Scientists Discover New Clue to Chemical Origins of Life
-
ScienceDaily (Jan. 24, 2012) — Organic chemists at the University of York have made a significant advance towards establishing the origin of the carbohydrates (sugars) that form the building blocks of life. A team led by Dr Paul Clarke in the Department of Chemistry at York has re-created a process which could have occurred in the prebiotic world. Working with colleagues at the University of Nottingham, they have made the first step towards showing how simple sugars -- threose and erythrose -- developed. The research is published in Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry.
All biological molecules have an ability to exist as left-handed forms or right-handed forms. All sugars in biology are made up of the right-handed form of molecules and yet all the amino acids that make up the peptides and proteins are made up of the left-handed form. The researchers found using simple left-handed amino acids to catalyse the formation of sugars resulted in the production of predominately right-handed form of sugars. It could explain how carbohydrates originated and why the right-handed form dominates in nature.
Dr Clarke said: "There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology. But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living -- everything up to that point is chemistry...We are trying to understand the chemical origins of life. One of the interesting questions is where carbohydrates come from because they are the building blocks of DNA and RNA. What we have achieved is the first step on that pathway to show how simple sugars -- threose and erythrose -- originated. We generated these sugars from a very simple set of materials that most scientists believe were around at the time that life began."
My comments on this article are as follows:
1. Here we have an admission that evolution requires that nonliving things somehow gave rise to living things. In short, the idea of life coming from nonlife (abiogenesis) is part and parcel of evolution, in fact, the starting point of biological evolution. Evolutionists will call this chemical evolution to distinguish it from biological evolution, but it is still evolution i.e. change over time. Yet I have debated many atheists and evolutionists who insisted that abiogenesis had nothing to do with evolution at all! And when I tell them that they are wrong they will then ridicule me for not knowing what evolution is all about. Anyway, the evolutionists (which includes all atheists) believe a scientifically disproven notion that spontaneous generation did occur (abiogenesis is just a new tweaked and more palatable version), a belief that violates a law of nature, the law of biogenesis.
2. When reading this article, one must not forget that here we have INTELLIGENT people working on how to RE-CREATE a process that is believed to be non-directed, non-intelligent, random and wholly naturalistic. In other words, what this entire endeavour proves at the end of the day if scientists did get to "create" life in the lab is that intelligent design is involved! Not only that, note how in trying to unravel the origins of carbohydrates the researchers have to ASSUME the pre-existence of materials to work with. This only begs the question of where these materials come from, and thus the origins of life question is further pushed back.
The bottom line is this: Evolutionists have NO CLUE at all as to the origins of life. A purely naturalistic origin of life is impossible, yet the alternative (that God created life) is to them unthinkable because it is uncomfortable to them. As such I am of the view that to be an atheist is really not a viable option at all. It is illogical, irrational, and untenable as a worldview.
-
Interesting. I have always wondered about the catalyst of non-life to life. All I know is that more is to come. To unravel the mysteries of the universe.
-
I think the problem lies in the very belief itself that life can come from nonlife on its own. It's simply impossible. And it goes against the law of biogenesis too which states that life can only come from pre-existing life. For evolutionists and atheists to believe in abiogenesis aka spontaneous generation is simply being unscientific to say the least. In fact, the more we know about life and what goes into its make-up, the more we realise that a naturalistic account of origins of life is implausible. Even the most simplest cell is a marvel of intricate specified complexity and sophistication. The best explanation for life's origin is intelligent design, by a supernatural intelligent being, God.
-
Don't know if ID is continuing creating new cells now?
Hope to have one that could eat up HIV.
-
Originally posted by TrueSon:
Don't know if ID is continuing creating new cells now?
Hope to have one that could eat up HIV.
The notion of ID has got to do with answering the question of what is the best explanation for the specified complexity we find in the world, especially with regard to living organisms.
For HIV stuff, see http://creation.com/has-aids-evolved
-
Bro, you gave me a link that support evolution. It's heinous, I stay away.
-
Originally posted by TrueSon:
Bro, you gave me a link that support evolution. It's heinous, I stay away.
Huh? How so? Please elaborate can?
-
ScienceDaily (Jan. 24, 2012), edited for brevity — The quest to recreate the chemistry that might have allowed life to emerge on a prehistoric Earth began in earnest in the 1950s. Since that time researchers have focused on a chemical path known as the formose reaction as a potential route from the simple, small molecules that might have been present on Earth before life began to the complex sugars essential to life, at least life as we know it now....
But as chemists continued to study the formose reaction they realized that the chemistry involved is quite messy, producing lots of sugars with no apparent biological use and only the tiniest bit of ribose. As such experimental results mounted, the plausibility of the formose reaction as the prebiotic sugar builder came into question. But the problem was that no one had established a reasonable alternative...
"We were thrown a lot of curve balls we had to really think through," said Krisnamurthy of the years he spent working with postdoctoral fellow Vasu Sagi, who is lead author of the new paper. The team's experiments revealed that under the right conditions, DHF and glyoxylate, when in the presence of a few other plausible prebiotic chemicals including formaldehyde, would produce sugars known as ketoses. Ketoses in turn can be converted to critical sugars, including some essential to forming certain amino acids, the DNA and RNA building blocks such as ribose.
Though the new research soundly proves the plausibility of one of the facets of the glyoxylate scenario, the chemistry involved is only one of three key series of reactions researchers will have to identify in order to complete a viable path from a primordial soup to life's building blocks.
While glyoxylate is a plausible prebiotic component, there's not yet a known prebiotic pathway to DHF, so the Krishnamurthy team is already working to identify possibilities.
A third critical conversion would have to occur after production of ketoses. Right now, the only known paths for the conversion of ketoses to ribose and other critical sugars are transformations by living organisms. Whether and how such conversion might have proceeded before life arose remains an open research question.
My comments on the above article are:
1. Evolutionists are still toying with the idea of a primordial soup, that somehow, given the right conditions and right mixture, and lots of time as well, nonliving matter with turn into organic living things which ultimately leads to the variety of living things we know today.
2. Evolutionists have to ASSUME the existence of the primordial soup for their cherished ideas to work. But where does the primordial soup and the "ingredients" come from? And how did the "ingredients" possess the properties they have?
3. That we need scientists (intelligent people) to experiment on how to create life from nonliving chemicals repeatedly using designed and controlled tests again show that, if successful at all, it does not prove evolution at all, but intelligent design!
4. The take home point is this, naturalism as a worldview is doomed to fail. The better alternative is Creation, that there is a loving and purposeful God who created the universe and all that is in it, including life.
-
BIC,
its interesting and very difficult to have a thread in EH tat only contains posts from christians...u have made history...:)
-
Originally posted by despondent:
BIC,
its interesting and very difficult to have a thread in EH tat only contains posts from christians...u have made history...:)
-
No evolution at all. It all started from Adam and Eve. God bless you, BIC.
-
Funny lah, this thread is entitled eternal hope, eternal is beyond time n space, even this seems to have escaped intelligence
-
Hope means futurizing, it is bound in time !
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
Hope means futurizing, it is bound in time !
Fuguzi, believe and you will find eternal happiness. God bless you.
-
Originally posted by TrueSon:
Fuguzi, believe and you will find eternal happiness. God bless you.
If I am dreaming about or dreaming against what is real or not real, i will surely hope. And why does one hope? most probably one is not living reality, one is living in the mind. -
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
If I am dreaming about or dreaming against what is real or not real, i will surely hope. And why does one hope? most probably one is not living reality, one is living in the mind.Fuga you talk like my teacher. Simple can?
-
If I hold a book in my hand, and hope to read it, m i reading it, I am near a pool, can i hope to swim in the pool? only when i m readING and only when i m swimmING is it real. If not it is only dreaming and hoping? The same with living one can try to live, or one can simply live
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
ScienceDaily (Jan. 24, 2012) — Organic chemists at the University of York have made a significant advance towards establishing the origin of the carbohydrates (sugars) that form the building blocks of life. A team led by Dr Paul Clarke in the Department of Chemistry at York has re-created a process which could have occurred in the prebiotic world. Working with colleagues at the University of Nottingham, they have made the first step towards showing how simple sugars -- threose and erythrose -- developed. The research is published in Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry.
All biological molecules have an ability to exist as left-handed forms or right-handed forms. All sugars in biology are made up of the right-handed form of molecules and yet all the amino acids that make up the peptides and proteins are made up of the left-handed form. The researchers found using simple left-handed amino acids to catalyse the formation of sugars resulted in the production of predominately right-handed form of sugars. It could explain how carbohydrates originated and why the right-handed form dominates in nature.
Dr Clarke said: "There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology. But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living -- everything up to that point is chemistry...We are trying to understand the chemical origins of life. One of the interesting questions is where carbohydrates come from because they are the building blocks of DNA and RNA. What we have achieved is the first step on that pathway to show how simple sugars -- threose and erythrose -- originated. We generated these sugars from a very simple set of materials that most scientists believe were around at the time that life began."
My comments on this article are as follows:
1. Here we have an admission that evolution requires that nonliving things somehow gave rise to living things. In short, the idea of life coming from nonlife (abiogenesis) is part and parcel of evolution, in fact, the starting point of biological evolution. Evolutionists will call this chemical evolution to distinguish it from biological evolution, but it is still evolution i.e. change over time. Yet I have debated many atheists and evolutionists who insisted that abiogenesis had nothing to do with evolution at all! And when I tell them that they are wrong they will then ridicule me for not knowing what evolution is all about. Anyway, the evolutionists (which includes all atheists) believe a scientifically disproven notion that spontaneous generation did occur (abiogenesis is just a new tweaked and more palatable version), a belief that violates a law of nature, the law of biogenesis.
2. When reading this article, one must not forget that here we have INTELLIGENT people working on how to RE-CREATE a process that is believed to be non-directed, non-intelligent, random and wholly naturalistic. In other words, what this entire endeavour proves at the end of the day if scientists did get to "create" life in the lab is that intelligent design is involved! Not only that, note how in trying to unravel the origins of carbohydrates the researchers have to ASSUME the pre-existence of materials to work with. This only begs the question of where these materials come from, and thus the origins of life question is further pushed back.
The bottom line is this: Evolutionists have NO CLUE at all as to the origins of life. A purely naturalistic origin of life is impossible, yet the alternative (that God created life) is to them unthinkable because it is uncomfortable to them. As such I am of the view that to be an atheist is really not a viable option at all. It is illogical, irrational, and untenable as a worldview.
Nice views :) Scientists always like to explain evolution till the point of the first particle, they are stuck
However, the first 2 paragraphs are correct and logical, that's the screwed way the astute Darwin created evolution
-
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
Nice views :) Scientists always like to explain evolution till the point of the first particle, they are stuck
However, the first 2 paragraphs are correct and logical, that's the screwed way the astute Darwin created evolution
Yes, just like when we ask "Who created God." and you all are stuck. Many people will become Christians if you all can explain who created god.
-
Originally posted by Pinknutri:
Yes, just like when we ask "Who created God." and you all are stuck. Many people will become Christians if you all can explain who created god.
I have answered the question of "who created God" many times in this forum. Please show where I was stuck. Truth is, many refuse to believe not because we cannot answer their questions but because they refuse to accept the answers from the Bible. On one hand they demand that Christians answer their questions but on the other hand they refuse to accept the answers that are based on the Bible. They clearly shows their insincerity in wanting to know the truth. -
Originally posted by SBS n SMRT:
Nice views :) Scientists always like to explain evolution till the point of the first particle, they are stuck
However, the first 2 paragraphs are correct and logical, that's the screwed way the astute Darwin created evolution
Evolution-scientists are stuck because their worldview of naturalism cannot supply them the answers concerning the origins of life. But creation-scientists do not have this problem. -
I have also done my part to explain tat "who created God" is a flawed qn. It rests on whether the "God" u r referring to is finite or infinite. If infinite then the qn is flawed.
-
Originally posted by despondent:
I have also done my part to explain tat "who created God" is a flawed qn. It rests on whether the "God" u r referring to is finite or infinite. If infinite then the qn is flawed.
Agreed! People who keep asking this question failed to see that it as absurd as asking "So who is the bachelor's wife?" It is a meaningless and absurd question.
-
-
to pinknutri:
This was taken directly from wad i shared in another thread...its my answer explaining why ''Who created God'' is a flawed qn...
well i tot abt this for some time and decided ok, i shall share why i say ''who created God'' is a flawed question...again i must emphasise wadever i share is the way i myself see it...so here goes...
1st, we need to set certain premises..1) do we agree tat God(if he exist) is infinite? 2) do we agree tat all matter are finite and limited by space and time? in other words, nothing whether living or non-living is infinite. once these premises are set, i can start sharing...
so now we noe tat matter is finite and limited but God is infinite...i bring forth the concept we learn in maths where we have the number series and the infinity sign...the numbers each have a value and are limited to their own values...infinity as we are taught has no value cos its beyond value...also, we cun give infinity a value cos if we do, then it will cease being the largest in the numerical series...
Now God is infinite, matter is finite...so ''who created God?'' is tantamount to asking ''whats the value of infinity?'' has anyone found the value of infinity? perhaps when tat day comes, we will also noe who created God..:)