Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
85 replies to this topic

#1
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA
Excellent article...


"Metabolic processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously outside of cells. The serendipitous finding that metabolism – the cascade of reactions in all cells that provides them with the raw materials they need to survive – can happen in such simple conditions provides fresh insights into how the first life formed. It also suggests that the complex processes needed for life may have surprisingly humble origins."

http://www.newscient...ot#.U175MlDn_qA
  • 1

#2
Cletus

Cletus

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • Gender:Male
Jerry have you ever read the second chapter of acts?
One time two older ladies and a decon of a church I went to laid hands on me and I began speaking in another language.
If you really want to know the orgin of life on earth read the first few chapters of genisis.

Reall interesting fact about genisis is the first mans name is adam which the hebrew word 'adam is akin to the hebrew word adom. Adom literaly means to be red. In genisis it says God formed man from the soil. My guess is red clay... why do i guess that because i have extensive knowledge of plants/soil because that the kinda work i do. Red clay is red because of oxygen content. Our blood is red also and it has oxygen in it. Did you know grey clay has the grey color due to no oxygen content. Man thats real interesting because back, way back, way way back when genisis was written they didnt know what oxygen was.

Besides something that isnt alive cant metabolize anything.
  • 2

#3
ayin jade

ayin jade

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,742 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Western US

Its just a chemical reaction. 


  • 1

#4
Celticman

Celticman
  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newport, Oregon

Awwww... we're basically back to the Abiogenesis hypothesis again, huh?  The "Miller-Urey" experiments back in the '50s were touted as THE evidence to prove that life could have formed on earth rather easily of it's own accord rather than being created by an intelligent creator.  This Newscientist article is nothing more than a simple rehash of those first Abiogenesis arguments which were, quite convincingly, discredited.


Edited by Celticman, 29 April 2014 - 05:06 AM.

  • 1

#5
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
How were the Miller Urey results discredited?
  • 1

#6
Celticman

Celticman
  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newport, Oregon

How were the Miller Urey results discredited?

 

Follow the link ( http://www.answersin.../n2/abiogenesis ) and note the well researched and cited footnotes.  I would urge all who care to do so to continue reading the citations, especially from footnote 20-36.


  • 1

#7
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

How were the Miller Urey results discredited?

 

Follow the link ( http://www.answersin.../n2/abiogenesis ) and note the well researched and cited footnotes.  I would urge all who care to do so to continue reading the citations, especially from footnote 20-36.

 

From the page you cited:  "Contemporary research has failed to provide a viable explanation as to how abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth."  If you had read the article I posted, you might have updated your thoughts, unless, you believe the article you cited as being litera,l in which case, no evidence will change your mind - your citation is almost 10 years old...science moves fast.


Edited by jerryR34, 29 April 2014 - 10:54 AM.

  • 1

#8
Celticman

Celticman
  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newport, Oregon

 

 

How were the Miller Urey results discredited?

 

Follow the link ( http://www.answersin.../n2/abiogenesis ) and note the well researched and cited footnotes.  I would urge all who care to do so to continue reading the citations, especially from footnote 20-36.

 

From the page you cited:  "Contemporary research has failed to provide a viable explanation as to how abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth."  If you had read the article I posted, you might have updated your thoughts, unless, you believe the article you cited as being litera,l in which case, no evidence will change your mind - your citation is almost 10 years old...science moves fast.

 

 

Jerry, it's not just the article I cited that I believe but the massive amount of supporting documentation as well.  That is why I urged any and all who are interested to peruse the supporting documentation.  Miller-Urey has been challenged almost from the onset of the experiments; especially when the experiments were altered because they achieved no results that they were looking for on the notion that they were wrong about what type of atmosphere Earth had.  I can provide much more reading material if you so desire....however, I would urge you to at least read "The Mystery of Life’s Origin; Reassessing Current Theories" from citation 36 of the article.


  • 1

#9
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

 

 

How were the Miller Urey results discredited?

 

Follow the link ( http://www.answersin.../n2/abiogenesis ) and note the well researched and cited footnotes.  I would urge all who care to do so to continue reading the citations, especially from footnote 20-36.

 

From the page you cited:  "Contemporary research has failed to provide a viable explanation as to how abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth."  If you had read the article I posted, you might have updated your thoughts, unless, you believe the article you cited as being litera,l in which case, no evidence will change your mind - your citation is almost 10 years old...science moves fast.

 

 

Jerry, it's not just the article I cited that I believe but the massive amount of supporting documentation as well.  That is why I urged any and all who are interested to peruse the supporting documentation.  Miller-Urey has been challenged almost from the onset of the experiments; especially when the experiments were altered because they achieved no results that they were looking for on the notion that they were wrong about what type of atmosphere Earth had.  I can provide much more reading material if you so desire....however, I would urge you to at least read "The Mystery of Life’s Origin; Reassessing Current Theories" from citation 36 of the article.

 

The article i cited has nothing to do with Miller-Urey.

 

 

On a side note, I live in Albany :)


Edited by jerryR34, 29 April 2014 - 12:55 PM.

  • 1

#10
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts
  • Gender:Male


How were the Miller Urey results discredited?


Follow the link ( http://www.answersin.../n2/abiogenesis ) and note the well researched and cited footnotes. I would urge all who care to do so to continue reading the citations, especially from footnote 20-36.
Interesting, but I'd like to see something from the mainstream. I will do some digging
  • 1

#11
Willamina

Willamina

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,191 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest USA
  • Interests:Birdwatching, Bible study
I find it amazing how an article like this that is full of could haves and ifs, only an unproven hypothesis, can change into a fact over time with no proof. I have seen such things happen over 1/2 a century simply because they fuel the unblief of scientists (falsely so called) in the sinless life, death and resurrection of Christ for the sins of the world. Those that are proud resist God's truth. The humble shall hear there of and be glad.

True science accepts as fact that which is not only proven, but it can be repeated with the same results. But we cannot prove what took place during the earths formation, or what the exact conditions were. So such conjecture should remain an unproven hypothesis.
  • 1

#12
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

I find it amazing how an article like this that is full of could haves and ifs, only an unproven hypothesis, can change into a fact over time with no proof. I have seen such things happen over 1/2 a century simply because they fuel the unblief of scientists (falsely so called) in the sinless life, death and resurrection of Christ for the sins of the world. Those that are proud resist God's truth. The humble shall hear there of and be glad.

True science accepts as fact that which is not only proven, but it can be repeated with the same results. But we cannot prove what took place during the earths formation, or what the exact conditions were. So such conjecture should remain an unproven hypothesis.

So...we stop looking, we stop trying to push forward our understanding as far as we can?  That is the thinking that got Aristotle executed and Galileo imprisoned. 

 

Science isn’t trying to say there is no God…science does not care if there is a God or not because it is interested in the natural world. 

 

“True science” does not accept anything, but is always trying to disprove the latest theory in an effort to enhance our understanding of the world. 


  • 1

#13
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
I do not think the intent of scientists is to thumb their noses at God. Maybe there are a certain number who do, but so do unbelieving nonscientists. The endeavor is to see what actually took place. Since nature is observed to follow God ordained laws, early developments are assumed follow natural mechanisms.
  • 1

#14
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elgin, Illinois, USA
  • Interests:The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 - - - Love, Your Brother Joe

I do not think the intent of scientists is to thumb their noses at God.

 

Maybe there are a certain number who do, but so do unbelieving non-scientists.

 

The endeavor is to see what actually took place.

 

Since nature is observed to follow God ordained laws, early developments are assumed follow natural mechanisms.

 

~

 

Beloved, Man's Religion Of The Ultimate Mother, Materialism

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

Really Does Not A Wise Man

 

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12

 

Make

 

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2


  • 0

#15
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elgin, Illinois, USA
  • Interests:The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 - - - Love, Your Brother Joe
.... processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously.... may have.... humble origins."

http://www.newscient...ot#.U175MlDn_qA

 

~

 

Not So Humble

 

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
 

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
 

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Isaiah 14:12-14

 

Origins

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c )


  • 1

#16
Tristen

Tristen

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

Hi Jerry,

 

So then, if you source a bunch of organic chemicals known to be involved in cellular respiration (such as those already occurring in the cellular organelle, the mitochondria), then concentrate those chemicals in media (i.e. mimicking the conditions inside a mitochondria), you will end up producing some of the products of glycolysis.

 

This is interesting science, but ultimately, not overly surprising. We already know that the right reagents and conditions will produce the glycolysis pathway, because they already occur within the cell.

 

To use this evidence in support of Common Ancestry, one would have to make several unverifiable assumptions. Firstly, one would have to apply the usual set of naturalistic assumptions (including naturalistic time frames and abiogenesis). Then one would have to assume that the “Archean Ocean” contained the very specific chemical conditions; allegedly ‘replicated’ in the lab. Only then can we infer that this may give us an idea about the naturalistic origin of glycolysis.

 

 

 

According to the article; “"This is the first experiment showing that it is possible to create metabolic networks in the absence of RNA," Ralser says.”

 

That is legitimately interesting. And like Miller-Urey, worthy of scientific praise. However, also like Miller-Urey, light years away from anything resembling abiogenesis.

 

 

 

“If these metabolic pathways were occurring in the early oceans, then the first cells could have enveloped them as they developed membranes”

 

Wait, what! Where did these “first cells” come from? Even the ‘simplest’ living cells are massively complex. The mere existence of pyruvate and ATP in the environment doesn’t come close to justifying the assumption of a pre-existing, living cell.

 

 

 

“The metabolic pathways aren't identical to modern ones”

 

So in reality, it’s not truly analogous to observed cellular metabolism. One would have to assume some unobserved evolutionary refinement to make such a comparison.

 

 

 

“some of the chemicals made by intermediate steps weren't detected”

 

This is a rather large problem when attempting to justify inferring the origins of a complex cascade.

 

 

 

“"I think this paper has really interesting connotations for the origins of life … It hints at how more complex enzymes could have evolved”

 

Note the correct amount of measured language – “It hints” at how something “could” have happened.

 

 

 

“There is one big problem, however. "For origins of life, it is important to understand where the source molecules come from," Powner says. No one has yet shown that such substances could form spontaneously in the early oceans.”

 

Again - kudos to the scientists for recognising the speculative nature of their inferences. The putative “early” “Archean Ocean” could not have purchased the “substances known to be starting points for modern metabolic pathways” from the local chemical supply company.

 

 

 

“A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate. "Given the data, one might well conclude that any organics in the ocean would have been totally degraded, rather than forming the basis of modern metabolism," says Jack Szostak, who studies the origin of life at Harvard.”

 

Yet another good point. In cellular respiration, enzymatic reactions are required to recycle molecules. In the absence of such enzymes, the reaction would be driven in one direction until the reagents are used up and the reaction stalls.

 

 

 

“But Ralser disagrees. In his opinion, whether the reaction is catalysed by an enzyme or by a molecule in the Archean Ocean leads to the same result; "every chemical reaction is in principle reversible, whether an enzyme or a simple molecule is the catalyst," he says.”

 

Reactions move in a particular direction because they are driven by energy. Enzymes facilitate reaction reversals by massively reducing the energy required. Without enzymes, you would have to justify where that energy comes from to reverse the reaction direction – thereby re-supplying the initial reagents; allowing the process to continue.

 

 

All-in-all it was a well written and generally balanced article. Thanks.


  • 1

#17
Celticman

Celticman
  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newport, Oregon

Jerry - I realize that Miller-Urey was not mentioned in the article you cited... however, Biogenesis is definitely the underlying theme of the Newscientist article you mentioned.  Since Miller-Urey is the seminal work, and most oft cited of the Abiogenesis studies I saw fit to mention it and the subsequent article I posted refuting Abiogenesis.  The attempt, as I understand it, from the Newscientist article is to show that more complex organisms can created from lesser organisms (Biogenesis), thereby showing that life could have arisen on Earth all by itself as long as there were living bacteria, etc... already present on Earth.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion... I'll be interested to see where this goes as others jump in to the discussion.

 

By the way, I was born in Corvallis, but went to school in Albany (WAHS - '84)


Edited by Celticman, 29 April 2014 - 11:02 PM.

  • 1

#18
Celticman

Celticman
  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newport, Oregon

Gray Wolf... all of the cited works in that article are from "main stream science".  Please educate me; what, exactly, is "main stream science"?  You basically have two options for how the Earth came to be the way it is today... Creation or Evolution (Darwinism).  Am I to understand that you believe all of the cited researchers, etc...are of the Creation mindset?  The fact that the article I cited was originally posted on a Christian science website should in no way detract from the content of the article.


  • 1

#19
Tristen

Tristen

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

 

 

 

 

Jerry - I realize that Miller-Urey was not mentioned in the article you cited... however, Biogenesis is definitely the underlying theme of the Newscientist article you mentioned.  Since Miller-Urey is the seminal work, and most oft cited of the Abiogenesis studies I saw fit to mention it and the subsequent article I posted refuting Abiogenesis.  The attempt, as I understand it, from the Newscientist article is to show that more complex organisms can created from lesser organisms (Biogenesis), thereby showing that life could have arisen on Earth all by itself as long as there were living bacteria, etc... already present on Earth.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion... I'll be interested to see where this goes as others jump in to the discussion.

 

By the way, I was born in Corvallis, but went to school in Albany (WAHS - '84)

 

Hi Celticman,

 

Just an FYI, Miller-Urey was actually mentioned in the published paper that the article was referring to.

 

Introduction
In the early 20th century, Aleksandr I Oparin formulated a hypothesis
that the origin of life could have been facilitated by the geochemical
formation of cellular constituents in the reducing environment of the
early earth (Oparin, 1938; Miller et al, 1997). Experimental support
for this hypothesis was provided by the Miller–Urey experiment that
demonstrated the non-biological and simultaneous synthesis of
amino acids upon replicating a hypothesized early–earth atmosphere.
Miller had combined water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia
(NH3) and hydrogen (H2), which resulted in the enzyme-free formation
of alanine and glycine upon applying energy in the form of highvoltage
electrical discharges (Miller, 1953).

 

 

source: http://msb.embopress.../4/725.full.pdf


Edited by Tristen, 30 April 2014 - 12:56 AM.

  • 1

#20
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts
  • Gender:Male
Another good article. http://www.truthinsc...experiment.html
They haven't figured iit out yet! It was not my intent to bash a Christian website; I just wanted a wider sampling of analysis.
  • 1




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network