Re: Article: The Origin of Life

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:11:51 GMT, Nashton wrote:

amoritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Even though the articles about abiogenesis on the talkorigins.org
website efficiently address many issues, the site does not yet describe
an up-to-date, encompassing scenario of how life may have originated.

My article on this important topic may fill that niche at least to a
moderate extent, and possibly might be considered useful for the
talkorigins website:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/originoflife.htm

I am curious for opinions; for discussion just cut and paste from there
if needed.

Thanks
Al Moritz


Just curious.

Most evolutionists in here and elsewhere claim that there is no reason
for life to tend to become more complicated.

Yep, and the evidence for that is the plethora of simple life forms
still extant in nature.

They claim that it is a
process lacking any determinism and that given the lack of any need to
"evolve", that organism maintains the status quo ante.

My question is: If a primitive or proto-cell (if there ever were such a
thing) could continue going on with just some RNA as its replicating
material and a simple semi-permeable fatty acid as an envelope could
haver survived in its simple state, why would complexity increase? What
would be the impetus?

Not impetus required, mutation will do the job all by itself.

Secondly, how the heck to you get phospholipids out of nothing in the
environment in order to get a proto-cell with a coating?

Getting phospholipids from nothing is creationism, and so you are
correct in dismissing that particular option. Getting them as a result
of chemical activity is quite plausible.

And how likely
is it that these molecules (RNA and phospholipids) could have been in
proximity to somehow merge and create primitive life?

Quite likely, given the time frame and the number of opportunities
available.

Thirdly, it seems to almost always boil down to chicken and egg circular
argument. RNA can't replicate without proteins, proteins can't be
produced with RNA etc., etc.

So where is the circularity of that argument? It seems quite linear to
me.

As I mentioned before in previous posts, it must be very unsatisfying to
evolutionists to not be able to replicate life or duplicate the
conditions that they believe created it in the first place.

Says Nicky/Stupid from his ignorance of science. I wonder if he can name
one such dissatisfied scientist?

Unless this
mystery is resolved and some time soon, the ToE is missing one of its
most important elements.

Nah, the theory works just fine without worrying about the issue of
abiogenesis. For all the ToE cares, life may have been created. The same
issue is true of most branches of science, for example we operate under
the effects of gravity all the time without knowing exactly how it
works. Early chemists were able to learn a good deal about various
elements before the development of the atomic theory and the periodic
table. Go figure.

How can one say how life evolved if no one has the faintest how it all
began?

By looking at the evidence, and also by realising that not knowing the
cause of abiogenesis in no way limits anyones ability to study
evolution. I wonder I Nicky/Stupid can give a good solid scientific
reason, as to why he thinks(tm) as he does.

PS: I'm awaiting and expecting the usual barrage of insults, accusations
of being a liar, irrelevant answers by Tweedy, Ronny O taking a hissy
fit and popping yet another vein, Wilkins making the obvious complicated
by showing off his lexicon of philosophical terms etc., etc.

One wonders at the mentality of a person who adds a PS to a newsgroup
post. I mean is it really that difficult to insert the extra text above
the sig line? and how are we to know he actually added it after he wrote
the rest of the text? But that pretentiousness aside, I'm awaiting and
expecting the usual substanceless response, failure to provide evidence
for his assertions, insults and lies from Nicky before he does a bold
Sir Robin etc., etc.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: News: Origin of Life: Generating RNA Molecules in Water
    ... biological molecules like RNA and DNA is how they first came together ... Growing A Chia Pet Does NOT Qualify As Real Life ... We can infer and make assumptions that one species can evolve ... If we knew conclusively if there was or was not boundaries to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Article: A Simpler Origin for Life
    ... A Simpler Origin for Life ... The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was ... reported that, immediately after they had uncovered the structure of DNA, ... When RNA Ruled the World ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: News: Origin of Life: Generating RNA Molecules in Water
    ... biological molecules like RNA and DNA is how they first came together ... Growing A Chia Pet Does NOT Qualify As Real Life ... We can infer and make assumptions that one species can evolve ... If we knew conclusively if there was or was not boundaries to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ancient RNA
    ... the common ancestor*S* of today's species and pseudo-species, ... life, maybe only a few thousand, with tens of thousands of *other* ... which suggest that the last universal ancestor was either an RNA ... generation, with non-RNA mutations usually being fatal, but RNA ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... what is the process and what is the scientific evidence showing ... Can anyone identify the process by which the precursors to the DNA ... Life many have taken 10 million times as long, ... RNA instead of DNA. ...
    (talk.origins)