Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Life arose from chemical imbalances?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From ScienceDaily:

The water world theory from Russell and his team says that the warm, alkaline hydrothermal vents maintained an unbalanced state with respect to the surrounding ancient, acidic ocean — one that could have provided so-called free energy to drive the emergence of life. In fact, the vents could have created two chemical imbalances. The first was a proton gradient, where protons — which are hydrogen ions — were concentrated more on the outside of the vent’s chimneys, also called mineral membranes. The proton gradient could have been tapped for energy — something our own bodies do all the time in cellular structures called mitochondria.

The second imbalance could have involved an electrical gradient between the hydrothermal fluids and the ocean. Billions of years ago, when Earth was young, its oceans were rich with carbon dioxide. When the carbon dioxide from the ocean and fuels from the vent — hydrogen and methane — met across the chimney wall, electrons may have been transferred. These reactions could have produced more complex carbon-containing, or organic compounds — essential ingredients of life as we know it. Like proton gradients, electron transfer processes occur regularly in mitochondria.

“Within these vents, we have a geological system that already does one aspect of what life does,” said Laurie Barge, second author of the study at JPL. “Life lives off proton gradients and the transfer of electrons.”

As is the case with all advanced life forms, enzymes are the key to making chemical reactions happen. In our ancient oceans, minerals may have acted like enzymes, interacting with chemicals swimming around and driving reactions. In the water world theory, two different types of mineral “engines” might have lined the walls of the chimney structures. More.

So the exact right genetic codes and protein machines to read, repair, and copy them and carry out all the activities for life can be explained by “minerals may have acted like enzymes, interacting with chemicals swimming around and driving reactions.” And life is not now popping up everywhere because…?

Acceptance of free-floating speculation for decades on end as “science” for no other reason than that it is naturalist is harmful to the concept of science—unless what we mean by science is “whatever promotes naturalism.” Why, one wonders, do proponents of naturalist atheism not become nervous about the use of this sort of silliness to promote their beliefs? Readers?

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (origin of life)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Got to give you credit UPB. You recognize and acknowledge a powerful retort when you see one! Upright BiPed:
To translate the recorded information in the genome into physical effects within the cell requires an irreducibly complex system, just like any other instance of translated information.
I'm guessing it was that latter bit that threw AVS off his game.Mung
April 26, 2014
April
04
Apr
26
26
2014
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
A powerful retort AVS. Really.Upright BiPed
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night Upright! Enjoy!AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
AVS,
Is that what you do here biped? Find any possible way you can weasel your way into a conversation in order to ask the same question over and over and over again?
You attacked the concept of IC. Shall I now assume that not only will you refuse to engage the evidence you mock from a safe distance, but you also want a hall pass for anything you say, to the extent that no one can say anything to you at all?
“How did the translation system evolve”
I didn't ask you this question, and I have no intention of asking you this question. I already know you have no ideas, as very abundantly demonstrated by the fact that you can't even properly conceptualize the issue. Day after day on this forum your pound your fist on the desk, apparently exasperated, "The first cells were simpler than today's cells", as if this concept is somehow difficult to understand. It apparently never occurs to you that the complexity of the cell is not even the issue. The onset of control is the issue. Your decapacitated reasoning skills make me think of another participant on this forum, an ID proponent who hangs out here from time to time. He is certain to the very core of his being that women have directly contributed less to science and mathematics than men have, and for him that fairly indisputable fact actually means something. He can throw a few mysogynistic treasures on it from his belief system and get some weird comfort from the whole deal. When it comes to simpler cells, you two share the same shoes. You're both eat up with the same anti-intellectual certainty. - - - - - - - - - - Oh, and by the way, irreducible complexity is the primary material requirement to gain control within the cell. If you'd care to challenge me on this in earnest, I will be happy to respond.Upright BiPed
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
Keep telling yourself that barb. You've yet to come up with an intelligent thought of your own. Toodaloo.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Aww...is the whiny little troll getting angry now? Is it naptime? You've repeatedly refused to answer questions posed to you in this (and other) threads. If any conversation here is useless, it's probably due to you.Barb
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Don't get your panties in a wad barb, I was referring to Behe when I said that. I did not imply that one of the scientists you quoted came up with irreducible complexity. I know this because I specifically said "scientists you NAMED" not quoted. It could've been any of the four you named. And in all honesty when I skimmed your post at first, the only names I saw were Behe and Denton. This is a useless conversation. If you have anything important to say, let's hear it.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
AVS continues,
I didn’t say Duve came up with irreducible complexity. I said he built on the same ideas of Duve’s..
You wrote, "The problem is when the other scientists you named start taking these knowledge gaps and concocting ideas such as “irreducible complexity.” Again. It’s unscientific bullshit." You implied that one of the scientists I quoted, either de Duve or Radu Popa, came up with irreducible complexity. Try proofreading your post before hitting the "post comment" button.Barb
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Is that what you do here biped? Find any possible way you can weasel your way into a conversation in order to ask the same question over and over and over again? "How did the translation system evolve" A question that you know science hasn't even come close to answering yet. You're quite the one-trick pony. Well enjoy your act.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Yes, you are correct - you've made it abundantly clear that you refuse to enagage me on these issues - preferring to insulate your comments from evidence. I take you at your word on that.Upright BiPed
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
That was for axel, Upright. What makes you think I want to talk about it now exactly? Anyway, barb here says irreducible complexity is Behe's idea, are you saying it's not?AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
You must be mistaken; I've made only one previous comment on this thread at #2 and it wasn't even addressed to you. Furthermore, this is a topic that you have (thus far) refused to engage in - specifically saying that you would not discuss this line of issues.Upright BiPed
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Yes, I love having the same conversation over and over again here! Feel free to scroll up about 80 comments and read for yourself.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Aren't you going to challenge me AVS?Upright BiPed
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
'the cells that were formed inn the early stages of abiogenesis were unlike anything we see today.' Sounds uncommonly like wild conjecture, expressed by you as fact. Tell us how you came to discern the early stages of that posited, but as yet, mythical abiogenesis, AVS. '... it's till a hot topic in research'!!!!!!!!!!! Love it! Love it! You mean like the infinite multiverse, dark matter, black holes, etc? 'Mr Stanly Gibbons! Mr Stanley Gibbons! Paging Mr Stanley Gibbons.'Axel
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Again, I think that quote is taken out of context. No one is trying to show how "bacterial" cells were formed from inorganic molecules. the cells that were formed inn the early stages of abiogenesis were unlike anything we see today. As I said, apparently Duve didn't do much to undermine abiogenesis as you like us to believe as it's still a hot topic in research.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Not possible scientifically? Really? Then why is there even a field of abiogenesis? apparently some of the top scientists in the world disagree...no? How many times do i have to say it? Yes we know evolution has not answered all of our questions, that's because we don't entirely understand how it works. It does explain a lot, but there is a vast amount of information that is still yet to be sifted through. There certainly is support beneath evolution, it's based on studies done in every field of biology over the last 100+ years. I didn't say Duve came up with irreducible complexity. I said he built on the same ideas of Duve's (the gaps in knowledge)and extrapolated them out to "oh well we don't know how it evolved, therefore it couldn't have evolved." Irreducible complexity! WOohoo! Believe me, I've seen enough of BA's copy/paste posts to know who coined irreducible complexity, don't you worry.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
They are, indeed, knowledge gaps, AVS, but not gaps in knowledge; instead, quite the opposite. What you posit as background knowledge are, rather, small islands of putatively relevant and genuine knowledge, floating about on a vast ocean of unambiguously genuine ignorance. Forget the pejorative overtones of the word, 'ignorance', and just accept it for its literal meaning. I mean it's beyond laughable to talk abut gaps in knowledge of evolution when the simple primordial fact is, that Duve - evidently no willing friend of ID - undermined its very basis, when he acknowledged that eternity would not suffice to produce a bacterial cell, from a chance assembly of the component atoms. Surely, this has been confirmed mathematically by others as an ineluctable truth, so why persist with 'stamp collecting', as if there were the remotest possiblity that Stanley Gibbons might one day morph into Einstein?Axel
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Good thing abiogenesis isn’t the study of the formation of bacterial cells from inorganic matter. It is the study of the formation of the first protocells, which were unlike anything we see today, from inorganic matter.
Life from non-life. Which, as we all know, is not possible scientifically.
Pointing out, that Duve is pointing out gaps in knowlege doesn’t really help anything you are saying.
It does bolster my argument because scientists acknowledge that evolution doesn't answer many questions, despite the fact that it's treated by other scientists (notably Richard Dawkins) as though it does. As stated before: you can't have evolution at the top of a pyramid if there's nothing underneath (detailed instructions) to support it.
The problem is when the other scientists you named start taking these knowledge gaps and concocting ideas such as “irreducible complexity.” Again. It’s unscientific bullshit.
Michael Behe coined the phrase, not Christian de Duve. You should know that.Barb
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
AVS,
...concocting ideas such as “irreducible complexity.” Again. It’s unscientific bullshit.
To translate the recorded information in the genome into physical effects within the cell requires an irreducibly complex system, just like any other instance of translated information. This was predicted by von Neumann and has been subsequently demonstrated to be true in all cases of translated information. It was the logical basis of Francis Crick's famous "adapter hypothesis" following his eludication of DNA structure, and the operation of the system was demonstrated in the methodology of Nirenberg's experiment in 1961. These material conditions are required to organize a Darwinian-capable self-replicating cell, and obviously must arise prior to the onset of evolution.Upright BiPed
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Good thing abiogenesis isn't the study of the formation of bacterial cells from inorganic matter. It is the study of the formation of the first protocells, which were unlike anything we see today, from inorganic matter. Duve simply points out the gaps in our current knowledge. We all know they're there, and this is because science is an ongoing process. Like I said, it doesn't happen overnight. Pointing out, that Duve is pointing out gaps in knowlege doesn't really help anything you are saying. The problem is when the other scientists you named start taking these knowledge gaps and concocting ideas such as "irreducible complexity." Again. It's unscientific bullshit.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
He acknowledges that chance alone could not assemble a bacterial cell. And this would be a simple bacterial cell, or a proto-cell. You stated earlier that these cells were simpler than the ones we currently know and study. How is it that eternity would not be long enough to produce a proto-cell if it is simpler than the cells of today? You're the one twisting his words, which are clearly marked above in italics. He believed that abiogenesis could produce cells because as an atheist/agnostic, he has to. The alternative is unthinkable (creation). He wrote a number of books on OoL (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001671): "he wrote more than a dozen books in English and in French, including A Guided Tour of the Living Cell; Blueprint for a Cell: the Nature and Origin of Life; Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative; Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning; and Singularities: Landmarks on the Pathways of Life." Here's a review of his book Vital Dust [http://www.arn.org/docs/reviews/rev005.htm]. While noting that de Duve is a determinist, the book reviewer notes that "it falls far short of showing that Monod was wrong -- or, perhaps, that design theorists such as Charles Thaxton are wrong, when they argue that known physical and chemical regularities are insufficient to account for the specified complexity of even the simplest organisms. In particular, de Duve's scenario for the origin of life, in which "protometabolism" produces the materials necessary for the RNA world of the first self-replicating molecules, is, he admits, "purely conjectural" (p. 45). Hence, the reader is left with a sense of grand claims for determinism which cannot be sustained by empirical particulars." You cannot have a theory that claims to explain the diversity of life on Earth without some detailed instructions as to how that life came about. De Duve acknowledged this. You do not.Barb
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
So he acknowledges that abiogenesis is not a simple process, and was in fact complicated? Is this supposed to be an earth-shaterring revelation of some sort?I thought you were trying to make a point? He didnt say that abiogenesis/evolution CANT produce bacteria, he said that our current understanding did not explain how they arose. Again, you guys are twisting words.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Try reading my posts. In his book A Guided Tour of the Living Cell, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Christian de Duve admits: “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacterial cell to that of the chance assembly of its component atoms, even eternity will not suffice to produce one for you.” While he advocated chance as being the cause (not sure if this is the best word to use or not) of evolution, he also admitted that it didn't adequately explain how random sampling and natural selection could produce a bacterial cell. He, like you, stuck with evolutionary theory and this is despite the fact that he recognized that evolution could not produce even a simple cell by chance. Do you have a case of the Fridays? Is there some reason why my posts, which aren't laden with physics equations and references to molecular biology journals, are so difficult for you to understand?Barb
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
And the problem that Duve saw with evolutionary theory was....? Apparently he didn't see too much of a problem if that's the kind of descriptions that are given about him.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Wow. You really don't get it, do you? I wasn't referencing "creationist scientists." I was referencing scientists who explicitly AREN'T creationists, or even religious, but who still see problems with evolutionary theory. That alone bolsters my argument, because my argument is coming from a scientific side and not a religious one. AVS, that's some serious epic fail on your part.Barb
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
What? You meant to send me a link to Duve's wiki page? Let's see what that page says about him: "His work has contributed to the emerging consensus that the endosymbiotic theory is correct" "de Duve was brought up as a Roman Catholic. However his later years indicated inclination towards agnosticism, if not strict atheism. He was opposed to the notion of a creator." "It would be an exaggeration to say I'm not afraid of death," he explicitly said to a Belgian newspaper Le Soir just a month before his death, but I'm not afraid of what comes after, because I'm not a believer." "He strongly supported biological evolution as a fact, and dismissive of creation science and intelligent design, as explicitly stated in his last book" I'm not really sure how this guy helps your argument...AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
AVS continues,
And you don’t think these very smart individuals realize how much money there is to be made off the religious population? Just a thought.
Why would they? De Duve, to my knowledge, is not a Christian, nor had he ever claimed to be one. Neither is the professor. They are, however, intellectually honest enough to admit that evolutionary theory cannot explain all things.
Like I said, they understand the science and its current shortcomings and they can twist their arguments accordingly.
Can you provide proof that they twist their arguments? De Duve argued that chance was at the edifice of evolution in one of his books. If you’re going to make accusations, you’re going to have to come up with something more substantial than innuendo.
It’s really not all that difficult to persuade the scientifically illiterate with seemingly scientific arguments, especially when the argument goes along with their cherished, ignorant world-view.
Yawn. Strawman.
I’,m pretty sure you posted the wrong link by the way.
Oh, so you didn’t bother following it? Nice of you to admit your ignorance.
Always remember to check and edit your work! I guess you didn’t do very well in school.
I have a bachelor of science degree, and you have…? Nothing substantial besides the usual insults. Sad little troll is sad.Barb
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
You go on to state that:
The overall idea of evolution has been around for a while and is constantly being refined by modern science. The problem is, we don’t even fully understand how organisms work today, this makes putting the pieces of the evolution puzzle back together extremely difficult.
That’s fine. That is what scientific progress is for, to further our understanding of the natural world. However, one caveat: you don’t get to state that something is a proven fact if you really have no idea how it works.
To have the level of understanding that you want about evolution requires virtually everything to be known about current biological processes as well as a good understanding, if not complete understanding, of the biological processes in ancestral organisms as well as their interactions.
And if all current biology rests on this theory, then there had better be sufficient evidence to support it. The problem is that we probably will not ever know the biological processes in ancestral organisms. Going that far back is pure speculation.
To expect this type of knowledge in a couple hundred years, like I said, shows your lack of knowledge on the subjects at hand.
I didn’t say that I expected this type of knowledge. But for scientists to state unequivocally that evolution is a fact requires solid evidence, which is not to be found in any of the major peer-reviewed journals. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Sagan said. If evolution is a fact and underlies all of modern biology, then detailed step by step explanations are required to understand biological processes. Yes, this is a big step. Yes, it can’t be done in ten years, or even twenty years. But if evolution is going to be touted as an irrefutable fact, then the scientists touting it had better be able to back up that statement with convincing evidence. The biggest complaint I have is that evolution has practically ceased being a scientific theory and has become more of an ideology for some. That shouldn’t happen.Barb
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
And you don't think these very smart individuals realize how much money there is to be made off the religious population? Just a thought. Like I said, they understand the science and its current shortcomings and they can twist their arguments accordingly. It's really not all that difficult to persuade the scientifically illiterate with seemingly scientific arguments, especially when the argument goes along with their cherished, ignorant world-view. I',m pretty sure you posted the wrong link by the way. Always remember to check and edit your work! I guess you didn't do very well in school.AVS
April 25, 2014
April
04
Apr
25
25
2014
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply