# Origin of life Thread: Chemistry of seabed's hot vents could explain emergence of life



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

This thread is dedicated to the scientific exploration of the origin of life on Earth.  This is my first contribution, which describes new research into the spontaneous production of organic molecules requisite for life.  Feel free to contribute other examples.

Origin of life Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life -- ScienceDaily



> Date:
> April 27, 2015
> Source:
> University College London
> ...



This is more evidence that the building blocks of life were likely present and forming in these environments before life emerged on Earth.



> What our research proves is that these vents also have the chemical properties that encourage these molecules to recombine into molecules usually associated with living organisms



More at the link.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

Here is another recent article describing how primordial DNA could have formed spontaneously:

New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily



> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study by the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of University of Milan.



More at the link.  Here is the original source:



> * Story Source:*
> 
> The above story is based on materials provided by *University of Colorado at Boulder*. _Note: Materials may be edited for content and length._
> 
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 28, 2015)

The Miller-Urey experiment created more of life's building blocks that they realized when the experiment was first conducted:

 Lost Miller-Urey experiment created more of life s building blocks IU News Room Indiana University



> BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A classic experiment proving amino acids are created when inorganic molecules are exposed to electricity isn't the whole story, it turns out. The 1953 Miller-Urey Synthesis had two sibling studies, neither of which was published. Vials containing the products from those experiments were recently recovered and reanalyzed using modern technology. The results are reported in this week's _Science_.



More at the link.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2015)

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~hhansma/HHansmaJTB2010.pdf

The micahypothesisisanewhypothesisabouthowlifemighthaveoriginated.Themicahypothesis
providessimplesolutionstomanybasicquestionsabouttheoriginsoflife.Inthemicahypothesis,the
spaces betweenmicasheetsfunctionedastheearliestcells.These‘cells’betweenmicasheetsarefilled
with potassiumions,andtheyprovideanenvironmentinwhicholymerentropyislow;cyclicwetting
and dryingcanoccur;moleculescanevolveinisolatedspacesandalsomigrateandligatetoformlarger
molecules.Themicahypothesisalsoproposesthatmechanicalenergy(work)isamajorenergysource
that couldhavebeenusedonmanylengthscalestoformcovalentbonds,toalterpolymer
conformations,andtoblebdaughtercellsoffprotocells.Themicahypothesisisconsistentwithmany
other originshypotheses,includingtheRNA,lipid,andmetabolic‘worlds’.Thereforethemica
hypothesishasthepotentialtounifyoriginshypotheses,suchthatdifferentmolecularcomponentsand
systemscouldsimultaneouslyevolveinthespacesbetweenmicasheets.
& 2010 ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

*Feldspars are also known to help create double lipid layers. Either, at a tidal layer would get the requisite wetting and drying. From the differant articles I have read, it is not how was abiogenisis possible, but which of the many differant paths possible did it take here on earth, and what differance did that make in the outcome?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2015)

Now that is interesting! 

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~hhansma/HHansmaJTB2010.pdf

*Apparently something has happened at that site.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2015)

An interesting discussion here, with links to the papers that the information was derived from;

The Origin of Life


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2015)

Journal of Cosmology

Another interesting discussion on this topic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

....and yet the math of these simple molecules forming a single cell renders it a physical impossibility even over 4 billion years.

The odd of 2,000 of these molecules bouncing around and aligning themselves to form a cell USING ONLY LEFTHANDED AMINO ACIDS are a number with almost 6,000 zeros to 1.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Now, Frankie Boy, go post about something that you 'know ' something about, like your hollow moon. LOL



Did you know that life on planet Earth uses only left-handed amino acids? If there's an equal chance of these amino acids reducing out of your primordial soup, the right handed ones are a dead end. 

Please explain the process by which life forms form only left-handed amino acids or are you a left-handed amino acid denier?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Now, Frankie Boy, go post about something that you 'know ' something about, like your hollow moon. LOL



Like every other time you've done it, insulting me does not correct your fundamental misunderstanding of how the world functions.

How badly must it suck that there's far more real scientific evidence that the Moon is an artificial sphere than there is for manmade global climate warming change disruption or whatever you're calling it today


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> This thread is dedicated to the scientific exploration of the origin of life on Earth.  This is my first contribution, which describes new research into the spontaneous production of organic molecules requisite for life.  Feel free to contribute other examples.
> 
> Origin of life Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life -- ScienceDaily
> 
> ...



Think life starts pretty easily where ever chemistry is favorable to it. Intelligent life on the other hand using Earth's example is exceedingly rare. 

I suspect planets are teeming with life all over the universe. But intelligent life seems something of an accident. Of course the law of large numbers is on our side and even a freak occurence as happened here could happen millions of times across the whole universe.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Now that is interesting!
> 
> http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~hhansma/HHansmaJTB2010.pdf
> 
> *Apparently something has happened at that site.*



I was going to post her work today.  You saved me the trouble.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is dedicated to the scientific exploration of the origin of life on Earth.  This is my first contribution, which describes new research into the spontaneous production of organic molecules requisite for life.  Feel free to contribute other examples.
> ...



But if is just random chance and molecules bumping into each other, every planet should have evolved self aware life, or are you saying that the other planets are much younger than Earth?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is dedicated to the scientific exploration of the origin of life on Earth.  This is my first contribution, which describes new research into the spontaneous production of organic molecules requisite for life.  Feel free to contribute other examples.
> ...



Just because we currently have only one point on the graph doesn't mean that that point is exceedingly rare.  After all, as Sagan said, "if it is just us, seems like a waste of space".  There is a lot of space left to explore.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now that is interesting!
> ...



LOLz

Yeah, sock thanks sock

It's like Bodecca thanking Hazlnut or Rdean thanking Guno


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Is likely simple life on at least 2 other Sol system planets and moons. But looking at us and chimpanzees, we evolved technological intelligence, but nothing else has despite some species being vastly older with similar brains (bottlenose dolphins, other primates.) Some species use simply tools like sea otters and primates, and I just saw video yesterday of a dog displaying problem-solving intelligence moving a dining table chair next to a counter to get up there and get the chicken nuggets in a toaster oven. But it could have been trained to do that too.

Bottom line is the universe is about 14 billion years old, and technological life (us) came about in less than 4 billion. So there's probably other intelligent technological life in the universe. But it may be few and far between, while life as with plants and simple animals exist throughout.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Actually, there are several other species that use tools.  Some species of crows, for instance, not only makes and use tools, but can use them to get other tools to accomplish a task.  And you don't have to make a tool to exhibit intelligence.  The African gray parrot is one of the most intelligent animals around, and the cool thing about it is that you can actually talk to it (granted, it's like talking to a two year old), but unlike apes, it can talk back.



> Some species use simply tools like sea otters and primates, and I just saw video yesterday of a dog displaying problem-solving intelligence moving a dining table chair next to a counter to get up there and get the chicken nuggets in a toaster oven. But it could have been trained to do that too.



It takes intelligence to accept training.



> Bottom line is the universe is about 14 billion years old, and technological life (us) came about in less than 4 billion.



On earth, you mean.  we have no idea what is out there.  For all we know, there is intelligent life that has been around for far longer than we have been around.  And likely far more intelligent.



> So there's probably other intelligent technological life in the universe. But it may be few and far between, while life as with plants and simple animals exist throughout.



I don't think they are uncommon, I just think they are too far away for us to ever interact with them.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is dedicated to the scientific exploration of the origin of life on Earth.  This is my first contribution, which describes new research into the spontaneous production of organic molecules requisite for life.  Feel free to contribute other examples.
> ...


Example of life being created from non living things?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Stay tuned.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


I just researched it. Turns out it hasn't happened. That's so scientific of you to believe in something that has never actually been observed. You logical people you not believing in magic.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



You researched it in five minutes.  My but aren't you the thorough one?  Well, then all the scientists can go home because you've already figured it out.  Beer thirty time.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


You don't think that if scientists observed life being created from nothing in any sort of an experiment or observation it wouldn't be posted everywhere? Scientists post irrelevant findings and they end up on the news.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

Marxist said:


> Porker said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



That's the lie that it's sold on; the truth always turns out that the rulers own everything and the only 2 classes of non-rulers are: slaves and fertilizer

You'd have to be a complete Idiot not to know that by now


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




As a scientist, I can easily spot a straw man argument - yours, for instance.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Just show me the link where life actually came from nothing. I promise you that you won't find it unless it's a joke site or something. It would be a famous experiment and it would be done over and over again to show that life can come from nothing. You're stupid if you think that such an experiment exists.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Show me where anyone in this thread (other than you) ever made the claim that life came from nothing.  Again, you're making a straw man argument.  If you don't know what that means, then you don't have a hand to play in this discussion.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 29, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


You zealots are a scary lot. What's interesting about the fundamentalists profound hatred for science is that "the gawds did it" is rendered more pointless by the day.

Undersea vents and the life that sprung up around them were a "watershed" discovery in that life can thrive absent photosynthesis. 

Secondly, the likely discovery of life off this planet will be devastating to the fundies as there is really no way to resolve that phenomenon via the religious articles.

And btw, we know with absolute certainty that life came from non-life. That fact that life exists proves that. Either life was magically proofed into existence by one or more gawds (which does nothing to negate biological evolution), or life began in completely natural ways, clearly the most likely.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I'm calling evolutionists thinking that their pitiful theories theories are fact stupid. They lack evidence and claim they have it. They put out so much info that no one can go through it all unless they don't do anything productive for society and then make crazy assumptions about how things "had to have happened".


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Suddenly not believing in a theory makes you anti science. Doesn't there need to be someone who questions these scientists work instead of just trying to prove it correct? Your logic seems against the questioning open mind. Evolutionists pretend that you must accept evolution in order to study science when that is just a blatant lie. I've never seen a situation where believing in your version of evolution would help me in the least bit.

I believe in a god because of laws such as conservation of energy and that life doesn't come from non life. It had to have happened right? Give me a more rational explanation that made all the matter in today's world?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


It would be just like the blind close minded community to block out the only person making arguments against your theory. New Catholic Christian law preventing progress only the reverse now.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> I'm going to start putting people on ignore if they cannot stick to the OP, and actually discuss the science.  This is not a political thread, nor a religious thread.  If you want to discuss those things, there are other forums more suitable to those ridiculous discussions.  Superman, you are now on the list.  Don't bother responding, because I won't see your responses.


I told everyone what would happen... Enjoy the new science these type of people embrace. They won't even acknowledge an argument against their theories because an "expert" told them it was fact.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Don't bother responding, because I won't see your responses.
> ...


When did I say it wasn't a real science? I think it isn't the most useful one unless it is looking for useable materials. Finding fossils is the equivalent of an artist or photographer. You see the value of them to society.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Stereotype much? I work in a field of science and actually study things that benefit our world. Not stupid shit full of assumptions and stupidity. I study real observable science. I have no fear of "gawdz". Once again, anyone who doesn't blindly accept your theories you put in a category of some kind of stupid although you are acting the fool. People who don't blindly accept this but yet don't have a religion are proven to be smarter than evolutionists. You know that right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




...and your scientific answer to the math that the odds of 2,000 proteins magically aligning themselves into a functioning cell using only left-handed amino acids are E5,700 -1 is....?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

...and these molecules bounced around together and formed a protein and that protein met part of an amino acid and the bounced around together and they kept bouncing around like at a disco, just bumping and twerking and the protein said to the amino acid, "hey baby, wanna come back to my place?" But the amino acid had to let him down gently, " no, see I'm righthanded and life on planet Earth only used left-handed amino acids " Then making the best of an awkward situation, the protein said, "well you can rub me with your right hand. We might not procreate but it'll be fun, for me anyway"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

See the problem with the primordial soup random chance theory?

...these molecules bumped together in the primordial soup to form a protein..the only way for a second protein to form is by chance again, and since the cell isn't fromed yet is it really a protein, when and how does it know what to do, when to switch on


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2015)

Consider a rift zone going from the ocean onto land. Like that of Ethiopia. You would have metal oxides we see at present. If the zpne ran from deep to the land at a fairly steep slope, you would have a multitude of differant pressure and temperature gradients right up to the land. On the land, one would have a very large area that would be wetted and dried several times a day, as the mooon was considerably closer then. The atmosphere would have been mostly CO2 and CH4, so the metals in the water would not have precipitated out as oxides, as they did once life started altering the atmosphere. That would have provided more catalytic material to take part in reactions. There are various minierals that tend to form double lipid layers in cavities, very small cavities, within the minerals, feldspars being one of them. Also, from an article that I read years ago, on chirality, the feldspars tend to promote chirality. Just considering these few items, seems to me that the problem with abiogenesis is not the idea of improbability, but, rather, which of so many possible paths did it take.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You need to attend a few more of your Watchtower Bible Society meetings. And pay attention to your lessons. Yours is standard, debunked creationist drivel. You folks can't even count correctly.
CB040 Left-handed amino acids

*Claim CB040:*
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.

*Source:*
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43

*Response:*

The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). 
Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth. 
The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness. 
Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).
*Links:*
Jacoby, Mitch. 2003. Serine flavors the primordial soup. _Chemical and Engineering News_ 81(32): 5.American Chemical Society


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> This thread is dedicated to the scientific exploration of the origin of life on Earth.  This is my first contribution, which describes new research into the spontaneous production of organic molecules requisite for life.  Feel free to contribute other examples.
> 
> Origin of life Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life -- ScienceDaily
> 
> ...


wild speculation


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


believing in spontaneous generation sounds like a  religion


----------



## Hollie (Apr 29, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Respond to the topic. There's no magical gawds required for life to emerge. Make a case for your gawds.


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you have no clue what creates life ..why do you pretend


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


A powerful god is more likely than magical appearance with no cause at all. Just randomly appearing from no where is magic to me.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 29, 2015)

Origin-of-life puzzle cracked - The Panda s Thumb

A pair of recent articles on the Science website seems to think so. Staff writer Robert Service says Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum and writes,

"Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds [HCN and H2S], which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science."

Well, yes, but that is a far cry from saying the puzzle is solved. Indeed, a comment to an “in-depth” article, Origin-of-life puzzle cracked, in Science magazine notes,

The title is certainly misleading, since the origin of life puzzle is still very far from “cracked.” Showing that biomolecules, even complex biomolecules, can be synthesized under plausible primordial conditions is very different from showing how those molecules could have assembled to produce the first cell. Only then can one claim to have cracked the puzzle.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



No honey.  I find it amusing. 

Human awareness is like an ant living inside a matchbox in the subway tunnel who has a never-ending dialogue with himself on the total awesomeness of his little corner of the matchbox


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Actually, we have many clues.


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


name three


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The existence of deep oceanic vents where very primitive life exists in the absence of sunlight.  The primitive organic chemistry occurring at those vents.  The extreme range of conditions in which we find life here on Earth.  All of these are clues as to how life originated.


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


what they are is evidence life can exist in a variety of conditions


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And those conditions are clues as to how life originated.


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

those wanting to believe life is the result of random chemical interactions ,might consider it a place to.. _look for clues_.. to support their belief but it is not a clue in and of itself


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

eots said:


> those wanting to believe life is the result of random chemical interactions ,might consider it a place to.. _look for clues_.. to support their belief but it is not a clue in and of itself



Chemical reactions are never random.  The obey know physical laws and principles.


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > those wanting to believe life is the result of random chemical interactions ,might consider it a place to.. _look for clues_.. to support their belief but it is not a clue in and of itself
> ...


lol..so there is order to the universe... this thing that came from nothing...Interesting..and what might that be evidence of ?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Repeatedly making straw man arguments isn't helping your case.


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I would argue using the fact chemicals react in predictable ways to support spontaneous generation is a strawman


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 29, 2015)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And you would be posting a strawman argument because no one is claiming that what occurs is spontaneous generation (except you, of course).  You just don't know when to quit, do you?


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


so what would you call the leap from non-life to life ?


----------



## westwall (Apr 29, 2015)

*ADDRESS the OP folks.  I deleted almost 8 pages worth of crap.  Violators will be skinned!*


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 30, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> This thread is dedicated to the scientific exploration of the origin of life on Earth.  This is my first contribution, which describes new research into the spontaneous production of organic molecules requisite for life.  Feel free to contribute other examples.
> 
> Origin of life Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life -- ScienceDaily
> 
> ...


Wow, interesting implications, outside of Earth as well.  And this part is very cool: *It also has potential practical applications, showing how products such as plastics and fuels could be synthesized from CO2 rather than oil.*

What interests me the most is the ability for life to begin/exist/thrive within environments that we would normally think are too hostile, and the vents are one example.  Another is a region (I don't remember where this is) where it exists within completely frozen ice that has no exposure to sunlight at any time.

We're learning more all the time, very exciting.

.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

The Talkorigins sits has a good page addressing the origins of life and many of the many failed arguments of supernatural creationists.

Abiogenesis FAQs The Origins of Life


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 30, 2015)

This is a supporting article to the OP:

The origin of life: Labyrinths as crucibles of life

The origin of life Labyrinths as crucibles of life -- ScienceDaily



> Date:
> January 27, 2015
> Source:
> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
> ...



Very interesting experiment.

More at the link.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> This is a supporting article to the OP:
> 
> The origin of life: Labyrinths as crucibles of life
> 
> ...


Prove to me life came magically from non life.


----------



## Yarddog (Apr 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now, Frankie Boy, go post about something that you 'know ' something about, like your hollow moon. LOL
> ...



I always had a sneaking suspicion that the moon was actually the Death Star.    thanks for the confirmation


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2015)

Yarddog said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



No that's Iapetus


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> This is a supporting article to the OP:
> 
> The origin of life: Labyrinths as crucibles of life
> 
> ...



Yes.

Water filled micropores in hot rocks

of course


----------



## Marxist (Apr 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > This is a supporting article to the OP:
> ...


Yes, of course, sorry if actual science scares you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So the molecules were trapped like rats in the water filled micropores and that's how 2000 proteins magically assembled themselves (remember, using only left handed amino acids) to form the first cell.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 30, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Who knows? It's plausible, we've seen organic compounds form naturally, and the conditions within the micro pores give a plausibility.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


Plausible as in we could recreate the same situation and observe it?


----------



## Marxist (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Of course not, the odds of such an event happening are extraordinary, which is why we only have life on this planet within our solar system, well, we don't know about europa/etc yet, but hopefully soon, none the less, we've formed the compounds, however, expecting a cell to form based on the limited experiments done is ridiculous.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


Some might say the odds make it impossible...


----------



## Marxist (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Yes, but the problem with your assessment is, it's a very plausible way to explain the formation of life, supported by observations and our understanding of the world, it may be extremely implausible, but given billions of years, who knows? Then again, we're lucky this planet has life at all ,let alone that we evolved.


----------



## Yarddog (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...




perhaps at one time there were right handed ones who then became obsoleted through selection, but who knows?  maybe the handrail was on the left side and only the left handed aminos could make it up the stairs?  Frank does present an interesting question though


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


It's not any more plausible than any other way given the fact that it has never happened. It's always given billions of years to make it seem rational even though it is not. If it followed some chemical process then it would be able to be recreated...


----------



## Marxist (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


You fail to understand that just because something is extremely implausible doesn't mean it can't happen, especially if what we know supports it. (E.G. the big bang, which is a fact, although EXTREMELY implausible)


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


Big bang not a fact...


----------



## Marxist (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Yes, it is a fact. Hubble's law? Cosmic microwave background radiation? Light elements supporting the big bang models? It's the most plausible and supported theory regarding the origin of the universe as of now.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Some, such as religious zealots, typically use the "what are the odds", arguments because of their self imposed ignorance. 

Science has the ability to explore and discover as opposed to the static nature of religion which is threatened by exploration and discovery.

*http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/09/news-roundup-su.html*

*News Roundup: Surprise, We’re Still Learning New Things*
By Dave Thomas on September 17, 2013 9:01 AM | 93 Comments
Have you ever noticed how _boring_ Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are? How many times must we endure hackneyed claims like “The Flagellum proves Intelligent Design,” or “The Cambrian Explosion Defies Darwinism” ?






Science, however, is continuously being refined and improved, and new discoveries are the order of the day. Here are a few current stories that have relevance to the creationism-versus-evolution “debate.”


*Darwin’s Dilemma Resolved: Evolution’s ‘Big Bang’ Explained by Five Times Faster Rates of Evolution*


*Functioning ‘Mechanical Gears’ Seen in Nature for First Time*


*DNA Double Take*
More below the fold.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



The expansion of the universe is absolutely a fact. Your ignorance surrounding the "Big Bang" is your own issue to deal with.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


So suddenly because something is currently the most plausible theory it is fact? Funny how one can make so many stretches but has no doubts about the science behind it...


----------



## Marxist (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


All evidence supports it.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


Once again, these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts. They simply make up possibilities that didn't happen. If you choose to believe this magic then go ahead. I prefer solid facts to be used as facts and beliefs like yours to be called such.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


How can someone know what the universe would look like after a big bang if you live within it? It's not like there are mini big bangs to pull examples from that we can view. Pure speculation.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


You fail to understand how the universe works..


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


You fail to understand that scientists claim facts when their knowledge and point of view is so limited. You're all sheep following the master minds you believe in. The truth is, they're just people like you. If they were as smart as they claimed to be, they would invent life changing technology but instead they insist on useless speculation and radical theories.


----------



## Marxist (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Then you fail to understand how science works.. Scientists examine the evidence and form theories based on the available evidence, their point of view is "limited" if you want to call it that. Sheep following the masters mind? We can look at the evidence for ourselves, it's all published and available. They do invent life changing technology, all the time. Radical theories? Get your head out of your ass.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Quite clearly, you feel threatened and intimidated by what you don't understand and because you feel your religious beliefs are challenged.

Yours is a typical reaction from religious zealots. You get angry and emotive when new discoveries in science peel away the fears and superstitions you choose to live in the shadow of.

*High-power laser hints at origin of RNA*
By Matt Young on December 9, 2014 7:53 PM | 10 Comments

High-power laser hints at origin of RNA - The Panda s Thumb

In a nutshell, a team at the J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry in Prague used a laser that can produce up to 1 kJ in a 300 ps pulse,** irradiated the suspension, and produced adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil, which are the bases of the RNA molecule. And apparently not a drop of thymine, one of the bases of DNA. The experiment is supposed to simulate the bombardment of the early Earth by comets and presumably supports the hypothesis that an RNA world came first.



Read the article. Note that the results of the study were published in _Science_ magazine for peer review. That's in contrast to your false and fraudulent claim that "these scientists go into their studies with the intent of explaining connections without facts."


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


It's hard to argue with sheep who follow so strongly. Open your eyes to the world. You still think communism is a viable way of life...


Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Show me an angry/emotive post? Stating that you don't have a basis for the beginning of life is not angry or emotive. It also doesn't challenge my way of life in any way. I would live the same regardless of whether scientists could create life.

The connections without facts is that just because all the random dead particles can be created that they would suddenly form together to make life. That's the gross assumption that they make.


----------



## guno (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

guno said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


An alternative to the science fiction you choose to believe. I guess both may be considered fiction?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


It's pretty clear your angry and emotive. Your denials are boilerplate for religious zealots who feel threatened by science knowledge.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 30, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


You're taking me all wrong. I don't want to take away your crutch of a belief. If it makes you happy and allows you to live a more fulfilling life then go ahead and believe it. I don't judge people that believe in magic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 30, 2015)

We have excellent records of individual species evolution, and even class evolution. Here in Oregon, the evolution of horses is traced for 40 million years in the John Day fossil beds. In South Africa, the Karoo has fossils that show the evolution of mammalia. Now those in denial will not accept any evidence of evolution, no matter how clear. No use argueing with them. 

Same for abiogenesis. No matter that we have seen several avenues in nature for the development of chirality, no matter that we are finding more and more ways that nature constructs the basic building blocks of life, not just in Earth environments, but even on comets in space. But those in denial will ignore all evidence and even deny it exists. When they succumb to time's inevitable hand, one hopes there will be no replacements for their willfull ignorance.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 30, 2015)

Marxist said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



Billions of years vs a numbers with 6,000 zeros for it to work as you suppose means you run out out years after only lets be very generous and say the reaction happens once a second over a billion years, you run out of time after knocking off only 16 zeros. Say the exact set of chemical hit together every 1/10th of a second, wow 17 zeros. 17 out of 6,000!

Do you understand why your theory must fail?


----------



## guno (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




Thank you for TRYING to contribute with your vast knowledge in creation "science" little Frankie


----------



## orogenicman (May 1, 2015)

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

The origin of life what we know what we can know and what we will never know Open Biology

*Abstract*


> The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the emergence of life on the Earth can in its broadest sense be specified, and may be stated as follows: all stable (persistent) replicating systems will tend to evolve over time towards systems of greater stability. The stability kind referred to, however, is dynamic kinetic stability, and quite distinct from the traditional thermodynamic stability which conventionally dominates physical and chemical thinking. Significantly, that stability kind is generally found to be enhanced by increasing complexification, since added features in the replicating system that improve replication efficiency will be reproduced, thereby offering an explanation for the emergence of life's extraordinary complexity. On the basis of that simple principle, a fundamental reassessment of the underlying chemistry–biology relationship is possible, one with broad ramifications. In the context of the OOL question, this novel perspective can assist in clarifying central historic aspects of abiogenesis, as opposed to the many historic aspects that have probably been forever lost in the mists of time.



Interesting article for discussion.  Basically, it says that there is a continuum between inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, simple life, and biological evolution, directed by the need for dynamic kenetic stability (DKS).  Think of it this way.  Living things are low-entropy and energy-consuming, so they are unstable in the thermodynamic sense. Nevertheless, they can still be remarkably stable in the sense of persisting over time. Some replicating populations (certain bacterial strains, for example) have maintained themselves with little change over astonishing periods – millions, even a billion, years.  And, like entropy, DKS turns out to be driven by the simple, powerful mathematics of exponential growth.

It works like this. Suppose you start with a dollar. Double it every week, then double it again and again, and in under a year, you’ll be the world’s richest person.  Keep going for another five years and you’ll have more dollars than there are atoms in the observable universe. Self-replicating molecular systems can, in the right circumstances, start off on the same explosive path. But there’s a catch (there always is) - when they do, a new chemistry emerges. Ultimately, it is this new chemistry that leads to what we term biology.

How could such a transformation come about? Why do replicating molecules give rise to replicating cells? In a word: evolution. It boils down to these terms - replication, variation, competition, and selection.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

guno said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...



It sucks that the math destroys your theory.  
_
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."_--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Each protein has a specific function, so even if the Magical Theory of Evolution worked and created random proteins, in order to work they would have to align themselves EXACTLY and function PERFECTLY with their new neighbors.  You see how mathematically impossible a task this is if these cell components organized by chance. You'd have to be a Cell Complexity Denier to believe that chance was responsible.


----------



## Hollie (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Sorry Frank, But it's a shame you're an accomplice to fraud. Your "quote mine" is standard creationist drivel. I'm surprised (well, not really surprised), that you bothered to "quote-mine" an out of context "quote" used by one of the most notoriously fraudulent creationist warehouses on the planet.


The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month July 2006


----------



## orogenicman (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



But proteins are not rigid lumps of material. They can have moving parts whose mechanical actions are coupled to chemical events. It is this coupling of chemistry and kinetics that gives proteins the extraordinary capabilities that underlie the dynamic processes in living cells.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...



But the proteins only function as part of the cell, they switch on at specific times and perform specific tasks! Its like having a box of parts to a swiss watch and shaking it in the hopes it will assemble itself properly


----------



## orogenicman (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The watchmaker analogy was refuted more than 80 years ago, and more recently, was put to shame during the Dover trial.  Care to comment on that fact?

As for proteins, since the are part of the make up of a cell, it is only natural that they function as part of the cell.  Duh.  The times in which they preform functions, and the specific tasks they perform are dependent on the type of protein involved, in the same way that each element on the periodic table has specific properties that identify them.  In other words, it's chemistry.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



If it's only chemistry and random chemical combination then Evolution fails under the sheer weight of numbers

You think Judge Jones failed, flawed ruling on Dover is a final word?

LOlz


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Can you please show me the refutation of the "Watchmaker argument"?


----------



## Hollie (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The Dover trial was such a humiliating defeat for the religious right, they haven't dared to slither out from under their rocks.


----------



## Hollie (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


That's a typically pointless attempt at analogy which is a staple of the extremist religionists.

Biological organisms evolve, mechanical components do not.


----------



## Dot Com (May 1, 2015)

guno said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Marxist said:
> ...


yeah 57Frank CrusaderFrank


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Can you highlight the appropriate sections from Judge Jones ruling?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes, Honey Boo Boo, we're discussing the mathematical impossibility of proteins and amino acids (left-handed only, don't forget that) "evolving" to form a cell.

You're only convincing argument is to say, "we have cells, therefore they evolved" and I'm not impressed


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



And if insults were winning arguments, you guys would be winning


----------



## Hollie (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Here ya' go. 
_
Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court

[This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]_


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



well that's not what I asked, but then again, you since don't have a fucking clue, it's not unexpected either.

It's one judges failed, flawed ruling and it doesn't end the debate and it doesn't address the mathematical impossibility of evolution


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

FYI, under this standard, General Relativity would fail as a theory


----------



## Hollie (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I understand you're frustrated. You're hoping to prop up an argument that's bankrupt.

"What are the chances" is right out of the religious extremist playbook. 

You obviously have no science background and not a hint of a science vocabulary. You may wish to see if your local community college offers introductory classes in biology.


----------



## Hollie (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


In what way is the Dover ruling "flawed"? 

Be specific and provide relevant examples.


----------



## Hollie (May 1, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Pointless. General relativity makes no appeals to magic or partisan, supernatural gawds.


----------



## orogenicman (May 1, 2015)

Does anyone have any relevant comment to make or question to ask on specific issues related to the articles posted in the thread?  If you don't, please find some other thread in which to waste your time.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 1, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Does anyone have any relevant comment to make or question to ask on specific issues related to the articles posted in the thread?  If you don't, please find some other thread in which to waste your time.


I think the article is pretty fuckin' cool and I'm VERY excited to see science continue to move forward.

There ya go!

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



So you don't understand that had Relativity failed even one test it would have been discarded as a theory, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You'd have to have read it, but I posted the Judge's conclusion which does not address what we've said in any way whatsoever.

Now you say, "But Oreganoman said the science is settled!!!'


----------



## Old Rocks (May 1, 2015)

Given the many places we never expected to find life here on earth, and the fact that impacts kind of spread the very primitive life around, I would not be surprised to find life as we know it, that is RNA or DNA bases life on the bodies that have liquid water. For life not as we know it, I really think that Jupiter would be a good place to look. Lots of energy and organic compounds, with all kinds of temperature and pressure gradients. 

Would really like to see some missions into Jupiters atmosphere.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 3, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Given the many places we never expected to find life here on earth, and the fact that impacts kind of spread the very primitive life around, I would not be surprised to find life as we know it, that is RNA or DNA bases life on the bodies that have liquid water. For life not as we know it, I really think that Jupiter would be a good place to look. Lots of energy and organic compounds, with all kinds of temperature and pressure gradients.
> 
> Would really like to see some missions into Jupiters atmosphere.


I've seen theories that point to life essentially "in the air" for gas giants such as Jupiter.  In other words, life that doesn't require rocky terra firma, but that which is born and exists within the heavy atmosphere, drawing sustenance from the ambient elements there.

Just floating along, minding its own alien business.



.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 4, 2015)

I look at that and I think of all the random combination that had to be tried in order to get the parts to fit perfectly and work together; each part itself having been previously formed by random chance of molecules banging against each other.

Evolution, yeah that's how it happened


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 4, 2015)

Dakeon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I look at that and I think of all the random combination that had to be tried in order to get the parts to fit perfectly and work together; each part itself having been previously formed by random chance of molecules banging against each other.
> ...



How did proteins and amino acids randomly select each other to form cells? Can you walk me through that? Remember, on left-handed amino acids are used on planet Earth


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 4, 2015)

Dakeon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dakeon said:
> ...



...because cells were already created and dropped here fully formed????


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 4, 2015)

Dakeon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dakeon said:
> ...



I thought evolution occurred at the cellular level based on changes in the DNA?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 4, 2015)

Dakeon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dakeon said:
> ...



You're trying to decouple cells from evolution, not sure how that helps your case


----------



## Hollie (May 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dakeon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You're making the common mistake made by ignorant fundamentalists who have no science vocabulary in connection with biology. Biological evolution does not address the beginning of life. This has been addressed so often, it's impossible you missed it.


----------



## orogenicman (May 4, 2015)

Frank, care to remain on topic?  Do you have any questions relevant to any of the papers posted here?


----------



## Ringel05 (May 5, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Guess you didn't read the article or ever studied biology and chemistry, believe me when I say I hated chemistry.........  Now does that mean the research proves this is how life started?  No, it specifically states from a purely scientific aspect it's possible.  That's called a postulation, not a theory, not a law.


----------



## orogenicman (May 5, 2015)

Ringel05 said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



So you hated chemistry, and yet you feel confident in making the claim you just made.  I love everything to do with physics, biology, and chemistry.  You cannot be a geologist and not have those disciplines under your belt.  Nowhere in the OP was the claim made that that is how life started.  Obviously it is you who didn't bother to read the paper.  It describes how the organic molecules requisite for life can form spontaneously in the natural environment. Any questions?


----------



## westwall (May 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...








Millers experiments way back in 1953 created 10 of the amino acids used in proteins and a host of other organic compounds.  This is just a refinement of what Miller did, and later, I think it was 1974-75 ish he and Orgel continued with the experiments.  To be honest nothing here is all that earthshaking if you have ever read the literature.


----------



## Ringel05 (May 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


You truly are a defensive moron aren't you.  Reread who I was responding to then get back to me.  Putz......
Just because I hated chemistry doesn't mean I didn't study it........


----------



## orogenicman (May 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



From the OP:

"The study shows how the surfaces of mineral particles inside hydrothermal vents have similar chemical properties to enzymes, the biological molecules that govern chemical reactions in living organisms. This means that vents are able to create simple carbon-based molecules, such as methanol and formic acid, out of the dissolved CO2 in the water."

This is not something shown by Miller's experiments.  This is something never shown before.  It is completely new.


----------



## westwall (May 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







That's why I said it is a refinement.  Miller used hydrogen, ammonia, and methane as a proto atmosphere.  The compounds he created are more impressive to me than this.  He used that which we know to be in the atmospheres of the various planets and created the building blocks of life.  The vents are truly alien life though.  They get no energy from the Sun, they are purely using chemical energy for their life cycles and that is remarkable. 

The disconnect I have is the claim that the vents make the enzymes.  There is no proof of that.  The enzymes could just as easily have come from the detritus of the tube worms in the area.


----------



## Ringel05 (May 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


You may, and I emphasis may have done well in science but your English comprehension skills are seriously lacking.  Read who I was responding to and what I said, I was on your side with this one, at least partially.  
You need to stop reacting and start thinking.


----------



## orogenicman (May 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Except the laboratory experiments and computer simulations didn't use detritus and yet generated the same results:



> The team combined laboratory experiments with supercomputer simulations to investigate the conditions under which the mineral particles would catalyse the conversion of CO2 into organic molecules. The experiments replicated the conditions present in deep sea vents, where hot and slightly alkaline water rich in dissolved CO2 passes over the mineral greigite (Fe3S4), located on the inside surfaces of the vents. These experiments hinted at the chemical processes that were underway. The simulations, which were run on UCL's Legion supercomputer and HECToR (the UK national supercomputing service), provided a molecule-by-molecule view of how the CO2 and greigite interacted, helping to make sense of what was being observed in the experiments. The computing power and programming expertise to accurately simulate the behaviour of individual molecules in this way has only become available in the past decade.
> 
> "We found that the surfaces and crystal structures inside these vents act as catalysts, encouraging chemical changes in the material that settles on them," says Nathan Hollingsworth, a co-author of the study. "They behave much like enzymes do in living organisms, breaking down the bonds between carbon and oxygen atoms. This lets them combine with water to produce formic acid, acetic acid, methanol and pyruvic acid. Once you have simple carbon-based chemicals such as these, it opens the door to more complex carbon-based chemistry."


----------



## westwall (May 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Since when are computer models data?  Get with the program dude.  Too many failures have cropped up for "simple" computer models to be taken seriously anymore.


----------



## orogenicman (May 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



OMG, have you ever even used one?  Of course you haven't.  When a computer model simulates laboratory results, which simulates findings in the real world, that is anything but a failure.  The only failure here is your understanding.


----------



## westwall (May 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Of course I have.  I also understand that they are not DATA.  Any good scientist KNOWS that.  When did you forget that fact?  The point is, there is biologic detritus everywhere in a vent.  Who's to say they aren't the source of the observed enzymes?  Hmmmm?


----------



## orogenicman (May 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Sure you have.  So why don't I believe you?  The point is that the laboratory experiments,  which didn't have detritus, and the models, which also didn't have detritus, produced the same results as analyses at the vents.  Explain how all those results are the same if detritus is really an issue.   You can't because it isn't.


----------



## westwall (May 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







I don't care what a known liar, such as yourself, "believes".  Science isn't about "belief", it is about facts.  Funny how a simpleton who claims to be a geologist, and then doesn't seem to know that geology is considered a "hard" science, or an exact science if you prefer, would place so much emphasis on models.

Models are not data.  They never will be data.  The study is interesting, but not earth shattering.  That is my point.  Leave it to a poseur to conflate the two.


----------



## orogenicman (May 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Geologists use models ALL THE TIME.  I've used ground water models many times.  Mineralogists use models.  Seismologists use models.  Volcanologists use models.  Engineering geologists use them.  We all do.  I've not made the claim that they are "data".  So stop claiming that I did. Models are tools.  Scientists use models for explanatory purposes, but they often use models to make and test predictions.  I used ground water models to determine fate and transport of contaminants in ground water.  Some were successful.  Some weren't.  But all of them were useful in one way or another.  If you were truly a geologist, as you claim, you'd know this without me telling you.


----------



## westwall (May 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Really?  Describe a model that a minerologist would use, and why.  Hydrologists do indeed use models.  In fact they use models that are among the most complex extant.  Far more complex than the simplistic models the climatologists use for a system that is far more complex than that which the hydrologists are modelling.  

Funny how that works, a extremely complex model being used for a fairly straightforward problem, and a simple model for an incredibly complex system.

Want to know why the difference?  A hydrologist HAS to be correct.  He uses every tool at his disposal to be as careful, and precise as he can.  A climatologist knows that what he's producing is crap, will be reviewed by friends who are likewise producing crap, so there is no reason to be precise.  No one will care if they're wrong.


----------



## orogenicman (May 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Where did you get the idea that groundwater is straightforward?  Diffuse flow sometimes is simple in a formation that has uniform permeability and porocity (particularly if both are relatively high), but most of the time, even diffuse flow is very complex, because aquifer formations are rarely homogenous.  Conduit flow is much more complex, and the combination of diffuse flow and conduit flow (which includes most karst systems)  is even more complex.  And I take issue with your claim that climate models are simple.  Name one that you believe is simple, and why.  And of course, regardless of the facts, that you would make the pronouncement that climate scientists produce "crap" demonstrates your utter bias on the subject, and so there is no  reason to believe you have any credibility on the subject. But then, we knew this already.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 6, 2015)

Ringel05 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


I studied through O Chem. I don't remember much of it though. I only study nuclear power now... None of the points I've made have really been directed at the article in the OP. My point is to say that evolutionists are delusional about the evidence they have. They view it as fact although it is not.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


"..... because I say so"

There. Fixed that for you, sweetie.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 6, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Every article or piece of evidence shown to me was not fact but speculation. How can you call something a fact when you don't know for sure? You can say that some things point in that direction but you can't call it fact.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


I guess you're just slow.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 6, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Another typical response from evolutionists... Demeaning opposition to the theory that they don't even completely understand. Typical deflection.


----------



## westwall (May 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Groundwater is very straightforward.  We know all of its physical properties, thus the only variables are those that pertain to the media it is traveling through.  Climate models are INCREDIBLY simple.  In fact, most abstracts describe them as such.

A CFD model, as used by the aviation or racing industry, is orders of magnitude more complex and they are merely dealing with aerodynamics.  The global climate models are attempting to model the most complex system that exists, and they use models that are simple because that is the best they are capable of coming up with.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


It's the best answer for fundamentalist religionists who denigrate the sciences they know nothing about.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 6, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I have never seen you post a knowledgeable post. You always make your stupidity obvious with every insult.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


See, you are slow.


----------



## orogenicman (May 7, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If you truly believe that ground water is straightforward, I challenge you to determine the fate of TCE in a 10 mile long,  subaerial karst system with both dendritic and fault-controlled channels and both conduit and diffuse flow.  Good luck with that.


----------



## westwall (May 7, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







The "fate" of TCE?  What the hell do you mean.  TCE is a pollutant that is exceptionally soluble.  The TCE goes where the water goes.  You can use granular activated carbon in combination with packed tower aeration to clear it, but it's a stone cold bitch.  Of course MTBE is even worse.   BTW ALL karst exhibits both dendritic and fault-controlled channels.  Why didn't you mention the bedding planes too?  They are every bit as important.


----------



## orogenicman (May 11, 2015)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Did you see my comment about conduit flow?

Before you can treat it (and I know of no way to treat any contaminant in such an extensive cave system other than to remove the source and let nature take its course), you have to find all the routes it is taking.  And no sir, not all karst exhibits both dendritic and fault controlled channels.  In fact, most caves are controlled by bedding planes and solubility of the rock itself.  Dendritic channels in karst only occur where the bedrock is nearly horizontal.  Most karst in limestone that is not horizontal does not display dendritic drainage.  And many karst systems are not fault controlled at all.  Many are joint-controlled.  Some karst systems display nearly all of these features simultaneously.  Many, though not all, display both diffuse and conduit flow.  And so, the fact is that karst ground water systems are very complex.  And because of this complexity, determining the fate of our TCE becomes very problematic, as anyone (such as myself) who has worked in karst terrain knows all too well.  By the way, TCE is also more dense than water, so it tends to concentrate at the bottom of the aquifer.  There is a TCE plume that stretches four miles across the city of Louisville, and is found mostly at the bottom of the Louisville aquifer.  It took years to identify the source(s).  And that was in one of the best understood aquifers in the country.


----------



## orogenicman (May 12, 2015)

More evidence for the origin of life, none of which concludes "god did it":

A hot start to the origin of life? Researchers map the first chemical bonds that eventually give rise to DNA

A hot start to the origin of life Researchers map the first chemical bonds that eventually give rise to DNA



> DNA is synonymous with life, but where did it originate? One way to answer this question is to try to recreate the conditions that formed DNA's molecular precursors. These precursors are carbon ring structures with embedded nitrogen atoms, key components of nucleobases, which themselves are building blocks of the double helix.
> 
> Now, researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (Berkeley Lab) and the University of Hawaii at Manoa have shown for the first time that cosmic hot spots, such as those near stars, could be excellent environments for the creation of these nitrogen-containing molecular rings.
> 
> ...



More at the link.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 4, 2015)

More scientific research on the origin of life:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601172834.htm



> In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it's still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells.
> 
> Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists -- Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD -- have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.
> 
> "Our work shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene," said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. "This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms."



More at the link.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> More scientific research on the origin of life:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601172834.htm
> 
> ...



There's that anti-science word consensus again. Its impossible for life to have formed that way. The math destroys that fictional narrative


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

You have to be deluded into believing that single cells are simple, there's nothing simple about them. That they are small does not mean they're simple. All these proteins that magically appeared in the primordial soup each have exact specific functions that only work properly as part of the whole. They switch on and off at exact specific times so the idea they just randomly bumped together to form cells is laughable. Moreover, life on Earth uses only left-handed amino acid, the right-handed ones would be "evolutionary" dead ends. Yet they continue to post this crap as if its a fact life evolved that way


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The math destroys that fictional narrative


I'm new to this thread but I'm guessing you've been told that evolution is not a random process.  Why do people continue with these strawman arguements?  Very sad.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You have to be deluded into believing that single cells are simple, there's nothing simple about them.


 
Now that is certainly true but cells are likely the product of billions of years of (non-random) evolution.  The first life was infinately simpler.  It just needed to reproduce and it was subject to evolutionary forces.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The math destroys that fictional narrative
> ...



We're talking SPECIFICALLY about how the first cells were formed. Are you saying that amino acids and protein are self-aware and knew PRECISELY how to align themselves to form the first cells?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You have to be deluded into believing that single cells are simple, there's nothing simple about them.
> ...



You mean there was something directing the molecules, proteins and amino acids to form a cell? Fascinating. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 4, 2015)

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Actually, from a strictly non-religious standpoint, the book of Genesis implies that life came from within the Earth.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
Not at all, I'm saying that cells did not form from a non-living predecessor.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


The "something" was evolution.  The non-celluar life that existed before there were cells as we know them was still subject to evolution by natural selection.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



What formed them? Living proteins?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Sure. If a cell has 2,000 proteins, the odds of it evolving randomly to have all the proteins fit perfectly together are E 5,700-1, that's a number with 5,700 zeros after it.  It's IMPOSSIBLE for cells to form as you suggest. Either the proteins were self-aware and knew EXACTLY where they'd have to fit or your theory fails

And remember, only left-handed amino acids are used on Earth, the right handed ones are "Evolutionary" dead ends


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 4, 2015)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The math destroys that fictional narrative
> ...


welcome to the thread and good observation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Good observation that met reality 5 posts later


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


If a single molecule were capable of reproduction it would be subject to the forces of natural selection.  That is all it took for life to begin.  There are plenty of molecules capable of self assembly so it is not wild speculation IMHO.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

I think you have no idea how complex and intricate proteins must be in order to have a cell function properly. I think it's another small = simple fallacy.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 That is exactly NOT what I'm suggesting.  Non-living matter randomly combining to form a cell is YOUR suggestion/strawman, something we both agree is absurd.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Maybe, but to have it all happen randomly you're taking that process and multiplying it by E5,700 to have it make the first cell.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I think you have no idea how complex and intricate proteins must be in order to have a cell function properly. I think it's another small = simple fallacy.


 I do appreciate the complexity of cells and understand why they likely took billions of years to evolve to where they are today.  I don't think you appreciate how simple life can be to become subject to evolution.  You need to realize that the cell was not the first living thing to exist on earth.


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 Quite right but I'm not suggesting it was a random process.  That is your strawman.


----------



## chikenwing (Jun 4, 2015)

Or some distant life form stopped for lunch,left some of their food,and took a crap ,we could have evolved from alien shit?? Or not,The math does seem to prove that we din't crawl out of a puddle. Huge numbers for life to start,even larger for it to found away to survive,long enough to find a way to reproduce,that's a lot of zeros


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> Or some distant life form stopped for lunch,left some of their food,and took a crap ,we could have evolved from alien shit?? Or not,The math does seem to prove that we din't crawl out of a puddle. Huge numbers for life to start,even larger for it to found away to survive,long enough to find a way to reproduce,that's a lot of zeros


You might want to check your math or at least stop listening to those that don't know any more than you do.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Are you suggesting that single cells are self-aware?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes.  Ever hear of stoichiometry?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 4, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Take an organic chemistry class.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 4, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> Or some distant life form stopped for lunch,left some of their food,and took a crap ,we could have evolved from alien shit?? Or not,The math does seem to prove that we din't crawl out of a puddle. Huge numbers for life to start,even larger for it to found away to survive,long enough to find a way to reproduce,that's a lot of zeros



What math, where?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Very likely


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Balancing reactions? No, never heard of it


----------



## chikenwing (Jun 4, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > Or some distant life form stopped for lunch,left some of their food,and took a crap ,we could have evolved from alien shit?? Or not,The math does seem to prove that we din't crawl out of a puddle. Huge numbers for life to start,even larger for it to found away to survive,long enough to find a way to reproduce,that's a lot of zeros
> ...


Statistical probabilities did it need to be spelled out for you?


----------



## alang1216 (Jun 4, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


 
I need it spelled out since it seems to me either you don't under statistics or you don't understand evolution.  I curious as to which it is.


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 4, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


That begs the question- what are Frank's bona fides aside from having  keyboard and access to denier sites?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 4, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



What statistical probabilities, where? Be specific, or get lost.


----------



## Thanatocoenosis (Jun 4, 2015)

Food for thought: *Prebiotic synthesis of adenine and amino acids under Europa-like conditions*.

Story behind the paper: Did Life Evolve in Ice DiscoverMagazine.com


----------



## Hollie (Jun 7, 2015)

This is interesting. While the title of the article mis-speaks a bit; the "missing link" thing, it shows that an inquisitive science is always exploring.
*
Origin-of-Life Story May Have Found Its Missing Link
*


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 10, 2015)

Baloney!


----------



## Thanatocoenosis (Jun 10, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> Baloney!



lol... now, there's an intellectual argument that must've taken years to formulate.


----------

