[Nazaroo]

I've decided to break this off into its own thread.

Here's the original video posted by Memento Mori

Abiogenesis Fantasy

Bogus Abiogenesis


I'm quoting the narrative from this corny Youtube video
for pure entertainment value.

Its really quite the load of B.S.:

I'll be analysing it shortly:

___________________________________________

The Origin of Life Made Easy

When Bill O'Reilly asked Kirk Cameron to give his best shot in
proving the existence of God this is what he said:

"The fact that there's a painting proves there must be a painter;
The human body proves there must be a designer because of its complexity and because of the information we can see down at the DNA level"

The problem for fundamentalists like Cameron is that this argument can be too easily flattened. In this video I want to show what scientists have actually deduced about the origins of life, so let's start by putting the 'artist and painting' myth to rest.




Why can't paintings paint themselves?
Simple: Because they're made of chemicals that can't replicate themselves.
Living matter on the other hand does contain a chemical that can replicate itself. Even if God made DNA he doesn't need to intervene every time animals mate. The DNA does the job on its own. So the real question is, how did DNA appear?

How did living matter come from non living sludge?
Here again fundamentalists need to drop a common argument that seems to be based on complete ignorance of current scientific hypotheses, which is this:
"Scientists believe life just popped out of nowhere."

Of course that's not what scientists believe.
Life popping out of nowhere is no better a theory
than life popping out of the hand of a deity.
So what do scientists believe about the origin of life?

Let's take this step-by-step:
The first step involves looking at the primordial earth 4.7 billion years ago.




There it is, very wet, very warm and with an atmosphere composed of all sorts of gases;
hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide, methane, and ammonia among them.






Step 1: Formation of Nucleotides

DNA is a long chain molecule made from just four different types of nucleotide, so the first question is where did the nucleotides come from.




In 1961 a researcher called Huan Oto left hydrogen cyanide and ammonia
to stew in an aqeous solution in his laboratory under conditions
very similar to those that prevailed on the primordial earth.


Left alone the solution produced adenine, one of the four nucleotide bases that make up DNA.



To make a complete nucleotide these bases need to gain a sugar called Ribose, and a group of phosphates.





Biochemist think they know how the phosphate group formed.
They are now trying to find out how the ribose is attached.




Step 2: Nucleotides to Polynucleotides


------------------------- >


Once nucleotides formed, the next step was to join together to make chains called polynucleotides.




In the 1980s researchers found that a clay called montmorillonite, which was abundant on the primordial seafloor and in hot pools of water on land, is the perfect catalyst for this process.





Step 3: Polynucleotides to RNA



Some of these long polynucleotide chains like ribonucleic acid or RNA are able to make copies of themselves. The copies aren't always perfect: mistakes creep in. But some imperfectly copied molecules would have been better adapted to the environment than others.

These successful molecules continue to replicate and pass on their traits, while weaker or less well adapted molecules would have broken apart.

Step 4: RNA to Protocells

As RNA molecules replicated themselves, they shared their environment with other chemicals that thrive in montmorillonite clay.




One group, called lipids, have a natural tendency to clump together, to form spherical structures called mycells.




RNA molecules that attracted these lipids,













would therefore find themselves protected inside a mycell membrane.




Because they were better protected, they better survived and replicated
more successfully. There you have the first primitive cells. They looked nothing like the complex cells we have today for a very good reason: Over 3.7 billion years they've evolved.




I'll tackle the subject of evolution in another video.





Step 5: RNA to DNA

Over 100s of millions of years RNA grew more complex.




The single-strand became a double-strand and the better-adapted DNA molecule evolved.



One of the differences between RNA and DNA is that DNA needs proteins to replicate itself.

Proteins are made of amino acids, which are often called the building blocks of life.





Step 6: Formation of Amino Acids

So where did the first ones come from?
No, there was no need for God:



----- >


A number of experiments using montmorillonite have produced not only amino acids, but long chains of amino acids called polypeptides.




Montmorillonite it turns out, is a natural breeding ground
for all kinds of complex organic chemicals.





It has to be said that this research is in its infancy and current hypotheses are nowhere near as solid as the Theory of Evolution, which has been around for 150 years, and has overwhelming evidence to support it.

But the reality is a far cry from the idea that scientists believe life popped out of nowhere. If God did indeed create life then where did he come in? Step one? - step two? and why? If the chemical process can happen on its own, why would God intervene at all?

Before I go I just want to look at a couple of other hoary old arguments that are being used, and which also show a complete ignorance of science.

"It's impossible for simple chemicals to form more complex chemicals
without intvervention."

Just because creationist websites like to pass this myth around doesn't make it true. We know it's not true. Left alone, organic chemicals can and do polymerize, to form longer more complex chemicals.

"But this goes against the Law of Thermodynamics."

Oh that sad argument: The fact is that the natural formation of replicating chemicals doesn't conflict with any of the laws of thermodynamics.
People who make that argument need to read the law, because I suspect most of them have never done so and are just mindlessly repeating an urban myth, that's already been debunked.

As I've said we still have a lot more to learn about this process.
Researchers know that there are many more intermediate steps that we haven't yet discovered.

And when all of them are found, there will still be fundamentalists around
to say, "Ah, but you can't prove that this is how life started on earth."
No, we probably never will. But what we can say is if there's a natural process by which the first replicating molecules appeared on earth, then we don't need to invent Gods, goddesses and other invisible deities to explain it. Ultimately this isn't a guessing game, it's a detective trail.'

_____________________________________
End of video text


-- Uploaded by potholer54 on Nov 13, 2008

The video explains current ideas as to how life might have originated on Earth. The idea that inorganic mud can miraculously turn into cells is a claim made in the Bible and the Qu'ran, not science. What biologists are trying to do is understand how carbon-based chemicals combine to form nucleotides, the building blocks of replicating chemicals. The chemistry is complex, but it's starting to be understood, and it's not magical.

Please also see The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis by cdk007
which gives an excellent description on the latest hypotheses about cell formation.

-----------------------------------------------
Okay, there's the text with some snaps from the video.

I'll critique it as time permits.

[Memento Mori]

This should be fun!

I'm glad you finally realized the topic was shifting in a new direction!

Also, I commend your ability to transcribe a video.

[alwight]

Why is it an abiogenesis "fantasy" & "bogus" at this early stage?
Seems as though Nazaroo has predetermined the outcome already.
potholer54 usually seems to know what he's talking about imo, and here too in this video.

[Memento Mori]

I'll be tearing your discussion from the other thread to here, since it makes more sense in this area.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Well, the history of every area of science is littered with mistaken ideas
and dubious impulses.

Yes, Newton believed in alchemy after all. However, in his true endeavors children, high schoolers and college students are still taught his basic physics, calculus, and theory of gravity.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

The Nobel Prize was started by a man renowned for the invention of Trinitrotoleune) (TNT - i.e., Dynamite)!
Hardly a peaceful invention.

One man's bomb is another man's hammer.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

We can expect any and every new branch of scientific investigation
to have flakey, unusual, and basically unscientific roots.

And yet you're so dismissive of abiogensis...

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

But a little humility is in order here.
Our science will probably appear primitive, absurd,
and completely unscientific in theory and practice,
to our not too distant heirs.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

In its current state, science is generally laughable.

Only if you believe we haven't made progress or if you have a much more advanced idea (which is confirmed) that general science does not or cannot attain...

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Again you miss the point:
ID is not NEW: The basic concepts have been around
nearly as long as there has been warfare.
recon is in the Bible, and code-breaking and passwords too!
Google "spys" and "Shibboleth"

ID in its present state came about because of the ruling against teaching creationism in schools. That is the history of ID. You can deny it but it is simply creationism dressed up.

You seem to be conflating ID and Information Theory. One of these is not like the other... So, prove the link.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

My assertion is that an awareness of Intelligent Design (ID),
and its root ideas, are both very very old, and have already
resulted in useful branches of science, namely recon, cryptography, information-theory.

Unsupported so far. Prove the link, or this is either merely an indirect relation or as far as I can tell, an unlinked development.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

ID is already deeply and successfully entwined in scientific pursuits.

Evidence please!

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

You will find as with all branches of science that involve military and industrial secrets,
that the best research and data will always be unpublished.
see if you can get complete information on how to build an atom bomb,
and get back to me...

I may not be able to build a bomb but I can understand the ideas of fusion and fission. Those are the basis for the bomb and they are taught in nuclear physics classes. I can look that up. There's even wiki articles on the matter.

But I think this reveals more about your insecurity with the American culture (so to speak). See, you lack of trust in quality research, and excellent theories is highlighted here. Why should I trust you when you can't trust me? You cry conspiracy well, perhaps it is you involved in the conspiracy. Who knows? All we can do is analyze the evidence with which we are presented.

And if you are unable to post evidence, then I will not trust you on the matter regardless of how knowledgeable you are on Information Theory, Physics, etc.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

The answer is obvious:
Lightning as found naturally does NOT appear to be intelligently directed,
but has all the appearance of a random natural process, guided by physical laws.

Now replace lightning with abiogensis... and...

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

If we saw lightning striking people while they openly blasphemed God,
that would be good evidence for Intelligent Direction.
It would be nearly as good if we saw lightning always striking socialists,
or only appearing during the Santa Claus parade.

So, then why don't we observe ID supporting those who support ID? Why do germs infect them with the same vigor? Why don't viruses become excluded from their bodies?

Seriously, why does ID get special pleading while lightning does not?

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

But when we are talking DNA, which has the appearance of an information-code with purpose and function,
the situation is quite a bit different.

Not really. And in fact, evolution can be used in coding for computers. If bad code becomes written it is excluded. In the same way, if bad information makes its way into DNA it is excluded.

It has that appearance because it works. I mean look at the eye. It works well but it is incredibly poorly designed. All kinds of stuff is in the way, blind spots occur, the image comes out upside down, the muscles can go bad, etc. And all this stuff has to be done on the back end by the brain.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

The origin of lightning in terms of local causality is easily analysed and explained in terms of QED.
We have no theory at all for the origin of DNA-based biospheres.

Not yet. Just because we didn't have a theory before QED does not mean that God caused all lightning did it? No. And just because we don't have a theory yet, does not mean that God did it.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Thanks for the honesty.

Your welcome. Now it's your turn.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Sorry, this doesn't follow.
I'll continue to use the tools of Information Theory
in many contexts, including the question of biogenesis,
whether under the 'name' of ID or not.

And yet, you've shown no evidence for a connection between ID and IT...

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Once again I can't agree.

Who'da thought?

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

You talk as though all you had to do was invent the starter-machine,
and the whole thing would take off and fly by itself.

Indeed. Similar to a domino beginning the process.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Cute video. And in fact it sort of confirms what I've said, albeit in an odd way. Notice how none of those flying machines actually flew? And none of them were copied to exist today. Now which ones did succeed? Those which worked and we still use a similar but much better design today. As soon as we hit upon a system which did work, we copied it. In the same way, as soon as molecules could replicate themselves, *boom* they did it a ton because it was successful.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

That is, you wish to shorten the long list of unlikely events,
down to some 'pre-life' point (e.g., a proto-virus),
and then everything is solved.

No, merely the point at which life may take off. Once something can successfully replicate itself, it will.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Nothing could be further from the truth.
The most important thing to create on a path toward life,
would be the environment allowing the fragile chain of
billions of steps to form.
Even a complete single cell would not be adequate to produce a biosphere.
this item would quickly die before reproducing in almost every place in the universe.

If I may quote Dr Krauss (assuming I'm properly recalling his book) "The most magical thing about our universe is that there is someone here to observe it."

You are making assumptions. We don't know how life arose. Yes, if you took a current bacteria, the results would be bad. But if you took a setting in which all the materials were available and energy to do work was there, then the molecules could combine and once one of them hit upon replication, it worked.

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

I'm very pleased with Google,
but mainly for the hot Israeli army girls.

Conspiracy...

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Now I'd have to say you are really dreaming.
You aren't going to generate life with a chemistry kit,
anymore than you can do it with a lightning rod in Frankenstein's lab.

Not now. The conditions are not right. These things would already be contaminated. But if the conditions were right, perhaps it could work. Although, lightning is a little more untamed...

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Thanks for the honesty.

I believe it's your turn, now...

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Lets see how they do.

Although, wouldn't a biochemist be a better person to ask?

[Nazaroo]

Lets take the very opener:

When Bill O'Reilly asked Kirk Cameron to give his best shot in
proving the existence of God this is what he said:

"The fact that there's a painting proves there must be a painter;
The human body proves there must be a designer because of its complexity and because of the information we can see down at the DNA level"

The problem for fundamentalists like Cameron is that this argument can be too easily flattened. ... so let's start by putting the 'artist and painting' myth to rest.

Why can't paintings paint themselves?
Simple: Because they're made of chemicals that can't replicate themselves.

This explanation is pure balderdash.
The author of the narrative is suffering from an overwhelming (for his intellect) delusion.

Paintings can't replicate themselves. That is true.
But the reason he gives is nonsense.

Its not because paintings are made of chemicals that can't replicate themselves.
The point is, NO chemical can replicate itself.
Not even RNA or DNA.

Here's why:
RNA molecules, for all their length and atom-counts,
are not complex at all in the real sense needed here.
They are actually awfully simple molecules, in terms of chemistry and geometry.
As noted, they contain patterns of only four basic building-blocks,
a simple 'data-language' in which it is believed all the genetic information is coded.

RNA molecules are not manufacturing plants,
or even the simplest machines at all.
They are semi-rigid coils that do almost nothing mechanical or chemical at all, on their own.
They have no real 'moving parts', no complex geometry beyond simple atomic arrangements, and no 'programming' in the sense of manufacturing instructions or algorithms, except in the sense
that they seem to store encoded 'information' of use to a REAL machine,
namely a complete living organism.

Thus even RNA molecules are not "self-replicating" in any meaningful sense,
unless we mean a magical one, not based on chemistry at all,
but on some other set of operating principles.
As far as the chemistry is concerned, RNA is drearily ordinary,
and unable to account for any function that the RNA strand has,
in its real context of a real self-replicating machine, namely a living cell.
Its just a piece of 'READ-ONLY MEMORY', a biological ROM chip.
Its not even a computing device, let alone a manufacturing plant.

So how is RNA really replicated?
This is done in a very real manufacturing-plant, a real living cell.
The RNA is merely the container for instructions, designs,
and chemical, electromagnetic and mechanical algorithms, used in a much larger
and a far more complex 'system', namely the living cell.
All its meaning, power, and ability is granted and sustained by that context,
a context so much larger and more complex than an RNA strand,
as to dwarf our very ability to record and articulate it.

From the standpoint of mere chemistry,
the RNA molecule is no different than the thousands of
other complex organic compounds in the painting.
None of the molecules under discussion have any power whatever
to replicate themselves, whether they be RNA strands from a cell,
or organic pigments on a canvas.

In fact, the comparison is stupider than this,
since the painting is literally chock-full of RNA!
The painting, from its canvas to its egg-white gesso,
carries around millions of times the RNA found in a single cell,
and actually, will be covered with many different types of living organisms,
all of which are quite capable of reproducing themselves, and even evolving.

So what is the video author talking about?

He is trying to mislead the viewer,
or else is hopelessly misled himself,
about the true nature of the RNA molecule before us,
and its true 'function', which only exists in the context of a living organism.
There is no such thing as a 'self-replicating' molecule.
RNA is replicated inside a living organism,
one molecule out of millions of molecules which are also made there,
and since this is so obviously true,
neither RNA nor DNA has any 'special status' or magic.

RNA is simply one of billions of chemical compounds manufactured by living organisms. It is certainly 'replicated', but so are a billion enzymes in the liver. It is certainly reproduced, but so are millions of starch strings and fat molecules and other complex organic compounds.

The only thing unique about RNA and DNA is that these particular molecules
are used for storage of INFORMATION.
Information which informs and controls the REAL machinery inside a living creature.

We may also note the remarkable, novel, almost "magic" way
that RNA and DNA are in fact reproduced, copied, replicated in living organism.

RNA acts as its own "mold", able to act as a receptor-site
for other components which will make up a copy of itself.
But RNA is not itself a 'self-replicating' machine.
It only works in the context of the living organism,
wherein an environment is constantly provided and maintained,
where the components are collected, organized and transported
to the 'receptor-sites' for the assembly of a new copy.

The RNA itself is NOT a manufacturing plant:
Its only PART of an already running factory, a complete system.
Neither RNA nor DNA can survive (except in a dormant state),
let alone reproduce, without a living organism as their host.

When we look at an RNA or DNA strand, we must interpret it
in the context of its actual environment and function.
Without that environment, its just a meaningless, dead molecule,
purposeless, and paralysed, helpless and meaningless.

Suppose we had a robot capable of extracting material from the outside environment;
It could assemble copies of itself, and even had programming to
build its own parts. It was set up to make most critical components
right inside itself, like for instance ROM chips.
It could "eat" silicon and doping material, and had a little chip-making plant
built right in. It also had a 'burning' device so it could encode ROM chips,
for use in building another robot identical to itself.
If this robot dropped a ROM chip, that chip would remain inert,
lifeless and dormant, incapable of even copying itself, let alone building a robot.
Only if by accident or intent the ROM chip was plugged into another robot,
would it come to life and be part of a process to make more robots.
This is precisely the case for RNA and DNA. Its just a piece of magnetic tape,
a CD-ROM or chip. Its incapable of even playing itself, let alone making
a copy of itself.

The author of the video embues RNA and DNA with magic powers
it simply doesn't and cannot have, by misdirection or misunderstanding.

This is chemical pop-scientism run rampant.
The result is nonsense.

Living matter on the other hand does contain a chemical that can replicate itself.

And there is the first big lie.

Living organisms don't contain any such magical chemical.
Actually, living organisms ARE the replicators.

Even if God made DNA he doesn't need to intervene every time animals mate. The DNA does the job on its own.

Again, either gross misunderstanding or lying at an epic level:
The DNA doesn't do any reproducing, or replicating, the organism does.
God may not have to intervene, but the DNA does nothing at all:
its only a passive molecule which is read and copied, and used as a
copying-site by a much larger and more complex machinery, the living organism.
Its the ORGANISM that "does the job on its own" of replicating RNA/DNA,
and reproducing more copies of itself.
The only 'job' the RNA does is store critical data patterns,
and act as a passive assembly-site for a giant factory.

The individual DNA/RNA which is involved in Mitosis for instance,
is best viewed not as a complete 'factory' or replicating machine,
but rather as an elegant flexible mold and catalyst which facilitates
a process which happens coincidentally to be one that reproduces RNA/DNA.

So the real question is, how did DNA appear?

Again a misdirected question based on ignorance:
The real question is not how did DNA appear,
but how did a living organism appear?
This is the object to which we should and must attribute
the ability of "replication", "reproduction", "maintenance", etc.,
not a mere 'car-part'/reusable mold sitting in the factory.

How did living matter come from non living sludge?

The only honest and true question in the whole narrative so far,
and one which completely contradicts the previous question.

[Nazaroo]

I'll try not to pick on the petty flaws of the video, like the childish drawings
made by the author, or the perloined and poorly reproduced molecule pics.


Lets cut to the first big crock of B.S.

In 1961 a researcher called Huan Oto left hydrogen cyanide and ammonia
to stew in an aqeous solution in his laboratory under conditions
very similar to those that prevailed on the primordial earth.


Left alone the solution produced adenine, one of the four nucleotide bases that make up DNA.

Lets cut to the chase:

Here's a bit more complete and accurate description of the claim(s):

Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system



The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.

If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.

Now here's my take as a physicist:

These results were forged, and this series of experiments
represent some of the greatest frauds in the history of science.

No one has convincingly reproduced the results of these "experiments",
and I'm convinced that both contamination and forgery/fraud were involved.

I'll also add that the discovery of the supposed "outer space" finds is also cooked data (fraud).

[alwight]

@Nazaroo
Conspiracy theory time again.

Question: Surely RNA is what was ultimately being replicated within a particular specific environment, not any other chemicals or mediums around, as potholer (imo) correctly stated in the video?
Perhaps you just don't like the way he said it?

[Nazaroo]

In 1961 a researcher called Huan Oto left hydrogen cyanide and ammonia
to stew in an aqeous solution in his laboratory under conditions
very similar to those that prevailed on the primordial earth.


Left alone the solution produced adenine, one of the four nucleotide bases that make up DNA.

Just to grant the above claim for sake of argument:

The author praises the formation of Adenine, but leaves out mention of the crippling corollary:

THE OTHER THREE NUCLEOTIDE BASES COULD NOT BE SYNTHESIZED IN THE SAME ENVIRONMENT.
Why? Because they would have to be formed in quite different conditions.
This means the four 'horsemen' of the RNA apocalypse could never be in the same room long enough to join together...

He glosses over this glaring catastrophic failure (i.e., lack of parts for the synthesis of an RNA chain), and skips to another absurdity:

To make a single complete nucleotide these bases need to gain a sugar called Ribose, and a group of phosphates.

Now two more equally absurd and improbable chemical reactions are supposed to take place!

Note that the only mechanism available is raw environmental chemistry;
no MITOCHONDRIA or other partial cell-structures (i.e., factories) are yet in existence!

We have adenine, now magically joining with ribose sugar!

Where did it come from? Its not found floating around volcanoes or lightning storms. Worse, there are five different versions of Ribose, most unusable for life. Yet worse, only the beta-ribopyranose form will predominate in aqueous solution. Finally, its the d-ribose order that is needed (this refers to the chirality stereo-chemical 3-d arrangement of the carbon atom).

Remember, out in the lightning, ANYTHING could hook up to our Adenine molecule. We can only rely upon simple chemistry, and the availability of nearby chemically active agents, of which there are probably millions in an uncontrolled volcanic/lightning-storm earth.
But somehow, we luck out on the exact d-ribose that we need, coming from heaven! The author says we don't need God, but for this critical step alone we probably do!

Now, because we're in for a penny, in for a pound, we need yet another miracle! the right phosphate group hooks up next, in the right orientation and order. We have:

In the living organism however, this process of linking the pieces in the right order takes place under an extremely controlled environment.

Out here in lightning-land, we must rely upon impossible odds of both formation, preservation, and critical timing for assembly, all with ordinary raw random chemistry in an insane invironment of wild temperature fluctuations and collisions of millions of atoms and molecules at all speeds and angles.

Of course:

"Biochemists think they know how the phosphate group formed.

Although none of them can tell us!

They are now trying to find out how the ribose is attached."

...because they don't know how such a superhumanly impossible feat could possibly take place 3.7 billion years ago.

[Nazaroo]

Remember, we may have needed superhuman miracles to form just one nucleotide useful for life in the last step,
but now the author is going to up the anti by hundreds of orders of magnitude!

And we mean ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE:

To make even one poly nucleotide for a proto-RNA chain, of course we need thousands, millions of perfect mono nucleotides (singles), to string together!.
Every one of them has to be perfect, just as with the first one!
How? How can this insane improbability come about?

Magic mud. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Remember, we HAVE TO end up with long, long, long RNA chains at the end of our process. Its true, it doesn't have to be all at once; it could be a chain built up gradually over millions of years. Of course that requires ANOTHER INSANE MIRACLE: that the chain didn't get cooked, heated, broken, or attached to some poisonous piece of garbage in this hostile lightning-filled, stormy blast furnace of early Earth:

Or, ........... we could have many false starts, break-ups, and reattachments: But how? Nothing helps except a soup literally chock-full of near-identical miracle mono-nucleotides just suited to proto-life. This is the only intelligent way we can imagine long chains hooking up with more of the same long chains, forming more, longer chains.

If the ridiculous odds aren't hitting you yet, you aren't reading with comprehension. This magic pool of almost pure proto-RNA, mono and poly-nucleotides, all with miraculous properties of balanced percentages and chiralities, very few with poisonous impurities, could only have existed a short time. And therefore, the long chains could not have formed over long times either, for where did the raw materials come from?

We can no longer appeal to "millions of years" style arguments, because the environments needed are so special and fragile that they couldn't sit around that long, and long times would now be redundant.

So, "POOF!" we got some long pure polynucleotides! WoW!

And we only had to ratchet up the astronomical odds to "Ludicrous SPeed".

Ludicrous Speed

[chair]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

These results were forged, and this series of experiments
represent some of the greatest frauds in the history of science.

No one has convincingly reproduced the results of these "experiments",
and I'm convinced that both contamination and forgery/fraud were involved.

Can you provide some evidence for the above statements?

[Nazaroo]

Uber-Miracle # 4: Magic Mud!

In the 1980s researchers found that a clay calledmontmorillonite, which was abundant on the primordial seafloor and in hot pools of water on land, is the perfect catalyst for this process.

Mud, a 'catalyst' ?!?! But why quibble over scientific terms and theory,
when we've already allowed for "Ludicrous Miracle mode"?

So why not magic mud?

The 80s were an unusual time, when the whole world was bought out by homosexuals,
and no one yet really believed in the miracle of AIDS.


Ludicrous Miracle # 5: Uber-Magic Mud!

But this isn't ordinary magic mud. Oh no.

Its not just the perfect catalyst for RNA formation,
it also works for Amino Acids and just about everything Abiogeneticists wish for.
Did I mention biologists also did a lot of 'Acid' in the 80s,
and I don't mean Dioxyribonucleic acid either....

As RNA molecules replicated themselves, they shared their environment with other chemicals that thrive in montmorillonite clay.

Are you kidding me? NO. The idiot is really claiming this!

[Nazaroo]

Originally Posted by chair

Can you provide some evidence for the above statements?

Ah, a welcome expert, a chemist:
What odds are you giving this wonderful story so far?
This is right up your alley, and I think you can confirm
at least the astronomical probabilities suggested by it.
I mean the whole video, or any part that strikes you as remotely credible,
assuming pigs can fly, hell froze over in 3 million B.C.,
and whatever else may be needed.

[chair]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Mud, a 'catalyst' ?!?! But why quibble over scientific terms and theory,
when we've already allowed for "Ludicrous Miracle mode"?

Minerals, including clays, are used as catalysts. Search for "clay catalyst" or even "mud catalyst" and you will find examples. Like this one:
http://www.clays.org/journal/archive...01/1-1-314.pdf


Where is the rigorous attitude you had when discussing Newton's theorem? You are not coming across very seriously here, to put it mildly.

[chair]

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

Ah, a welcome expert, a chemist:
What odds are you giving this wonderful story so far?
This is right up your alley, and I think you can confirm
at least the astronomical probabilities suggested by it.
I mean the whole video, or any part that strikes you as remotely credible,
assuming pigs can fly, hell froze over in 3 million B.C.,
and whatever else may be needed.

There is a lot of speculation in this field, so there is room for skepticism. There isn't room for your foolish approach.

[Nazaroo]

I know:
You're thinking the story just can't get any stupider, ...but it does:

Miracle # 6: Molecules start Evolving!

Somehow the author has gotten his wires crossed,
and thinks life has already begun, and that the
magic rules of Evolution apply equally to DEAD things,
like molecules and compounds!

"Some of these long polynucleotide chains like ribonucleic acid or RNA are able to make copies of themselves. The copies aren't always perfect: mistakes creep in.

But some imperfectly copied molecules would have been better adapted to the environment than others.

These successful molecules continue to replicate and pass on their traits, while weaker or less well adapted molecules would have broken apart."

I couldn't have made this up.
Someone should call Comedy Central.

The molecules are now competing a la Evolutionary mode!
You are witnessing the "Evolutionary Theory of Chemistry"!!!!!

Forget regular Chemistry; now molecules compete like rabbits,
foraging for food, and avoiding predator compounds.
Its the Survival of the Fittest! Only the strongest molecules will survive!

Just when you thought it was safe to listen to pop-scientism,
the stakes have been raised beyond "conspiracy" mode,
to walking talking molecules with a natural penchant for survival: