn't mean that it has ever occurred in nature.

If something happens in a lab during a short period of observing, it's very likely to happen during millions years of randomness on earth.
says Cortezz

Actually no. It is the Billions of years of quickly changing conditions on the Earth that is crucial for the "required" chemicals to make something happen. And what was created millions of Earth years ago in the waters will not happen again, unless there is a Plan for it to happen. It simply is impossible for scientists to create Life in a lab or elsewhere. If they manage to make something that resembles a cell, it only LOOKS that way. But looks are deceiving.

Jul 24, 2019
Nice try. As usual, these researchers are desperately seeking a way to prove that life in the form of cells may be made from chemicals such as polyesters and even go so far as to devise a way for a cell's outer 'skin' to form. Only one huge problem exists. IT AIN'T LIFE.

Define "life" as you think it is defined. That, probably, is where the problem lies with your thinking.

Jul 24, 2019

It simply is impossible for scientists to create Life in a lab or elsewhere.

Why?

Jul 24, 2019
More on Shapiro as non-biologist with creationist leanings:

https://en.wikipe...lack_Box

I haven't read his works, but it seems to me it likely cannot contribute to study of early evolution without actually be based in an understanding of the area. And I don't think it has, I haven't seen scientists refer to the works.
says Torbjorn

I have to wonder why it is that Torbjorn strongly dislikes or hates Creationists. Being that he is an atheist might have something to do with such strong emotions, although harbouring such feelings as Torbjorn has is a clear indication of intolerance and bigotry. After all, religions, Creationism, race, ethnicity, culture, etc are all parts of the human experience. He is merely ASSUMING that Shapiro isn't well versed in Evolution. Not knowing much about Shapiro, Torbjorn instead goes for the jugular vein and declares Shapiro a non-biologist AND (gasp) a Creationist.
Will wonders never cease??

Jul 24, 2019
Nice try. As usual, these researchers are desperately seeking a way to prove that life in the form of cells may be made from chemicals such as polyesters and even go so far as to devise a way for a cell's outer 'skin' to form. Only one huge problem exists. IT AIN'T LIFE.

Define "life" as you think it is defined. That, probably, is where the problem lies with your thinking.


Motion, Metabolism, consuming, eliminating, breathing, adapting, procreating, and in the case of humans - thinking. I assume that you're human life form. Humans and animals are all essentially a 'bag of cells" - trillions of cells, all living and dying. You may think that YOU are the only part that is alive, until you take a living cell from your body and examine it under a powerful microscope. If the cell hasn't died in the meantime, you will see a life form that came from YOU. The ancestors of your cells were also YOUR ancestors. Do you think YOU could have grown in a lab?

Jul 24, 2019

It simply is impossible for scientists to create Life in a lab or elsewhere.

Why?


I can only give you an answer from a Creationist's point of view, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that. And it wouldn't fit in the 1000 character limit.

Jul 24, 2019

It simply is impossible for scientists to create Life in a lab or elsewhere.

Why?


I can only give you an answer from a Creationist's point of view, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that. And it wouldn't fit in the 1000 character limit.

Impossible to fit in 1000 characters. I'll do it for you: because a book says so.

Jul 24, 2019
so, sillyegghead
when dr frankenbeans
was assembling you in his lavatory?

the scream heard in the dark of night
coming from the looming tower
by passing wherewolves?
the despairing cry of

"it's NOT alive?"

explains the stench your comments add to the effluvium of lunacy for this site?

Jul 24, 2019

It simply is impossible for scientists to create Life in a lab or elsewhere.

Why?


I can only give you an answer from a Creationist's point of view, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that. And it wouldn't fit in the 1000 character limit.


Impossible to fit in 1000 characters. I'll do it for you: because a book says so.
says Cortezz

What book is that, Cortezz?

Jul 24, 2019
"If something happens in a lab during a short period of observing, it's very likely to happen during millions years of randomness on earth."

Whatever life may be, nobody has yet claimed to have come close to creating a living thing from chemicals (not parts borrowed from living things), let alone having done it under conditions that may have occurred in nature.

Then, too, many things are made and observed in labs that nobody believes would happen without human intelligence even given billions of years -- an exception is made for living things, which are so complex that no human has been able to make one from scratch.

The vehemence of the response (including many thumbs down) to suggestions abiogenesis didn't occur merely emphasizes that the purely natural origin of life is not a scientific fact but a philosophical belief with strong emotional motivation.

Jul 25, 2019
The ancestors of your cells were also YOUR ancestors. Do you think YOU could have grown in a lab?


Yes. In a few decades we could grow humans in labs. We have grown synthetic life forms in a lab, that reproduce using a type of DNA with nucleotides that don't exist in nature.

However, science is a systematic learning process. It's not a dogma. So science does not pretend to know everything. At the same time, science does not accept anything that is not emperically verifiable.

If you want to hypothesize that your god created life, then please provide an experiment that can test the hypothesis.


Jul 25, 2019
Whatever life may be, nobody has yet claimed to have come close to creating a living thing from chemicals (not parts borrowed from living things), let alone having done it under conditions that may have occurred in nature.


Are you proposing that creating a living thing from chemicals (not parts borrowed from living things) be a testable experiment that could falsify your creationist hypothesis? This is a test that is within reach of the technology in the next couple of decades. If that experiment was done and was successful, would you then accept the hypothesis was wrong, or would you simply change the goal posts?

You see, the issue with the creationist hypothesis is that it is not testable. if it is not testable and not falsifiable, it is not science. Every theory in science is falsifiable, including the theory of evolution. So far the theory of evolution has withstood the tests, and so has the theory of abiogenesis.

Jul 25, 2019
Motion, Metabolism, consuming, eliminating, breathing, adapting, procreating, and in the case of humans - thinking.


An asteroid in space is in motion. Is that life?

Fire consumes. Is that life?

Rocks breathe (ie. have chemical reactions with gases in the air). Is that life?

From your list, metabolism, adaptation and procreation are the ones that are common to lifeforms as we understand them. Do you agree?

Jul 25, 2019
What book is that, Cortezz?

The bible? Or where do you base your beliefs?

Jul 25, 2019
Whatever life may be, nobody has yet claimed to have come close to creating a living thing from chemicals (not parts borrowed from living things), let alone having done it under conditions that may have occurred in nature. ... The vehemence of the response (including many thumbs down) to suggestions abiogenesis didn't occur merely emphasizes that the purely natural origin of life is not a scientific fact but a philosophical belief with strong emotional motivation.


The argument that scientists must recreate something in a lab to observe and understand processes is wrong. If that would be so, we would not understand rock formation, planet formation, star formation or the universe formation - but we do. Conversely, we have observed that abiogenesis happens in nature, since we observe that young Earth was sterile and now it is not - it is a very basic observation (as soon as you observe planet formation).

- tbctd -

Jul 25, 2019
- ctd -

Adding to that we have FWIW recently made the first observation of evolution all the way from geology to modern cells, I provided the link in an earlier comment. Did you miss that, or do you want to argue falsehoods?

living things ... are so complex that no human has been able to make one from scratch.


No more complex than rocks, planets, stars and universes apparently. But again, you chose not to misunderstand such science, only the one where your sect has decided that religion must evangelize falsehoods before known facts.

Just for kicks, let me remind us all:

"CVI-syn3.0 was developed through a design, build, and test (DBT) process using genes from JCVI-syn1.0. The new minimal synthetic cell ...
[2016; https://www.jcvi....ial-cell ]

"... an artificial version of the stomach bug E. coli that is based on an entirely synthetic form of DNA. ... redesigned ..." [ 2019; https://www.bbc.c...48297647 ]


Jul 25, 2019
- ctd-

You can argue that minimized cells or synthetic DNA with new base pairs are not from "scratch", but they are entirely new life forms that did not exist before.

The synthetic DNA is even a new species, more than that it is *a new form of life*. Humans creating new life.

FWIW, humans are now being 'gods' put in your sect terms and on stated your conditions. Meanwhile, in real life, 'gods' are myths ... but this shows how superstition leads to people tying themselves to cognitive knots. Saner and simpler, accept the observed facts instead.

Speaking of religion and falsehoods, did you all see the survey on global honesty? Civic honesty is globally high, but it is is significantly greater in less religions nations [ https://whyevolut...untries/ ]. *And* we are not "lying for jebus".

Jul 25, 2019
Oops ... "and on stated your" - and on your stated; "less religions nations" - less religious nations. /Coffee break

Jul 25, 2019
"At the same time, science does not accept anything that is not emperically [sic] verifiable. If you want to hypothesize that [natural forces alone] created life, then please provide an experiment that can test the hypothesis."

I'm not arguing that Divine creation is scientific, I'm saying it was the default belief that has never been scientifically demonstrated to be false. I've been around since there was still excitement over the Miller-Urey experiment, but since then we've learned that was rigged and going in the wrong direction anyway. The origin of life by natural processes alone has never been empirically verified.

We do know that intelligent beings can create complex things, and those with more intelligence and knowledge can create more complex things, so it is reasonable to posit (at a minimum) that a being with more intelligence than humans now have created life.

Jul 25, 2019
Are you proposing that creating a living thing from chemicals (not parts borrowed from living things) be a testable experiment that could falsify your creationist hypothesis?


No, it wouldn't falsify it. I'm proposing that such an experiment would at least show that abiogenesis is possible, yet so far it hasn't been done.

Every theory in science is falsifiable, including the theory of evolution. So far the theory of evolution has withstood the tests,


Yes, insofar as evolution is framed properly as a scientific hypothesis or theory, and according to several such definitions or descriptions go, I could say I am an evolutionist.

However, the claim that all life descended from a population of microbes is not falsifiable, and it has not been demonstrated to be possible.

and so has the theory of abiogenesis.


Early scientists believed in spontaneous generation but also believed in Divine creation. Abiogenesis hasn't been accomplished in any test.

Jul 25, 2019
Motion, Metabolism, consuming, eliminating, breathing, adapting, procreating,...


An asteroid in space is in motion. Is that life?
Fire consumes. Is that life?
Rocks breathe (ie. have chemical reactions with gases in the air). Is that life?
From your list, metabolism, adaptation and procreation are the ones that are common to lifeforms as we understand them. Do you agree?


Are you purposely being dense to preserve your own belief, or obfuscating to confuse others and "win" the argument? You know the difference between an asteroid obeying Newton's laws of motion and an organism using many mechanisms to move; the difference between the chemical reactions of fire, and the processes of cellular consuming (mechanisms of movement and metabolism); the difference between active breathing, and chemicals in the air reacting with chemicals in rocks. Be clear in your own thoughts and with others.

Jul 25, 2019
The argument that scientists must recreate something in a lab to observe and understand processes is wrong. If that would be so, we would not understand rock formation, planet formation, star formation or the universe formation - but we do. Conversely, we have observed that abiogenesis happens in nature, since we observe that young Earth was sterile and now it is not - it is a very basic observation (as soon as you observe planet formation).


Indeed, there are other means than recreation in a lab, but we only partly understand rock formation, and the rest we only THINK we understand. We clearly have NOT observed abiogenesis, since nobody ever observed the Earth when it was sterile, and even granting that it was, nobody has observed life form except from previous life. We haven't even observed a planet form, though we think we see some in the process.

Jul 25, 2019
... we have FWIW recently made the first observation of evolution all the way from geology to modern cells, I provided the link in an earlier comment. Did you miss that, ...


I recall pointing out, viz. the one link I recall, it was nothing of the sort, but a fable conjured from imagining abiogenesis and evolution from microbes happened and comparing existing living things to various proposals of such.

living things ... are so complex that no human has been able to make one from scratch.


No more complex than rocks, planets, stars and universes apparently.


Only a dunderhead would not recognize the difference in the "complexity" of those things, and the systematically organized dynamic complexity (and more) of living things -- or perhaps you are purposely blurring the difference to protect your own belief, or to win an argument?

Jul 25, 2019
...let me remind us all:
"CVI-syn3.0 was developed through a design, build, and test (DBT) process using genes from JCVI-syn1.0. The new minimal synthetic cell ...
[2016; https://www.jcvi....ial-cell ]


This isn't the link I recall, perhaps you referenced it in a response to someone else, or indeed I missed it. However, it is still not the observation of life arising from chemicals by natural processes apart from intelligent design or previously-existing life: it was the creation of a whole team of brilliant scientists who borrowed parts and processes from existing bacteria and yeast. Even the link says "...a design, build, and test (DBT) process using genes from..."

Jul 25, 2019
...you chose not to misunderstand such science, only the one where your sect has decided that religion must evangelize falsehoods before known facts.


You meant "you chose [or possibly choose] to misunderstand..." But I understand science quite well, and it is for scientific reasons that I state that abiogenesis and the evolution of all forms of life from microbes are not "known facts."

On the contrary, belief in these things is contrary to what we have actually observed, when properly analyzed. If we see clearly the differences in things we may casually call "complex;" and realize that "change" isn't a single, simple commodity which can be accumulated easily and indefinitely, so that "small" changes inevitably add up to "big" changes, the fact that such claims fall short of being scientific should also be clear, for those who are not afraid to admit the possibility.

I have not evangelized falsehoods, and making such a charge does not belong here.

Jul 27, 2019
I'm not arguing that Divine creation is scientific, I'm saying it was the default belief that has never been scientifically demonstrated to be false.


You don't define "creation", nor do you accept the scientific demonstrations that natural processes caused the universe - Planck 2018 tested that the amount of magic, religious or else, is 0 % since the universe was found to be 100 % natural - or life - I have already mentioned the trivial test but also the specific one that shows life is a product of evolution. (Which, after Darwin & Wallace ~ 1850 discovered natural selection, is no one's surprise.)

it is still not the observation of life arising from chemicals by natural processes apart from intelligent design or previously-existing life


But it was, whether or not genes were borrowed - and in the case of new bases it was not: this was what you claimed had not happened.

No, you don't grok science, or at least biology. You reject it and, yes - lie - as per above.

Jul 27, 2019
Pfft. Are you such an idiot that you need to have creation defined for you? Do you really think that a simple test of natural conditions can rule out something which is beyond the natural? Are you so illogical?

I clearly defused your so-called "test" of evolution, but perhaps you haven't had any training in philosophy or logic? Anybody who truly understands evolution realizes that natural selection isn't evolution, nor does it provide the necessary power or drive to make evolutionism work.

If you think scientists creating a Frankenstein's monster of a microbe using their intelligence and special laboratory conditions is "the observation of life arising from natural processes apart from intelligent design or previously-existing life," then your level of denial and self-deception is astounding.

Clearly, you are the one lying, at least to yourself. You have not shown that anything I've written is a lie, but your falsehood is obvious to the point of tautology.

Aug 04, 2019
What book is that, Cortezz?

The bible? Or where do you base your beliefs?
says Cortezz

I base MY beliefs on many things, Cortezz, not just on books. It would take many years for me to explain, Cortezz, and you would not understand even half of it. It would be like a foreign language to you, to Ruinedsmith, to Torbjorn and everyone else. So try to consider what I have already said here as sufficient.

Aug 04, 2019
OlDreamerDavid is correct in more ways than one.

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