Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Top Chemist: “They Just Stare at Me”

“Because it’s a Scary Thing”

Yesterday James Tour, who in 2009 was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world, explained that evolutionists do not understand how evolution could have created life. What’s worse, Tour explains that there is a lack of clarity about this scientific fact. In public, evolutionists insist evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. But in private, they admit there is no such scientific knowledge:

“Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners,” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’”

The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: “no.”

“Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” Tour said. “And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”

The truth is a scary thing.

115 comments:

  1. CH: The truth is a scary thing.

    J: What's scarier is the fact that supposedly rational people are actually a-rational propagandists. What behavior couldn't an a-rational propagandist justify if it was believed by him/her to advance his/her self-interest? I can't think of one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James Tour and Cornelius Hunter.

    Total birds of a feather.

    Contrary to the beliefs of the gullible, expertise in one field does not necessarily make one an expert in any other field.

    Argumentum ad clueless authority is a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is this Pedant moron? The Darwinist movement is just a collection of mutual ass kissers with mustard seeds for gonads. LOL.

      Delete
    2. Well, you see pedant doesn't seem to realize that there are plenty of scientists working in a field in which they were not degree'd. When I was working in the physics electronic design shop at UT Austin I worked on a project with a visiting professor in physics with degrees in chemistry, not physics. Pedant is therefore arguing for the authority of the promulgators. We ignorant ones, when we ask for the evidence, they just get to say we would never understand it, but surely it must be 'taught' in the schools to students who have no chance to understand it. But we still must pay taxes to have it taught regardless. So then it must be that students are not really being taught a science which is understandable, but they are being taught the correctness of the conclusions of a science whose practitioners are hostile to the students' a priori beliefs. Now what reasonable person would claim this is anything other than indoctrination into a worldview.

      Delete
    3. MSEE:

      "When I was working in the physics electronic design shop at UT Austin I worked on a project with a visiting professor in physics with degrees in chemistry, not physics."

      Well that's different.

      Delete
    4. He has a PhD in organic chemistry.

      Delete
    5. Ya, like your expertise in atheism does not make you a biologist.

      Delete
    6. Ya, but expertise in biology has nothing to do whatsoever with atheism!

      Delete
  3. So we are supposed to believe that evolutionary biologists are all liars? We are supposed to believe that, in public, they are proclaiming evolution gives them a good handle on how life began? And we are supposed to believe that in private, tucked away in little back rooms, under probing interrogation from chemists, they reluctantly admit they have no idea how life began?

    I call bullshit. He may be a brilliant synthetic chemist but on this he's full of it.

    Of course, there's a simple way to test this idea. Ask some professional biologists. In public. Ask them:

    ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’”

    Ask them if the think the theory of evolution is about explaining how life began.

    Ask them if they think that, in The Origin of Species, Darwin basically explained how life began and got it right first time and they have nothing left to do but dot a few 'i's and cross a few 't's

    Go ahead, ask them if they think and say what Tour says they do.. Then go ask him for some names.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian, There isn't any theory of evolution. And the origin of life determines how it evolved.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. "
      I call bullshit. He may be a brilliant synthetic chemist but on this he's full of it."

      Never in the history of man has the phrase "The pot calling the kettle black been more appropriate. Behold the atheist now trying to equate Evolution with abiogenesis sans the atheist mantra that they are two different things.

      Somewhere duplicity blushes at someone being better at it than herself.

      Delete
    4. Elijah,
      Behold the atheist now trying to equate Evolution with abiogenesis sans the atheist mantra that they are two different things.


      Seems more like Ian is calling it a straw man argument, that since no one is proclaiming they know the origin of life as a scientific fact in public it is not surprising that they would say the same in private.


      Delete
    5. Elijah,

      Why do you simpletons keep equating an understanding of science with atheism?

      If that's why you're afraid of science, you have nothing to fear but fear itself.

      Delete
    6. In reality, P, it is the evolutionist who slays science on the alter of metaphysical naturalism while the creationist is perfectly comfortable with what science actually can say.

      Delete
  4. So we are supposed to believe that evolutionary biologists are all liars?

    Absolutely. And not just liars either. They're a bunch of gutless hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have heard this before.
    Its good enough that there was enough evolutionists that said in private its unknown how these things really work. Not that its not true but evolutionists strut too much in confidence in public.
    The sharper ones smell there is evidence problems and mechanism problems.
    How ever. Its what thoughtful creationists think that matters more then bedazzled evolutionists.
    Evolution is not a theory or a tested hypothesis because it has no biological scientific evidence behind it.
    I say YEC /ID too(if up to it) should press evolutiondom on the matter of methodology.
    Evolution is not true sO how could it have evidence behind it AND HOW could it have scientific evidence? The best evidence gathering methodology?
    Creationists can beat these guys.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's funny. Whenever I speak with ID proponents alone, not in public, they tell me that ID is bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So the unknown Unknown admits that neo-dariwinian evolution is bullshit just like ID is bullshit.

    Well, alright then. We are on the same page. Now which one doesn't stink?

    ReplyDelete
  8. “I don’t understand evolution" — James Tour

    Okay then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who does understand evolution and why haven't they created a theory or at least a testable hypothesis with that knowledge?

      Delete

    2. Who does understand evolution and why haven't they created a theory or at least a testable hypothesis with that knowledge?


      Ask a chemist is Dr Hunter's advice.

      Delete
    3. Except no chemist knows because evolutionism is total nonsense.

      Delete
    4. Actually Joe we only know of one who doesn't know

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spedding: "So we are supposed to believe that evolutionary biologists are all liars? "

    I have asked this question of Zachriel, and now I will ask it of you. Please give us your take on how the hundreds of billions of cilia in the tracheal and bronchial passages came to be, all waving in concert, in mammals. Tell me how the first one appeared and got the job done moving that mucous out. Then tell me how that first one became one million, all wired together, moving it out better, then billions even better. After you give your answer I will review the two answers I have been given on various web sites, including the one from Zachriel, and see if yours agrees with either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curious,if they agree will you be convinced?

      Delete
    2. "Tell me how the first one appeared and got the job done moving that mucous out. "

      Thats obvious - there was no mucus. They came first and waited for the mucus. Brother's Grimm left it out of their manuscript for fear it was pushing the envelope a tad much even for children to believe..

      Delete
    3. MSEE: Please give us your take on how the hundreds of billions of cilia in the tracheal and bronchial passages came to be, all waving in concert, in mammals.

      We replied with citations. They probably coordinate via hydrodynamic coupling.

      Delete
    4. Elijah,
      Thats obvious - there was no mucus. They came first and waited for the mucus. Brother's Grimm left it out of their manuscript for fear it was pushing the envelope a tad much even for children to believe.


      How did your designer do it? Poof?

      Delete
    5. By methods that are too advanced for us to understand.

      Delete
    6. velikovskys: How did your designer do it? Poof?

      I'll take a designer's poof over dirt-did-it voodoo anytime.

      Delete


    7. I'll take a designer's poof


      Not that there is anything wrong with that...

      Delete
    8. Not that there is anything wrong with that...

      By contrast, worshipping dirt as the creator of life on earth is just plain stupid and silly.

      Delete
    9. Louis,

      By contrast, worshipping dirt as the creator of life on earth is just plain stupid and silly.


      That is why nobody does it. Any one with any sense knows the Sun is the Creator of life,not dirt.

      Delete
    10. You're kidding me? All Darwinists are dirt worshippers.

      Delete
    11. Louis:
      You're kidding me? All Darwinists are dirt worshippers.


      Not kidding, they just want you to think that to screw with your head. It is the Sun.

      Delete
  11. Dr Hunter:
    evolutionists do not understand how evolution could have created life.


    Evolutionary mechanism are not known to have created life, you should ask designists to explain in detail the methods of design which created life.

    What’s worse, Tour explains that there is a lack of clarity about this scientific fact.

    Which scientific fact ? That it is not a scientific fact that we know how life began?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a scientific fact that no one knows how life evolved.

      Delete
    2. Well no one knows how life originated and no one knows how it evolved, although baraminology appears to be on the right track and Dr Spetner's non-random evolutionary hypothesis is borne out by the evidence.

      Delete
    3. The evidence he presents in his books, which is pretty much the same evidence presented by James Shapiro in "Evolution: A View from the 21st Century" and Eva's "Evolution in 4 Dimensions". IOW the evidence tat says mutations and changes do occur when organisms need them to.

      Delete
    4. Joe G: the evidence tat says mutations and changes do occur when organisms need them to

      Numerous experiments show otherwise, including the Lederbergs' Experiment and the Lenski long-term evolution experiment. Mutations occurred regardless of need.

      Delete
    5. Don't forget Luria-Delbrück (1943).

      1943, for Pete's sake! And these christian fundamentalist dimwits still haven't gotten the message.

      Delete
    6. Has anyone even described what is required to explain the origin of life? In other words, what do scientists need to know to develop a plausible theory of the origin of life?

      Wouldn't scientists need to know how a code can be created?

      Wouldn't scientists need to know how the machinery to implement that code could be created?

      Delete
    7. What do creationists need to know? That god-did-it?

      Saves an enormous amount of effort.

      Delete
    8. Doublee: Wouldn't scientists need to know how a code can be created?

      The evidence suggests the code came after the origin of life and evolved from simpler associations.

      Delete
    9. Actually, Doublee, scientists don't need to know things. They may want to know things.

      When it comes to historical events like the origin of the genetic code and its implementation, scientists (and everybody else) can only guess (hypothesize) and perform experiments to learn if those guesses are plausible.

      That's the best we can do, and if you're not satisfied by that, we're sorry.

      Delete
  12. Pedant: Actually, Doublee, scientists don't need to know things.

    Think he means that in order to have a complete theory of the origin of life wouldn't it require explaining the genetic code. The answer to that is, not necessarily.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Zachriel,

      It might be nice if humanity could have complete theories of everything.

      Maybe, given enough time, we will approach that goal. I'm optimistic, because human ingenuity keeps surprising me.

      In the meantime, one cracks the nuts that look ripe for cracking.

      Delete
  13. Still waiting for Spedding’s answer.

    OK below is one answer among several tries by Zachriel. Now lets review my challenge, Darwinism explains how every beneficial “random mutation” gets selected by fitness. So in some creature, in the air passage, a cilium appeared. How did that one cilium provide selective advantage? Lets say 100 appeared initially or even 1,000,000. How did those first million just happen to be connected to work in concert, what were their size and density? You telling me 1,000,000 micro-microscopic cilia conferred selective advantage, moving that mucus out? If so how? Then does 1,000,050 provide even more selective advantage?

    In short Zachriel kept changing the subject but did explain how the cilia work “probably” (one of those words constantly popping up in modern biology, as is the phrase “might be”). Zachriel also explained the billions of cilia appearing: Oh complete understanding is just that they were expressed. Poof, Darwinism verified, saved from the ignorant asking questions. And all you have to know about the interconnectedness is watch a football game for a stadium wave, hee hee. I got the stadium wave explanation on another blog too. Now aren’t you all so much more informed as to this system with trillions of parts working together was built by Darwinian theoretical means?

    Zachriel: "We answered both questions. The former is a matter of whether or not cilia are expressed. The latter is basically a stadium wave. The cilia don’t have to know the global pattern, they just have to go along with it."

    See Zachriel’s other non-answers to the central question of how Darwinian processes guided the advent of billions of interconnected cilia, up from much smaller numbers and how each stage provided selective advantage, and became part of an interconnected system. Link: http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....-even.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. MSEE Still waiting for Spedding’s answer.


      Sorry to have kept you waiting but my answer is quite simple: I don't know. It's the same for all unsolved mysteries in science, including the origins of life, the Universe and everything.

      The thing is that scientists at least from Darwin onwards have generally had no trouble admitting their own ignorance. True, some have claimed greater confidence in their own pet theories than perhaps they were entitled to by the evidence. That's human nature. But when pushed, they are usually honest about the limits of their knowledge.

      This is why I have a problem with Tour's little parable. I'm not saying something like it never happened but it just doesn't jibe with what I've read or, occasionally heard, from leading scientists. It's too much like the Jack Chick version of science.

      Delete
  14. Perhaps more accurate to say 'scientists have no idea how unguided naturalistic processes could have created life.'

    Its not so much that they have no ideas, its more that the repeatable and testable biochemistry and the mathematics provide multiple dead ends and road blocks to undesigned origin of life scenarios.

    This however is no obstacle to the belief that life does in fact begin by undesigned processes govern liquid water and time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Spedding: ...my answer is quite simple: I don't know.

    Thank you for being honest. Many Darwinian professors would assure students that Darwinian processes were at the basis of my example hoping no student would ask what I did. So it would be interesting to know how you know this system of hundreds of billions of parts was not designed to function in just the mind boggling way it does. OK, so how do you know?

    So we are supposed to believe that evolutionary biologists are all liars?

    No just some or maybe most. See my second sentence this post. And this is what Tour is saying. These guys don't know how all this stuff just stochastically happened.

    You want to call bullshit again, over and over?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MSEESpedding: ...my answer is quite simple: I don't know.

      Thank you for being honest. Many Darwinian professors would assure students that Darwinian processes were at the basis of my example hoping no student would ask what I did.


      Maybe, but it's a strawman if you can't show that those university lecturers actually do that. What you suspect isn't enough.

      MSEESo it would be interesting to know how you know this system of hundreds of billions of parts was not designed to function in just the mind boggling way it does. OK, so how do you know?

      You have it the wrong way round. The burden of proof rests with the claimant. If you believe it was all designed and want to persuade me and other people that's happened, fine, show me your arguments and evidence.

      That's what scientists do. That's what Darwin did. He came up with his possible explanation and spent years gathering evidence to back it up and then put the whole thing out there in 1859. What he didn't do was say "Malthus...animal breeding...artificial selection...natural selection...it's obvious!" and then spend the rest of the time publishing books and articles attacking Christian creationism.

      The problem with engineers and design theorists is the old saw about to the man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. Yes, it all could be designed but you need more than analogies to prove it.

      And it doesn't answer the basic question of origins because you can always ask, where did the designer come from?

      MSEE You want to call bullshit again, over and over?

      Only when I see it.

      Delete
    2. "I don't know"


      "You have it the wrong way round. The burden of proof rests with the claimant."

      So, you're saying you're open to design?

      Delete
  16. @MSEE:

    "No just some or maybe most. See my second sentence this post. And this is what Tour is saying. These guys don't know how all this stuff just stochastically happened."

    While it's no doubt true that some evolutionary biologists can be dishonest (most humans have been at one time or another), I think there's a more likely answer to the question: Why the commitment to Darwinism? I explain this in my review of Darwin's Doubt, which can be read, here:

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R2CF7OAKPPYSDE

    ~Sean

    ReplyDelete
  17. Surely, the knowledge in organic chemistry puts in check the abiotic synthesis of the organic molecules necessary to life.
    The building of linear carbon organic chains is not possible without the machinery of fatty acyl synthase. Formose reaction does not explain the synthesis of ribose, and only can opperate in an atmosphere without ammonia, that is the necessary condition for the abiotic synthesis of aminoacids.
    In addition, aminoacids have a reduced portion and an oxydized portion. It is a hard connundrum to explain how these molecules have been generated. Acc Chem Res. proposed the formamide valley. Laughably. Well, I hope to see this kind of things in the next years
    The junction of ribose with nucleic basis is highly endothermic. The first and third steps for glucose methabolism are phosphorilations for a retro-aldolic condensation. These are also highly endothermic paths.
    Well, I said to my students that they can risk their careers to explain these things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, Márcio, you think that what we know now about the synthesis of organic molecules is all that we will ever, ever know.

      Why bother to do research?

      Delete
    2. This post was related with organic synthesis, my field, whereas the majority of others concern to biology and phylosophy. So, I felt that I could contribute.
      I do research to discover the truth and try to make the life better. The models are only a guide to think, and it is very common find results that do not fit my models, and these results are the most relevant.

      Delete
  18. @Mario: Do textbooks in your country still feature the Miller-Urey experiment as supporting evidence for a naturalistic origin of life?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miller-Urey showed that complex molecules can form spontaneously from simpler molecules. It also provided a method for studying the problem.

      More recent experiments, with more realistic prebiotic conditions, also result in the spontaneous formation of complex molecules. This is hardly represents a complete theory of abiogenesis, if that is your concern.

      Delete
    2. @Zachriel: The question is based on the understanding that the atmosphere on the early earth did not fit the Miller-Urey model, yet Johathan Wells has found that this experiment still appears as an icon of evolution in some textbooks.

      Delete
    3. Alethinon61: The question is based on the understanding that the atmosphere on the early earth did not fit the Miller-Urey model, yet Johathan Wells has found that this experiment still appears as an icon of evolution in some textbooks.

      You responded, but didn't appear to read our comment. We'll repeat it for your convenience.

      1) Miller-Urey showed that complex molecules can form spontaneously from simpler molecules.
      2) Miller-Urey also provided a method for studying the problem.

      3) More recent experiments, with more realistic prebiotic conditions, also result in the spontaneous formation of complex molecules.
      4) This is hardly represents a complete theory of abiogenesis, if that is your concern.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. "You responded, but didn't appear to read our comment. We'll repeat it for your convenience."

      Naw, I'm just sticking to my own reason for asking the question without respect to diversions. The folks at UD have been discussing Darwinian debate tactics; you might want to hop over and see how many of your own you recognize;-)

      Delete
    6. Alethinon61: I'm just sticking to my own reason for asking the question without respect to diversions.

      We explained the importance of the Miller-Urey experiment.

      Delete
    7. The Miller-Urey experiment is great, but it is a mix of oxydized and reduced species. There is an internal inconcistense.
      Until today the primitive atmosphere is not known, the rise of oxygen and ozone should be important for protection of the organic molecules from UV-A. There is a lot of "should be" in the requirements, and all are inconsistent with the knowledge of chemistry.
      Homochirality, peptide bond formation, iron oxydation, decrease in the entropy, high-energy organic molecules, nitrogen fixation (molibdenium dependent), want more?

      Delete
    8. Márcio Lazzarotto: The Miller-Urey experiment is great, but it is a mix of oxydized and reduced species.

      Complex organic molecules will form in a variety of conditions, which was one of the early objections to the possibility of abiogenesis.

      Miller-Urey assumes a reducing atmosphere, which is consistent with modern models of Earth's early atmosphere. See, for instance, Schaefer and Fegley 2005.






      Delete
  19. Sorry for misspelling your name, Márcio.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Alethinon61: "I'm just sticking to my own reason for asking the question without respect to diversions."

    Zachriel: "We explained the importance of the Miller-Urey experiment."

    Which has nothing to do with my question or my reason for asking it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alethinon: Which has nothing to do with my question or my reason for asking it.

      You seemed to be suggesting that Miller-Urey was not an important experiment. Here's your original question:

      Alethinon61: Do textbooks in your country still feature the Miller-Urey experiment as supporting evidence for a naturalistic origin of life?

      Miller-Urey is an important experiment for abiogenesis research for the reasons we provided.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  21. "Miller-Urey is an important experiment for abiogenesis research for the reasons we provided."

    It depends on what you mean by "important". In relation to the origin of life, it is not relevant.

    I'm going to give you the last word, as my interest is in Márcio's response to my question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, our textbooks in Brazil are the same that yours. My english spell is the problem.
      We use Organic Chemistry of Solomons, Paula Bruice, Volhardt Schore and Clayden , Biochemistry of Lehninger, Voet and others. The Miller-Urey is mentioned, but not emphasized, as a possible way to synthesize the organic molecules. The level of criticism to the experiment is low or none, but is the only presented. Some mention to Murchison's metheorit as a carbonaceous catalyst. It is all.
      Thanks for the question.

      Delete
    2. Alethinon61: In relation to the origin of life, it is not relevant.

      Which returns us to our previous response, which you have neglected to answer.

      Delete
  22. "Which returns us to our previous response, which you have neglected to answer."

    There's noting to answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said, "In relation to the origin of life, it is not relevant."

      Miller-Urey and similar experiments show that complex molecules can form in plausible prebiotic conditions.

      Delete
    2. Zachrie said

      "Miller-Urey and similar experiments show that complex molecules can form in plausible prebiotic conditions."


      Can define "complex molecules"? Did that experiments showed that at that conditions the rate of formation is bigger enough than the rate of degration in order to allow the origin of life?

      Delete
    3. Blas: Can define "complex molecules"?

      More complex than the precursors. Amino acids were formed in the original experiment, though nucleobases have been formed in following experiments.

      Blas: Did that experiments showed that at that conditions the rate of formation is bigger enough than the rate of degration in order to allow the origin of life?

      The rate was sufficient to create complex molecules. Carbonate minerals may have neutralized any degrading nitrites, and nature has many mechanisms that can concentrate various compounds.

      In any case, it's just one step in any process of abiogenesis, so there's no telling what amount would be required, or what other conditions would have to prevail.

      Delete
  23. "Miller-Urey and similar experiments show that complex molecules can form in plausible prebiotic conditions."

    Whether or not the prebiotic conditions that Miller and Urey assumed are "plausible" has been controversial for years, and I have little doubt that the controversy will continue.

    That aside, the relevance to the origin of life is still questionable. Even if all the pieces of a puzzle were to be available, that doesn't begin to explain how the pieces put themselves together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alethinon61: Whether or not the prebiotic conditions that Miller and Urey assumed are "plausible" has been controversial for years, and I have little doubt that the controversy will continue.

      Sure, however, complex molecules spontaneously form in a variety of conditions.

      Alethinon61: Even if all the pieces of a puzzle were to be available, that doesn't begin to explain how the pieces put themselves together.

      Sure, but it does solve one problem.

      Scientist: Wonder if life formed in warm little pond.
      Naysayer: Complex molecules can't form all by themselves.
      Scientist: Oh, look. Complex molecules spontaneously forming in plausible prebiotic conditions.
      Naysayer: Squirrel!

      Delete
  24. The experiment of Miller-Urey was great when we take the historical point of view, but does not add so much. First, ammonia should be in primitive atmosphere? I doubt, by the stability of N2 when compared to ammonia. The direction of the reaction should be 2 NH3 --- N2 + 3 H2, moreover at higher temperatures. This is the Haber reaction.
    It is a huge fail. Moreover, Miller detected 5 amminoacids, which have been enlarged to 20 after detailed analysis, and some of them were not proteinogenic. How can explain the amminoacids used by proteins? Should we invocate the "chemical evolution", the worst scientific concept of the history? Molecules are under the the thermodinamic laws and nothing more, and if they are not coupled to energy-rich reactions, they are under chemical equilibrium conditions, which is the opposite of life. Systems in chemical equilibrium do not generate work. Only this.
    The question of oxygen and ozone are still hard. Where went all the energy rich electrons of the reductive atmosphere? To generate work to life, they need to flow. Ozone prevents the destruction of aminoacids, where was it?
    The books are full of "should be" to explain this. There are so many dark points in this story of creation. I prefer light.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ml,
      The books are full of "should be" to explain this. There are so many dark points in this story of creation. I prefer light.


      For instance?

      Delete
    2. Márcio Lazzarotto: First, ammonia should be in primitive atmosphere?

      Ammonia would be part of the secondary atmosphere, spewed in large quantities by volcanoes.

      Keep in mind that Miller-Urey only attempted to show that complex molecules could form from simpler precursors. As you suggested, Miller-Urey is dated. Newer experiments have extended the results, and have shown that complex molecules will form in many different environments.

      Márcio Lazzarotto: Molecules are under the the thermodinamic laws and nothing more, and if they are not coupled to energy-rich reactions, they are under chemical equilibrium conditions

      There are many natural sources of rich energy.

      Delete
    3. That's just the thing, Zachriel.

      The elephant is not how complex molecules can form.

      It is how complex molecules can interact with other complex molecules and form something other than complex molecules.

      Delete
    4. Steve:

      The elephant is not how complex molecules can form.


      If complex molecules can't form then determining how they could interact if they could form would be pointless.

      It is how complex molecules can interact with other complex molecules and form something other than complex molecules.

      True, that is what scientists are trying to find out,

      Delete
    5. Steve: The elephant is not how complex molecules can form.

      Scientist: Wonder if life formed in warm little pond?

      Naysayer: Complex molecules can't form all by themselves.

      Scientist: Oh, look. Complex molecules spontaneously forming in plausible prebiotic conditions.

      Naysayer: Squirrel!

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Poor Zachriel, only responds to the squirrel in the room, the point everybody does NOT dispute. Path of least resistance or is it noone thought to hit the stop button.

      Steve: How do complex molecules interact with complex molecules to form something other than complex molecules?

      Zahriel: complex molecules form all by themselves all the time, duh:

      Steve: Let's try that again. How do complex molecules interact with complex molecules to form something other than complex molecules?

      Zachriel: Come on, complex molecules form all by themselves ALL the time!!

      Steve: Looks behind Zachriel's head for a stop button. Lol, there IS one at the base of Zachriel's head. A direct line to the medulla oblongata!

      Steve: Presses the stop button.

      Zachriel: Hi, this is Zachriel and I want to talk to you about how complex molecules can form all by themselves without woo, magic skydaddies.......

      Steve: Can we get a mechanic in here??....now??!!...my bot swallowed a bug....

      Delete
    8. Steve: Zachriel, only responds to the squirrel in the room, the point everybody does NOT dispute.

      That is incorrect. Márcio Lazzarotto disputed Miller-Urey by pointing out that the primitive atmosphere may have been different than was thought at the time. We responded that complex molecules also form in many other plausible primordial environments. He also pointed out that chemistry tends towards equilibrium, which neglects that there were energy sources available.

      You interjected into that conversation, ending on a false note.

      Steve: It is how complex molecules can interact with other complex molecules and form something other than complex molecules.

      Sure. Abiogenesis is an interesting scientific question that is yet unanswered. Complex molecules form. Lipids form vesicles. RNA can probably replicate. But there's still a lot missing.

      Delete
  25. "It is how complex molecules can interact with other complex molecules and form something other than complex molecules."

    "True, that is what scientists are trying to find out,"

    And as long as they seek this insight within the context of the presupposition of materialism, they'll probably never find the enlightenment they seek.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Alethinon61: And as long as they seek this insight within the context of the presupposition of materialism, they'll probably never find the enlightenment they seek.

      Research into abiogenesis has been quite fruitful and has led to a number of insights. You might want to check out Jack Szostak's work.
      http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

      Delete
    3. ale61:
      And as long as they seek this insight within the context of the presupposition of materialism, they'll probably never find the enlightenment they see


      How does one test immaterial causes?

      Delete
    4. How does one test immaterial causes?

      How do you test for the property of wetness?

      Hmm, maybe with a mind??!!

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Steve: How do you test for the property of wetness?

      Salts of cobalt.
      http://tinyurl.com/ky469f3

      Delete
    7. Zachriel: "Scientist: Oh, look. Complex molecules spontaneously forming in plausible prebiotic conditions."

      not complex, not in the context of life. Even tryptophan is like 200 daltons.

      Zachriel: "Research into abiogenesis has been quite fruitful and has led to a number of insights. might want to check out Jack Szostak's work."

      What do you consider their greatest advance germain to Alethinon61's assertion?

      Delete
    8. John: not complex

      B: Can define "complex molecules"?
      Z: More complex than the precursors.

      John: Even tryptophan is like 200 daltons.

      Branching iso-propyl cyanide have been found in the interstellar medium.

      Belloche et al, Detection of a branched alkyl molecule in the interstellar medium: iso-propyl cyanide, Science, 2014.

      John: What do you consider their greatest advance germain to Alethinon61's assertion?

      That complex molecules can form in plausible primordial conditions. That RNA can self-replicate. That vesicles can grow and divide.

      There are even practical applications, such as advances in protein engineering.

      Delete
    9. Z: More complex than the precursors.

      Z: Sure, but it does solve one problem.

      no, in any solution in equilibrium, available energy will cause half the reactions to be from less complex to more complex given your definition.

      J: Even tryptophan is like 200 daltons.
      Z: Branching iso-propyl cyanide have been found in the interstellar medium.

      I think you're going the wrong direction. That's a third of the size of tryptophan. There are reports of hydrogen in space as well.

      Z: That complex molecules can form in plausible primordial conditions.

      again, given your definition of complex, why would this be compelling?

      Z: That RNA can self-replicate.

      I couldn't find a self replicating RNA in his publication list. Perhaps you're referring to his 1992 paper in Science?

      Z: That vesicles can grow and divide.

      I didn't know that was controversial either. But I think the way his vesicles divide is more likely to be harmful and destructive to the processes he is hoping will develop. Perhaps microtubules and the extracellular matrix evolved at this time and in the same place also?

      Delete
    10. John: no, in any solution in equilibrium, available energy will cause half the reactions to be from less complex to more complex given your definition.

      We'll try to be more specific. An objection from IDers has been that complex things can't form from non-complex things. Miller-Urey shows this is not the case. On the other hand, abiogenesis researchers are more interested in the particulars, and the formation of nucleotide bases and other such molecules are considered important precursors in theories of abiogenesis.

      John: I couldn't find a self replicating RNA in his publication list. Perhaps you're referring to his 1992 paper in Science?

      Not sure whose publication list to which you are referring.

      Robertson & Joyce, Highly Efficient Self-Replicating RNA Enzymes, Chemistry & Biology 2014.

      John: I didn't know that was controversial either.

      What does controversy have to do with it?

      Delete
    11. Zachriel: An objection from IDers has been that complex things can't form from non-complex things.

      I've never heard anyone make that argument using your definition of complex.

      Zachriel: Not sure whose publication list to which you are referring.

      We were following your Jack Szostak link.

      Zachriel: Robertson & Joyce, Highly Efficient Self-Replicating RNA Enzymes, Chemistry & Biology 2014.

      I'm pretty sure they are just ligating previously chosen sequences. It seems like 99.5% of the replication is being done by the authors, not the enzyme. I don't have access, but Joyce commenting on the paper claims it is work on the same cross catalyzing reactions they had done earlier. The problem with self replication is getting a stable enough secondary structure to have any catalytic activity while being bound loosely enough to be unfolded and read or used as a template.

      Zachriel: What does controversy have to do with it?

      I was asking what you thought was their greatest advance in regards to Alethinon61's statement. I guess I was speaking on his behalf. Perhaps he finds foaming fat compelling and will change his mind.

      Delete
  26. ml,
    The books are full of "should be" to explain this. There are so many dark points in this story of creation. I prefer light.

    For instance?

    From "The evolution of Earth"

    atmosphere:

    Most probably the Earth's atmosphere was initially mainly composed of the light gaseous non-metal nitrogen, free and as both ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, and carbon oxides, some hydrogen, methane and helium. At first water was possibly present as a gas.

    probably, possibly


    temperature:
    The Sun's radiant energy as well as the atmosphere have altered with time; the Sun has increased by 30% in luminosity over 5 x 10 9 years, while the CO 2 cover has decreased more than 10-fold, and considerable amounts of methane may have been introduced by early life (see Kasting in Further Reading). The curious and fortuitous fact (known as the "faint young Sun paradox") is that the combination of the changes of the atmosphere, of CO2 and probably CH 4 especially, and of the Sun have been compensatory in total energy capture by the surface, so that over the whole period of existence of the cool planet, Earth, the surface temperature has been fixed within narrow limits of 300 +_ 30 K.

    sure? or the models have been fixed for this narrow requirement.

    pressure:
    As mentioned, the pressure of gases on Earth's surface has probably fallen at least by a factor of 10-fold due to loss of gases and to other reactions to form solids, e.g. carbonates. (For a recent discussion of the early atmosphere see Chyba in Further Reading.) The pressure possibly settled close to its present value about 1 billion years ago.

    possibly

    composition
    A second chemical observation of great interest here is that the hydrides other than water that were probably present in adequate amounts and which were required to initiate life notably CH4, NH 3, HCN, H2O, H2S, HzSe, contain all the elements to be found later in coded amino acids. Of these elements only carbon was also present as an oxide, CO and CO2.

    Probably...

    So, when the scientist take these assumptions, he shed shadows, the models are not trustly and some conditions are chosen to give the results.

    For instance, the double-helix of DNA only have sense in the final state. It is necessary the exclusion of water to have the hydrogen-bonding structure, and the deoxyribose perform this role. I think the the biology scientist are cheating theirselves, when they think that the chemists are working to validate these theories. The chemistry point to the opposite side, against the information storage.
    On time, I found ammonia volcanoes (cryovolcanoes) only in Neptun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ML,
      I agree, we have a lot to learn. Actually the "for instance" was about this" I prefer light."

      Delete
    2. Velikovskys,
      I am an organic chemist, and when we propose a experiment, I do it and use that information to give credit, refuse or propose new knowledge. This is light. When I see these assumptions about the chemistry that would generate life, I see poor chemistry, poor arguments, poor reasoning and poor results. This is shadows, almost darkness, like medieval science.
      But if you see some similarity with Gn 1.1, take it.

      Delete
  27. Márcio Lazzarotto: or the models have been fixed for this narrow requirement.

    Physicists who study stellar processes are in league with geologists who study the primordial Earth who are in league with biologists who study the origin of life. Wonder what they had to pay the solar scientists to come up with the whole Sun is getting brighter story.

    Of course, if you have actual evidence, then provide it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Facebook page of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, at the Royal Palm Plaza in Campinas, in the state of São Paulo.

    https://www.facebook.com/congressodesigninteligente

    Márcio Lazzarotto, were you there?

    Greetings from Brazil!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Darcy,

    when I knew, it was too late. Perhaps in the next, and you?
    Prof. Eberlin is a great paladine of the cause. I think that the chemists have a great contribution to the scientific discussion for design: linear chains, high-energy intermediates, but when I knew about the chaperones, I said: "it is here". The logic of this class of enzymes surpass blind evolution.
    Greetings from UFRGS, Brazil.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hot Forex Investments where you can earn profit without any work, just invest on forex and get profit daily upto 12%, Join Now
    HotFxInvest.com

    ReplyDelete
  31. Online Jobs is easy now for you, just spend few hours on internet and get unlimited income with Data entry copy pasting facebook and clicking jobs
    JobzCorner.com

    ReplyDelete