Does God Exist?

[alang1216]

I have found a key to determining truth is to see how all observations in all fields of scientific study and all Scriptures in the Bible can be harmonized. E.g Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21.

Interpretations may contradict but the truth does not contradict itself.

They can't and you should not even try, if you do you're misinterpreting the science or the theology or, more likely, both. The truth is that they are very different spheres and there is no need to mess them both up trying to fuse them together.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have found a key to determining truth is to see how all observations in all fields of scientific study and all Scriptures in the Bible can be harmonized. E.g Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21.

Interpretations may contradict but the truth does not contradict itself.

They can't and you should not even try, if you do you're misinterpreting the science or the theology or, more likely, both. The truth is that they are very different spheres and there is no need to mess them both up trying to fuse them together.

I have found a key to determining truth is to see how all observations in all fields of scientific study and all Scriptures in the Bible can be harmonized. E.g Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21.

They can't and you should not even try, if you do you're misinterpreting the science or the theology or, more likely, both.

.
they prove, the religionists by their purposeful misinformation science and the three desert religions are incompatible and have through the centuries persecuted and victimize the innocent rather than correct their theological misrepresentations that are nothing more than their own narrow worldview's they fear living without.

what 4th century christianity represents and not the 1st century events of liberation theology that actually occurred.

and 1216 is incorrect that without the theological underpinnings the physiological universe would not exist and are one in the same of the obsevable sceince that created life. physiology does not exist anywhere on Earth without a paired spiritual content.

 

[Newtonian]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

.
there is abundant evidence for the process for speciation -

View attachment 330677

transforming from one being into another is an everyday occurrence of metamorphosis - the same process would have similar results parent to sibling transformation in a single instance of a new being as a metaphysical exercise developed over numerous generations till its final enactment in a single step and reproduced by the new sibling for all future generations.

Yes, metamorphosis is amazing - but it is NOT speciation - the DNA is the same.

 

[Newtonian]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

.
there is abundant evidence for the process for speciation -

View attachment 330677

transforming from one being into another is an everyday occurrence of metamorphosis - the same process would have similar results parent to sibling transformation in a single instance of a new being as a metaphysical exercise developed over numerous generations till its final enactment in a single step and reproduced by the new sibling for all future generations.

OK. But how does a bunch of inanimate "stuff" make the leap to a living organism? I know all about the building blocks of life. I have yet to see humans take said building blocks and make the blocks start walking around.

OK. But how does a bunch of inanimate "stuff" make the leap to a living organism?

a living organism is composed of two ingredients - physiology and spiritual content - and the prevailing conditions conducive to their development all of which occurred on planet Earth together and with a precipitous bolt of lightening at the exact time necessary the first cell was born.

Lightning - Miller used electric discharge which is supposed imitate Lightning. However, Miller only got a mixture of mostly non-biologic chemical reaction products - with formic acid the most prevalent by proportion. How do you propose a living cell resulted from that mixture (aka primordial soup)?

 

[Newtonian]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.

Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

.
oh, it's round ...

funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.

- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.

using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.

Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.

I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.

But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

but you claim our universe is round.

.
no

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.

Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

.
oh, it's round ...

funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.

- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.

using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.

Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.

I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.

But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

- but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

.
no, the cyclical BB when completed is represented as a sphere ... as a finite angle of trajectory forming a mathematically perfect circumference.

View attachment 330645

the image, ignoring the text, illustrates the cyclical BB where all matter is projected from the moment past singularity along a finite angle of trajectory that will return all matter at the same time to its original point of origin without changing direction as a mirror image and will again repeat the consolidation for a repeat conclusion to a new moment of singularity.

what bias is that, disdain for disinformation as a substitute for credible alternatives whether correct or not.

Read my lips: There was, there is, there won't be any evolution.

a pat on the back for one of your brethren ... surly as it is written in your book.

Breezewood - you are not alone thinking the universe may be round rather than flat - see this article for example:

What Shape Is the Universe? A New Study Suggests We’ve Got It All Wrong

Most every cosmologist believes the universe is flat. A new analysis argues that it’s closed.

www.quantamagazine.org

Note the article brings out that the conclusion reached depends on the interpretation of the date. Would you like to go into depth on this subject?

 

[Newtonian]

So, if someone is willing to spend $40 and post the full content of Miller's article - I am interested. But having studied Thaxton's book I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the chart.

I watched Stanley Miller's description of the experiment if this covers the $40 topic of Hollie haha.

You can download his two videos here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

OK, after midnight - I will try the download now.

 

[Newtonian]

So, if someone is willing to spend $40 and post the full content of Miller's article - I am interested. But having studied Thaxton's book I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the chart.

I watched Stanley Miller's description of the experiment if this covers the $40 topic of Hollie haha.

You can download his two videos here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

Thank you, James Bond. The video)s) that I just watched (audio only - needed to download a codec to see the video which I did not do since the audio was enough).

Miller says very high yield of amino acids from electric discharge of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) in boiling water supposedly simulating primordial earth's oceans.

The math was mostly missing - along with a detailed list of chemical reaction products. However, one tidbit is stated - Miller claims 2% Glycine.

The chart (figure 3-2, page 23) that I am researching which does contain a complete list of amino acid chemical reaction products along with relative proportions, has Glycine at a proportion of 440 with Alanine in a higher proportion: 790. The next highest proportions of amino acids were non-biologic/proteinous - i.e. not found in proteins. The free link is here"

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

The amino acids in highest proportion I listed (derived from the chart which is not in order of proportion) =

Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂ - proportion: 440
Alanine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 790
alpha-aminobutyric acid - C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion: 270
a(alpha)-Hydroxy-aminobutyric acid - C4H8O3 - proportion: 74
Norvaline - ‎C5H11NO2 - proportion: 61
Sarcosine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 55
Aspartic acid - C4H7NO4 - proportion: 34
2,4 [alpha/gamma]-diaminobutyric acid- C4H10N2O2 - proportion: 33
alpha[2]-Aminoisobutyric acid - H2N-C(CH3)2-COOH; C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion 30
N-Ethylglycine -C4H9NO2 - proportion: 30

I listed Glucine first because Miller listed Glycine first in his chart which Thaxton (et al) reproduced. Not sure why Miller highlighted Glycine when almost twice as much Alanine (790) was produced compared with Glycine (440).. Since the videos claim 2% Glycine - the math would mean 1% is c. 220, compared with the 3rd most abundant product alpha-aminobutyric acid which is 270. The next 3 according to proportion add up to 150 or less than 1%. The rest of the top 10 (in proportion) are c. 30-34 in proportion - just more than .1% total - only 1 of these 4 is proteinous: Aspartic acid (34). As I posted earlier, the other amino acids produced are less than 20 which is less than .1% each.

So, one could sum up the primary amino acids produced as being Alanine and Glycine - which some authors state. But remember, the primary product was formic acid - and there were other products that were not amino acids - notably HCN and formamide.

Note that Valine is 19.5 - #11 in proportion - and it is found in proteins. But then a jumbled mix of low proportion amino acids, mostly not found in amino acids and of so low a proportion that they could be ignored (and some authors do only refer to 4 amino acids produced (Alanine, Glycine, aspartic acid and Valine) ignoring the non-proteinous amino acids in the top 10 by proportion.

I will now try to find alternate sources for the actual amino acids produced. From past experience i have found other scientific sources to lack a complete list and to lack the relative proportions - but while awake I will try hard again to find a more detailed list of products and proportions - I will report on my research starting with my next post - but meanwhile, here is a complete list of the 20 amino acids that ARE found in proteins: [in alphabetic order:

1. alanine - ala - A
2. arginine - arg - R
3. asparagine - asn - N
4. aspartic acid - asp - D
5. cysteine - cys - C
6. glutamine - gln - Q
7. glutamic acid - glu - E
8. glycine - gly - G
9. histidine - his - H
10. isoleucine - ile - I
11. leucine - leu - L
12. lysine - lys - K
13. methionine - met - M
14. phenylalanine - phe - F
15. proline - pro - P
16. serine - ser - S
17. threonine - thr - T
18. tryptophan - trp - W
19. tyrosine - tyr - Y
20. valine - val - V

 

[Newtonian]

This source is not accurate - but at least in the ballpark mathematically:

Miller-Urey Experiment - Amino Acids & Origins of Life on Earth

Miller-Urey experiment - amino acids & the origins of life on Earth

www.juliantrubin.com

Excerpt:

"At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed, by analyzing the cooled water, that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant."

Note that the amino acids in proteins number 20, not 22. And most of the 13 amino acids referred to are in such low proportion that they can be and often are dismissed by other researchers as significant.

The 10-15% of the carbon as being in the form of organic compounds are in comparison to the 2% of amino acids produced. This is not accurate - but it is in the ballpark. The source is valuable since the difference of between 10% and 15% is likely due to what is considered organic compounds - which, as usual, is not specified. I.e. the definition of "organic" being used. Organic compounds could include the primary products produced (in proportion): formic acid, formamide, HCN (which are on initial pathways due to reaction with water (H2O) = Hydrolysis)

Note: some low proportion amino acids are disputed - also Miller disputed other researchers' claims that a few other low proportion amino acids could be produced in similar experiments..

 

[Newtonian]

This source is also not accurate:

Miller-Urey experiment

The Miller-Urey experiment, conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller under the supervision of Harold Urey, was the first experiment to test the Oparin-Haldane theory about the evolution of prebiotic chemicals and the origin of life on Earth.

www.daviddarling.info

For example - an excerpt:

"A mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor, to simulate the version of Earth's primitive, reducing atmosphere proposed by Oparin, was introduced into a 5-liter flask and energized by an electrical discharge apparatus to represent ultraviolet radiation from the Sun."

They have the initial environment correct but then say electric discharge was to represent UV radiation from sunlight. Actually, electric discharge is meant to represent lightning not UV radiation. There are, however, other experiments (not Miller's) that do represent UV radiation - Thaxton et al detail this - but I am not on those experiments yet.

 

[Newtonian]

This source is also not accurate but in the ballpark:

Primordial Recipe: Spark and Stir

No single experiment, according to Carl Sagan, has done to convince scientists that life is 'likely abundant in cosmos' than work fifty years ago by then graduate student, Stanley Miller. This week celebrates his milestone publication, and <i>Astrobiology Magazine</i> interviewed him about his...

web.archive.org

Excerpt:

"Stanley Miller with his Nobel Laureate supervisor, Harold Urey, demonstrated that 13 of the 21 amino acids necessary for life could be made in a glass flask.....

Miller found that at least 10 percent of the carbon was converted into a small number of organic compounds and about two percent went into amino acids. Hydrogen, cyanide, and aldehydes were also produced. Glycine was the most abundant amino acid produced....

But as the Earth's early chemistry has become better understood, a catch has arisen. Ironically, while complex biochemistry can spring from simpler building blocks, one missing element--the simplest hydrogen--may have been in short supply four billion years ago. Without it, the reactions don't trigger the right organic chemistry. If the Earth more likely was rich in nitrogen and carbon dioxide-- rather than hydrogen, methane and ammonia--, then any amount of sparking delivers a mere drop of organic byproducts. The primordial soup is too dilute."

Most of that is accurate. 21 amino acids "necessary for life" is not the 20 amino acids in proteins. 10%+ organic compounds is correct (but not precise). Like other sources, Glycine is stated to be the most abundant amino acid produced whereas Alanine was actually the most abundant amino acid produced. Saying Hydrogen was produced is dubious since Hydrogen was in the original environment simulated by Miller - likely this source meant that the reaction adding hydrogen was/is reversible to go back to hydrogen - I think this is correct. Cyanide produced is actually HCN = Hydrogen cyanide. Aldehydes are significant, more on that later - but there are interfering cross reactions between aldehydes and amino acids. More on that later as well.

See the above link for more valuable insight by Miller who is quoted in an interview - one of the quotes says 13 of 20 amino acids - 20 is accurate.

 

[Newtonian]

This source is fairly accurate:

The Miller-Urey Experiement

web.archive.org

Accurate excerpts:

"Water was boiled to create water vapor, simulating heated gases from the Earth's core. By contrast, volcanoes today emit water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen....

The molecules formed in the reaction were immediately cooled and then trapped in a collection chamber, simulating the oceans. Otherwise, the heat would break down the molecules back into gases."

However, this source has Iron as more abundant that Oxygen - this likely is because they are includig the entire earth (the core has much Iron). Actually, Oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. That, however, makes a totally anoxic (no Oxygen) atmosphere even less likely since earth's crustal minerals are oxidized which would not happen if Oxygen was not in early earth's atmosphere in at least a small percentage, perhaps as low as the current percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

[Newtonian]

OK, I am going back to sleep soon - so one more source. The following source is less useful as it fails to identify the chemicals to which it refers:

http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~sjc27/AstroPaper.pdf

Excerpt referring to 3.8 billion years ago:

" During this time, amino acids, often referred to as the building blocks of life, would have formed through natural chemical reactions as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment and other experiments like it that simulated some of the hypothetical conditions of early Earth."

Note the bias in stating unidentified amino acids are referred to as "building blocks of life." And the chemistry details are totally suppressed. This is normal in peer-reviewed journals.

This is also common in media reports including scientific TV episodes.

Sadly, accuracy of statement is also questionable in sources involving the current pandemic - the same can be said for media reports involving politics.

Off topic but very important case in point:

The reopening occurring in most states in the United States while deaths per day are still on the increase.

Personally, I suspect monetary motives in all of the mis-information including concerning the Miller-Urey experiment.

Bottom line - No origin of life synthesis experiments demonstrate how all of the amino acids required for proteins could be in the same place at the same time. Different amino acids prefer totally different environments - notably the atmosphere simulated, and the energy sources postulated, and hot vs cold, wet vs dry (even with condensing agents), acid vs alkaline (or relatively neutral). Only an intelligent chemist could have all these varied environments in the same place at the same time. Nevertheless, these experiments are valuable in determining how God created life.

Note: other very different environments are in comets and meteorites - certain amino acids are stable in the dry environments on some meteorites. Sadly, but as usual, peer reviewed journals rarely state the proportions of specific amino acids - or, simply: the math is missing.

Perhaps one of you all can find a source (besides the one I linked to initially) that does contain the math or the details such as specific molecules in the relative proportions.

 

[Newtonian]

This next link is an interview with Miller. After much information, including the need for a reducing (without Oxygen) atmosphere, there is this excerpt from:

EXOBIOLOGY: An Interview with Stanley L. Miller

web.archive.org

"The experiment yielded many amino acids and enabled Miller to explain how they had formed. For instance, glycine appeared after reactions in the atmosphere produced simple compounds - formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide. Years after this experiment, a meteorite that struck near Murchison, Australia, was shown to contain a number of the same amino acids that Miller identified and in roughly the same relative amounts."

If true, that is interesting that the Murchison meteorite contained an unidentified number of the same amino acids Miller found (Miller primarily found non-proteinous amino acids & Alanine and Glycine) in roughly the same relative amounts. The latter is not likely - and Miller - like almost everyone else, does not state the relative amounts aka chemical reaction product proportions. Also,, Miller fails to name any of the amino acids to which he is refering. Another excerpt:

"The surprise of the experiment was the very large yield of amino acids. We would have been happy if we got traces of amino acids, but we got around 4 percent. Incidentally, this is probably the biggest yield of any similar prebiotic experiment conducted since then. The reason for that has to do with the fact that amino acids are made from even simpler organic compounds such as hydrogen cyanide and aldehydes."

4%? A rather unique reported percentage but then Miller does not say whether he was referring to all of the amino acids produced or only the ones found in proteins. Only Alanine & Gycine were found with a fairly high percentage, next Aspartic acid and even less Valine along with mostly amino acids not found in proteins.

Remember, Miller is speaking here so naturally he claims he got a higher percentage of amino acids then any other pre-biotic experiment since then - that is very unlikely to be true. But Miller is correcet that HCN is a primary step towards amino acids (but the reverse reactions also occur and the primary product is formic acid not amino acids). I will post on Aldehydes later.

Another excerpt:

" It was sufficiently unusual, that even with Urey's backing it was difficult to get it published. If I'd submitted it to "Science" on my own, it would still be on the bottom of the pile."

This is a problem with peer review and Miller is correct about this. For example, any scientific paper offering proof that God created life would never be published with peer review approval. In fact, most such peer reviewed papers ignore earth's crustal carbonates - probably because they prove early earth had a primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) atmosphere. Another excerpt:

"All of these pre-biotic experiments yield a racemic mixture, that is, equal amounts of D and L forms of the compounds. Indeed, if you're results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination. The question is how did one form get selected. In my opinion, the selection comes close to or slightly after the origin of life. There is no way in my opinion that you are going to sort out the D and L amino acids in separate pools. My opinion or working hypothesis is that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric carbon."

Miller is correct about this - and this proves some scenarios chemical evolutionists propose are impossible - for example: the concentrating ponds model. In proteins, all the amino acids are left handed polarized (aka L amino acids) not D (right handed) polarized. Of course,, there is no evidence that the simplest form of life on earth was racemic (equal L & D amino acids [or carbon in the amino acids]). From previous research I found most coal is left handed chiral, but some coal is racemic which means some coal was not formed from life - perhaps from actual accretion of carbon from space. This was in a decades old Scientific American article - I will have to research more current literature on the chirality of coal. Another excerpt:

"Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids. If you count asparagine and glutamine you get thirteen basic amino acids. We don't know how many amino acids there were to start with. Asparagine and glutamine, for example, do not look prebiotic because they hydrolyze. The purines and pyrimidines can also be made, as can all of the sugars, although they are unstable."

The chart I posted from Miller does NOT include asparagine or glutamine, so 11 out of 20 is correct. While Miller admits these 2 amino acids hydrolize (= hyrolysis = destruction/decay due to reaction with water/H2O), he fails to note the many other prebiotic molecules which hydrolize. Most sources ignore the fact that HCN + water yields formamide + water yields formic acid. Of course, Miller knows he primarily produced formic acid - but virtually all sources suppress this fact. Another excerpt:

"Temperature is an important factor. Minerals have been thought by some to play a role in the origin of life, but they really haven't done much for us so far. People talk about how minerals might have helped catalyze reactions, but there are few examples where the mineral makes any difference."

Well, Miller is correct that temperature is an important factor - but he does not say how this is true. The fact is that some amino acids prefer hot synthesis while others prefer cold synthesis. You can't have hot and cold in the same place at the same time. Miller also fails to specify what minerals he is talking about. Actually, the huge crustal carbonates in earth's crust deposited by the geologic carbon cycle required ions of Potassium (K), Sodium (Na) and Calcium (Ca) to have been in earth's primordial waters. These ions would have reacted with organic molecules and destroyed them, often precipitating them out as sediments. Also, earth's sediments are totally lacking evidence that any such primordial soup ever existed on earth. Another excerpt:

"We know we can't have a very high temperature, because the organic materials would simply decompose. For example, ribose degrades in 73 minutes at high temperatures, so it doesn't seem likely.,,,The minute you get above 25 degrees C there are problems of stability."

This is true - yet many scientists propose hot conditions - most geologists also think early earth was hot.

 

[Newtonian]

This source is better because it gives important details:

www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Miller_Urey.html

Excerpt concerning the Miller-Urey experiment:

"
Miller carried out an experiment in 1953 in which he passed a continuous spark discharge at 60,000 Volts through a flask containing the gases identified by Urey, along with water. Miller found that after a week, most of the ammonia and much of the methane had been consumed. The main gaseous products were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). In addition, there was an accumulation of dark material in the water. Few of the specific constituents of this could not be identified, but it was clear that the material included a large range of organic polymers.

Analysis of the aqueous solution showed that the following had also been synthesised:-

• 25 amino acids (the main ones being glycine, alanine and aspartic acid)
• Several fatty acids
• Hydroxy acids
• Amide products."

This source is unusual because it states the voltage as 60,000. It correctly notes that the simulated atmosphere was CH4, NH3. H2 and H2O though it does not state the proportion of these gases (or liquid water). Very unusual is stating the main gaseous products were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). The source correctly states that the main amino acids produced were Alanine, Glycine and aspartic acid - though the actual math proportion is not stated (as usual). The primary products included fatty acids, Hydroxy acids and Amide products. (I will define these below). Note that most of these product were acid, not alkaline. Some amino acids prefer an acid environment in order to synthesize in a significant proportion. This source goes on:

"These molecules would then have been able to take part in 'prebiotic' chemical processes, leading to the origin of life.
Since the Miller-Urey experiment, a great deal of effort has been spent investigating prebiotic chemistry. It has become apparent that organising simple molecules into assemblies capable of reproducing and evolving is a far greater task than was generally realised during the excitement that followed the experiment. In addition, the view that the early atmosphere was highly reducing was challenged towards the end of the twentieth century, and is no longer the concensus view."

Actually, these molecules could be part of chemical processes used by God to create life - but, as the source goes on, the organizing of these simple molecules assembling (e.g. polymerization - e.g. amino acids to dipeptides to polypeptides) is very difficult - God could have done it though. The source states that a reducing (without Oxygen and with an abundance of hydrogen - e.g. CH4 (methane) instead of CO2 (carbon dioxide). However, many sources still postulate a reducing atmosphere despite the geologic and volcanic outgassing evidence that shows otherwise.

A few definitions to help you all better appreciate what is stated:

1. fatty acids from google search:

"a carboxylic acid consisting of a hydrocarbon chain and a terminal carboxyl group ....
a fatty acid is a carboxylic acid with a long aliphatic chain, which is either saturated or unsaturated. Most naturally occurring fatty acids have an unbranched chain of an even number of carbon atoms, from 4 to 28."

From the link I have found most accurate and informative - in this case concerning carboxylic acids
and amino acid synthesis:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

Referring to amino acid synthesis experiments that use high energy compounds instead of spark discharge:

"Many of these high-energy compounds would have had double or triple bonded carbon atoms. Common examples would be the ethylenes (>C=C<), acetylenes (-G==C-), aldehydes (RCH=O), ketones (R1R2C=O}, carboxylic acids (RCOOH), and nitriles (RG=N)" - from page 33.

The following pages detail some of the chemical reactions involved

From page 52:

"Indiscriminate Amide Synthesis in Making Polypeptides
In the amide synthesis reaction the amino group (-NH2) of amino acids would displace the hydroxyl group (-OH) from carboxylic acids (RCOOH) including amino acids. This is the reaction which occurs between amino acids to produce polypeptides and proteins. For example, two amino acids may combine to form a dipeptide:... [the actual chemical reaction is shown]
Because two molecules are combined with the release of water this is also called a dehydration-condensation reaction. According to most chemical evolution scenarios this reaction probably accounted for the primordial synthesis of polypeptides and proteins. There would, however, have been many different kinds of amino acids in the soup available for reaction. Most of these would have been non-proteinous. For example, results from Miller's spark discharge experiments (table 4-1) show many more non-proteinous than proteinous amino acids. In most cases more than one isomer (molecules with the same number of atoms but different geometry) is found for a given empirical formula. For example, three amino acid isomers are formed with formula C.H9N03, two of which are non-proteinous. All eight isomers of formula C4H9N02 are non-proteinous (fig. 4-3). It is obvious that something other than availability determines the selection of the set of20 amino acids used in contemporary proteins...." The problem of chirality is shown to extend to polypeptide synthesis which would, therefore, have no resemblance to proteins - no such polypeptide synthesis would have been possible without an intelligent chemist.

Bottom line: the amino group (NH2) of amides can replace the hydroxyl group (-OH) from all carboxylic acids (RCOOH) - not just amino acids.

to be continued.

 

[Hollie]

This source is better because it gives important details:

www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Miller_Urey.html

Excerpt concerning the Miller-Urey experiment:

"
Miller carried out an experiment in 1953 in which he passed a continuous spark discharge at 60,000 Volts through a flask containing the gases identified by Urey, along with water. Miller found that after a week, most of the ammonia and much of the methane had been consumed. The main gaseous products were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). In addition, there was an accumulation of dark material in the water. Few of the specific constituents of this could not be identified, but it was clear that the material included a large range of organic polymers.

Analysis of the aqueous solution showed that the following had also been synthesised:-

• 25 amino acids (the main ones being glycine, alanine and aspartic acid)
• Several fatty acids
• Hydroxy acids
• Amide products."

This source is unusual because it states the voltage as 60,000. It correctly notes that the simulated atmosphere was CH4, NH3. H2 and H2O though it does not state the proportion of these gases (or liquid water). Very unusual is stating the main gaseous products were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). The source correctly states that the main amino acids produced were Alanine, Glycine and aspartic acid - though the actual math proportion is not stated (as usual). The primary products included fatty acids, Hydroxy acids and Amide products. (I will define these below). Note that most of these product were acid, not alkaline. Some amino acids prefer an acid environment in order to synthesize in a significant proportion. This source goes on:

"These molecules would then have been able to take part in 'prebiotic' chemical processes, leading to the origin of life.
Since the Miller-Urey experiment, a great deal of effort has been spent investigating prebiotic chemistry. It has become apparent that organising simple molecules into assemblies capable of reproducing and evolving is a far greater task than was generally realised during the excitement that followed the experiment. In addition, the view that the early atmosphere was highly reducing was challenged towards the end of the twentieth century, and is no longer the concensus view."

Actually, these molecules could be part of chemical processes used by God to create life - but, as the source goes on, the organizing of these simple molecules assembling (e.g. polymerization - e.g. amino acids to dipeptides to polypeptides) is very difficult - God could have done it though. The source states that a reducing (without Oxygen and with an abundance of hydrogen - e.g. CH4 (methane) instead of CO2 (carbon dioxide). However, many sources still postulate a reducing atmosphere despite the geologic and volcanic outgassing evidence that shows otherwise.

A few definitions to help you all better appreciate what is stated:

1. fatty acids from google search:

"a carboxylic acid consisting of a hydrocarbon chain and a terminal carboxyl group ....
a fatty acid is a carboxylic acid with a long aliphatic chain, which is either saturated or unsaturated. Most naturally occurring fatty acids have an unbranched chain of an even number of carbon atoms, from 4 to 28."

From the link I have found most accurate and informative - in this case concerning carboxylic acids
and amino acid synthesis:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

Referring to amino acid synthesis experiments that use high energy compounds instead of spark discharge:

"Many of these high-energy compounds would have had double or triple bonded carbon atoms. Common examples would be the ethylenes (>C=C<), acetylenes (-G==C-), aldehydes (RCH=O), ketones (R1R2C=O}, carboxylic acids (RCOOH), and nitriles (RG=N)" - from page 33.

The following pages detail some of the chemical reactions involved

From page 52:

"Indiscriminate Amide Synthesis in Making Polypeptides
In the amide synthesis reaction the amino group (-NH2) of amino acids would displace the hydroxyl group (-OH) from carboxylic acids (RCOOH) including amino acids. This is the reaction which occurs between amino acids to produce polypeptides and proteins. For example, two amino acids may combine to form a dipeptide:... [the actual chemical reaction is shown]
Because two molecules are combined with the release of water this is also called a dehydration-condensation reaction. According to most chemical evolution scenarios this reaction probably accounted for the primordial synthesis of polypeptides and proteins. There would, however, have been many different kinds of amino acids in the soup available for reaction. Most of these would have been non-proteinous. For example, results from Miller's spark discharge experiments (table 4-1) show many more non-proteinous than proteinous amino acids. In most cases more than one isomer (molecules with the same number of atoms but different geometry) is found for a given empirical formula. For example, three amino acid isomers are formed with formula C.H9N03, two of which are non-proteinous. All eight isomers of formula C4H9N02 are non-proteinous (fig. 4-3). It is obvious that something other than availability determines the selection of the set of20 amino acids used in contemporary proteins...." The problem of chirality is shown to extend to polypeptide synthesis which would, therefore, have no resemblance to proteins - no such polypeptide synthesis would have been possible without an intelligent chemist.

Bottom line: the amino group (NH2) of amides can replace the hydroxyl group (-OH) from all carboxylic acids (RCOOH) - not just amino acids.

to be continued.

I couldn't help but notice the long cut and paste is from the blog of an IT guy.

 

[Newtonian]

As noted fatty acids were also produced in Miller's experiment (most sources ignore this). "
a carboxylic acid consisting of a hydrocarbon chain and a terminal carboxyl group ....
a fatty acid is a carboxylic acid with a long aliphatic chain, which is either saturated or unsaturated."

I posted above about carboxylic acids in general. The carboxyl group is a carbon atom double bonded to an Oxygen atom and single bonded to to a hydroxyl group (-OH). A hydrocarbon is a molecule with Hydrogen and Carbon (e.g. Methane = CH4). An aliphatic chain consists of hydrocarbons that form an open chain as in fatty acids and alkanes to be distinguished from hydrocarbon chains which form rings instead of open chains. Alkanes are saturated hydrocarbons like methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6) and propane (C3H8). Saturated hydrocarbons have single bonds between hydrogen atoms - the highest possible number of hydrogen atoms (e.g. methane/CH4) while unsaturated hydrocarbons have double or triple bonds between adjacent carbon atoms and thus can have hydrogen atoms added to make the compound saturated.

More from the Thaxton et al link concerning carboxylic acids from page 55:

"In a similar fashion, growing polypeptides would be terminated by reactions with amines, aldehydes, ketones, reducing sugars* or carboxylic acids. If by some remote chance a true protein did develop in the ocean, its viability would be predictably of short duration. For example, formaldehyde would readily react with free amino groups to form methylene cross-linkages between proteins.37 This would tie up certain reactive sites, and retard the reaction of protein with other chemical agents. To illustrate, "irreversible combination of formaldehyde with asparagine amide groups" would result in a compound which is "stable to dilute boiling phosphoric acid."38 This tying up process is the principle of the well-known tanning reaction, and is used similarly to retard cadaver decay. "In general, reaction with formaldehyde hardens proteins, decreases their water-sensitivity, and increases their resistance to the action of chemical reagents and enzymes."39 Survival of proteins in the soup would have been difficult indeed."

Footnote:

"It is interesting to note that in certain abnormal situations, such as diabetes, the carbonyl group of glucose will form chemical bonds with the amino group of cellular proteins, a process called glycosylation. (See A.L. Notkins, 1975. Sci. Amer. 241,62.)" [Not so good for life!]

Bottom line: carboxylic acids will react with peptides and stop further polymerization. Also the carbonyl group (CO double bonded) in sugars will react with the amino group (NH2) in peptides (and in amines in general). Both sugars (as in RNA) and amines (as in amino acids) are required for life and yet they interact and, in effect: destroy each other!

to be continued later. I'll give you all a chance to review the actual evidence in chemistry relevant to the origin of life and specifically to Miller's experiment.

Again, one needs an intelligent chemist (e.g. God) to create life - and human chemists are inferior creators and cannot create life. Some attribute the attributes of God to Chance! Not a chance!

 

[Hollie]

As noted fatty acids were also produced in Miller's experiment (most sources ignore this). "
a carboxylic acid consisting of a hydrocarbon chain and a terminal carboxyl group ....
a fatty acid is a carboxylic acid with a long aliphatic chain, which is either saturated or unsaturated."

I posted above about carboxylic acids in general. The carboxyl group is a carbon atom double bonded to an Oxygen atom and single bonded to to a hydroxyl group (-OH). A hydrocarbon is a molecule with Hydrogen and Carbon (e.g. Methane = CH4). An aliphatic chain consists of hydrocarbons that form an open chain as in fatty acids and alkanes to be distinguished from hydrocarbon chains which form rings instead of open chains. Alkanes are saturated hydrocarbons like methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6) and propane (C3H8). Saturated hydrocarbons have single bonds between hydrogen atoms - the highest possible number of hydrogen atoms (e.g. methane/CH4) while unsaturated hydrocarbons have double or triple bonds between adjacent carbon atoms and thus can have hydrogen atoms added to make the compound saturated.

More from the Thaxton et al link concerning carboxylic acids from page 55:

"In a similar fashion, growing polypeptides would be terminated by reactions with amines, aldehydes, ketones, reducing sugars* or carboxylic acids. If by some remote chance a true protein did develop in the ocean, its viability would be predictably of short duration. For example, formaldehyde would readily react with free amino groups to form methylene cross-linkages between proteins.37 This would tie up certain reactive sites, and retard the reaction of protein with other chemical agents. To illustrate, "irreversible combination of formaldehyde with asparagine amide groups" would result in a compound which is "stable to dilute boiling phosphoric acid."38 This tying up process is the principle of the well-known tanning reaction, and is used similarly to retard cadaver decay. "In general, reaction with formaldehyde hardens proteins, decreases their water-sensitivity, and increases their resistance to the action of chemical reagents and enzymes."39 Survival of proteins in the soup would have been difficult indeed."

Footnote:

"It is interesting to note that in certain abnormal situations, such as diabetes, the carbonyl group of glucose will form chemical bonds with the amino group of cellular proteins, a process called glycosylation. (See A.L. Notkins, 1975. Sci. Amer. 241,62.)" [Not so good for life!]

Bottom line: carboxylic acids will react with peptides and stop further polymerization. Also the carbonyl group (CO double bonded) in sugars will react with the amino group (NH2) in peptides (and in amines in general). Both sugars (as in RNA) and amines (as in amino acids) are required for life and yet they interact and, in effect: destroy each other!

to be continued later. I'll give you all a chance to review the actual evidence in chemistry relevant to the origin of life and specifically to Miller's experiment.

Again, one needs an intelligent chemist (e.g. God) to create life - and human chemists are inferior creators and cannot create life. Some attribute the attributes of God to Chance! Not a chance!

Actually, we find that supernaturalism is not a requirement for life on the planet.

Before life began on Earth, the environment likely contained a massive number of chemicals that reacted with each other more or less randomly, and it is unclear how the complexity of cells could have emerged from such chemical chaos. Now, a team led by Tony Z. Jia at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and Kuhan Chandru of the National University of Malaysia has shown that simple α-hydroxy acids, like glycolic and lactic acid, spontaneously polymerize and self-assemble into polyester microdroplets when dried at moderate temperatures followed by rehydration. This could be what happened along primitive beaches and river banks, or in drying puddles. These form a new type of cell-like compartment that can trap and concentrate biomolecules like nucleic acids and proteins. These droplets, unlike most modern cells, are able to merge and reform easily, and thus could have hosted versatile early genetic and metabolic systems potentially critical for the origins of life.


All life on Earth is made up of cells. Cells are composed of lipids, proteins and nucleic acids, with the lipid forming the cell membrane, an enclosure that keeps the other components together and interfaces with the environment, exchanging food and waste. How molecular assemblages as complex as cells originally formed remains a mystery.

Most origins of life research focuses on how the molecules and structures of life were produced by the environment, and then assembled into structures that led to the first cells. However, there were likely many other types of molecules that formed alongside biomolecules on early Earth, and it is possible that life started using very simple chemistry unrelated to modern biomolecules, then evolved through increasingly complex stages to give rise to the structures found in modern cells.

Previous work conducted at ELSI showed that moderate temperature drying of the simple organic compounds known as alpha-hydroxy acids, which are found in meteorites and many simulations of prebiological chemistry, spontaneously polymerizes them into mixtures of long polyesters. Building on this work, Jia and colleagues took the next step and examined these reactions under the microscope, and found that these mixed polyester systems form a gel phase and spontaneously self-assemble when rewetted to form simple cell-like structures.

The most challenging aspect of this work was devising new methods to characterize the droplets' properties and functions, as no one had analyzed such systems before. Jia noted that the team was fortunate to have such a diversity of multidisciplinary expertise, including chemists, biochemists, materials scientists and geologists. After determining their composition and showing their propensity to self-assemble, the next question was whether these cell-like structures might be able to do something chemically useful. Modern cell membranes perform many crucial functions that help maintain the cell, for example, retaining macromolecules and metabolites in one place, as well as providing a constant internal environment, which can be very different from the one outside the cell. They first measured how stable these structures were and found they could persist for very long periods depending on the environmental conditions, but could also be made to merge and coalesce.

They then tested the ability of these structures to sequester molecules from the environment and found they accumulated large dye molecules to a remarkable degree. They then showed that these droplets could also host RNA and protein molecules and still permit them to be functionally catalytic. Further, the team showed that the droplets could assist in the formation of a lipid layer on their surface, suggesting they could have helped scaffold protocell formation.


Jia and colleagues are not certain these structures are the direct ancestors of cells, but they think it is possible such droplets could have enabled the assembly of protocells on Earth. The new compartmentalization system they have found is extremely simple, they note, and could form easily in primitive environments throughout the universe. Says Jia, "This allows us to imagine non-biological systems on early Earth that could still have had a hand in the origins of life. This suggests there may be many other non-biological systems that should be targets of future investigations of this type." He thinks the development of these or similar model systems could allow better study of the evolution of diverse chemical systems representative of the complex chemistries likely to be found on primitive planetary bodies.

"The early Earth was certainly a messy place chemically," Jia explains, "and often, most origins of life studies focus on modern biomolecules under relatively 'clean' conditions. Perhaps it is important to take these 'messy' mixtures and see if there are interesting functions or structures that can arise from them spontaneously." The authors now think that by systematically increasing the chemical complexity of such systems, they will be able to observe how they evolve over time and possibly discover divergent and emergent properties.

"We have this new experimental system we can now play with, so we can start to study phenomena like evolution and evolvability of these droplets. The possible combinations of structures or functions these droplets might have are almost endless. If the physical rules that govern the formation of droplets are fairly universal in nature, then we hope to study similar systems to discover whether they also can form microdroplets with novel properties," adds Jia.

Finally, while the team is presently focused on understanding the origins of life, they note this basic research could have applications in other areas, for example, drug delivery and personalized medicine. "This is just a wonderful example of the unexpected ways projects can develop when a team of diverse scientists from around the world come together to try and understand new and interesting phenomena," said team member Jim Cleaves, also of ELSI.

Scientists discover new chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

Before life began on Earth, the environment likely contained a massive number of chemicals that reacted with each other more or less randomly, and it is unclear how the complexity of cells could have emerged from such chemical chaos. Now, a team led by Tony Z. Jia at the Tokyo Institute of...

phys.org

 

[Newtonian]

W

This source is better because it gives important details:

www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Miller_Urey.html

Excerpt concerning the Miller-Urey experiment:

"
Miller carried out an experiment in 1953 in which he passed a continuous spark discharge at 60,000 Volts through a flask containing the gases identified by Urey, along with water. Miller found that after a week, most of the ammonia and much of the methane had been consumed. The main gaseous products were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). In addition, there was an accumulation of dark material in the water. Few of the specific constituents of this could not be identified, but it was clear that the material included a large range of organic polymers.

Analysis of the aqueous solution showed that the following had also been synthesised:-

• 25 amino acids (the main ones being glycine, alanine and aspartic acid)
• Several fatty acids
• Hydroxy acids
• Amide products."

This source is unusual because it states the voltage as 60,000. It correctly notes that the simulated atmosphere was CH4, NH3. H2 and H2O though it does not state the proportion of these gases (or liquid water). Very unusual is stating the main gaseous products were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). The source correctly states that the main amino acids produced were Alanine, Glycine and aspartic acid - though the actual math proportion is not stated (as usual). The primary products included fatty acids, Hydroxy acids and Amide products. (I will define these below). Note that most of these product were acid, not alkaline. Some amino acids prefer an acid environment in order to synthesize in a significant proportion. This source goes on:

"These molecules would then have been able to take part in 'prebiotic' chemical processes, leading to the origin of life.
Since the Miller-Urey experiment, a great deal of effort has been spent investigating prebiotic chemistry. It has become apparent that organising simple molecules into assemblies capable of reproducing and evolving is a far greater task than was generally realised during the excitement that followed the experiment. In addition, the view that the early atmosphere was highly reducing was challenged towards the end of the twentieth century, and is no longer the concensus view."

Actually, these molecules could be part of chemical processes used by God to create life - but, as the source goes on, the organizing of these simple molecules assembling (e.g. polymerization - e.g. amino acids to dipeptides to polypeptides) is very difficult - God could have done it though. The source states that a reducing (without Oxygen and with an abundance of hydrogen - e.g. CH4 (methane) instead of CO2 (carbon dioxide). However, many sources still postulate a reducing atmosphere despite the geologic and volcanic outgassing evidence that shows otherwise.

A few definitions to help you all better appreciate what is stated:

1. fatty acids from google search:

"a carboxylic acid consisting of a hydrocarbon chain and a terminal carboxyl group ....
a fatty acid is a carboxylic acid with a long aliphatic chain, which is either saturated or unsaturated. Most naturally occurring fatty acids have an unbranched chain of an even number of carbon atoms, from 4 to 28."

From the link I have found most accurate and informative - in this case concerning carboxylic acids
and amino acid synthesis:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

Referring to amino acid synthesis experiments that use high energy compounds instead of spark discharge:

"Many of these high-energy compounds would have had double or triple bonded carbon atoms. Common examples would be the ethylenes (>C=C<), acetylenes (-G==C-), aldehydes (RCH=O), ketones (R1R2C=O}, carboxylic acids (RCOOH), and nitriles (RG=N)" - from page 33.

The following pages detail some of the chemical reactions involved

From page 52:

"Indiscriminate Amide Synthesis in Making Polypeptides
In the amide synthesis reaction the amino group (-NH2) of amino acids would displace the hydroxyl group (-OH) from carboxylic acids (RCOOH) including amino acids. This is the reaction which occurs between amino acids to produce polypeptides and proteins. For example, two amino acids may combine to form a dipeptide:... [the actual chemical reaction is shown]
Because two molecules are combined with the release of water this is also called a dehydration-condensation reaction. According to most chemical evolution scenarios this reaction probably accounted for the primordial synthesis of polypeptides and proteins. There would, however, have been many different kinds of amino acids in the soup available for reaction. Most of these would have been non-proteinous. For example, results from Miller's spark discharge experiments (table 4-1) show many more non-proteinous than proteinous amino acids. In most cases more than one isomer (molecules with the same number of atoms but different geometry) is found for a given empirical formula. For example, three amino acid isomers are formed with formula C.H9N03, two of which are non-proteinous. All eight isomers of formula C4H9N02 are non-proteinous (fig. 4-3). It is obvious that something other than availability determines the selection of the set of20 amino acids used in contemporary proteins...." The problem of chirality is shown to extend to polypeptide synthesis which would, therefore, have no resemblance to proteins - no such polypeptide synthesis would have been possible without an intelligent chemist.

Bottom line: the amino group (NH2) of amides can replace the hydroxyl group (-OH) from all carboxylic acids (RCOOH) - not just amino acids.

to be continued.

I couldn't help but notice the long cut and paste is from the blog of an IT guy.

Which IT guy - which post - which reference source? And why do you single it out? Did you find some errors like I did? Have you found a source that gives the names of the specific amino acids Miller synthesized and in what chemical reaction product proportion? None of the sources I quoted name them nor do they give the proportions - except Thaxton et al in fig. 3-2 page 23.

 

[Indeependent]

As noted fatty acids were also produced in Miller's experiment (most sources ignore this). "
a carboxylic acid consisting of a hydrocarbon chain and a terminal carboxyl group ....
a fatty acid is a carboxylic acid with a long aliphatic chain, which is either saturated or unsaturated."

I posted above about carboxylic acids in general. The carboxyl group is a carbon atom double bonded to an Oxygen atom and single bonded to to a hydroxyl group (-OH). A hydrocarbon is a molecule with Hydrogen and Carbon (e.g. Methane = CH4). An aliphatic chain consists of hydrocarbons that form an open chain as in fatty acids and alkanes to be distinguished from hydrocarbon chains which form rings instead of open chains. Alkanes are saturated hydrocarbons like methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6) and propane (C3H8). Saturated hydrocarbons have single bonds between hydrogen atoms - the highest possible number of hydrogen atoms (e.g. methane/CH4) while unsaturated hydrocarbons have double or triple bonds between adjacent carbon atoms and thus can have hydrogen atoms added to make the compound saturated.

More from the Thaxton et al link concerning carboxylic acids from page 55:

"In a similar fashion, growing polypeptides would be terminated by reactions with amines, aldehydes, ketones, reducing sugars* or carboxylic acids. If by some remote chance a true protein did develop in the ocean, its viability would be predictably of short duration. For example, formaldehyde would readily react with free amino groups to form methylene cross-linkages between proteins.37 This would tie up certain reactive sites, and retard the reaction of protein with other chemical agents. To illustrate, "irreversible combination of formaldehyde with asparagine amide groups" would result in a compound which is "stable to dilute boiling phosphoric acid."38 This tying up process is the principle of the well-known tanning reaction, and is used similarly to retard cadaver decay. "In general, reaction with formaldehyde hardens proteins, decreases their water-sensitivity, and increases their resistance to the action of chemical reagents and enzymes."39 Survival of proteins in the soup would have been difficult indeed."

Footnote:

"It is interesting to note that in certain abnormal situations, such as diabetes, the carbonyl group of glucose will form chemical bonds with the amino group of cellular proteins, a process called glycosylation. (See A.L. Notkins, 1975. Sci. Amer. 241,62.)" [Not so good for life!]

Bottom line: carboxylic acids will react with peptides and stop further polymerization. Also the carbonyl group (CO double bonded) in sugars will react with the amino group (NH2) in peptides (and in amines in general). Both sugars (as in RNA) and amines (as in amino acids) are required for life and yet they interact and, in effect: destroy each other!

to be continued later. I'll give you all a chance to review the actual evidence in chemistry relevant to the origin of life and specifically to Miller's experiment.

Again, one needs an intelligent chemist (e.g. God) to create life - and human chemists are inferior creators and cannot create life. Some attribute the attributes of God to Chance! Not a chance!

Actually, we find that supernaturalism is not a requirement for life on the planet.

Before life began on Earth, the environment likely contained a massive number of chemicals that reacted with each other more or less randomly, and it is unclear how the complexity of cells could have emerged from such chemical chaos. Now, a team led by Tony Z. Jia at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and Kuhan Chandru of the National University of Malaysia has shown that simple α-hydroxy acids, like glycolic and lactic acid, spontaneously polymerize and self-assemble into polyester microdroplets when dried at moderate temperatures followed by rehydration. This could be what happened along primitive beaches and river banks, or in drying puddles. These form a new type of cell-like compartment that can trap and concentrate biomolecules like nucleic acids and proteins. These droplets, unlike most modern cells, are able to merge and reform easily, and thus could have hosted versatile early genetic and metabolic systems potentially critical for the origins of life.


All life on Earth is made up of cells. Cells are composed of lipids, proteins and nucleic acids, with the lipid forming the cell membrane, an enclosure that keeps the other components together and interfaces with the environment, exchanging food and waste. How molecular assemblages as complex as cells originally formed remains a mystery.

Most origins of life research focuses on how the molecules and structures of life were produced by the environment, and then assembled into structures that led to the first cells. However, there were likely many other types of molecules that formed alongside biomolecules on early Earth, and it is possible that life started using very simple chemistry unrelated to modern biomolecules, then evolved through increasingly complex stages to give rise to the structures found in modern cells.

Previous work conducted at ELSI showed that moderate temperature drying of the simple organic compounds known as alpha-hydroxy acids, which are found in meteorites and many simulations of prebiological chemistry, spontaneously polymerizes them into mixtures of long polyesters. Building on this work, Jia and colleagues took the next step and examined these reactions under the microscope, and found that these mixed polyester systems form a gel phase and spontaneously self-assemble when rewetted to form simple cell-like structures.

The most challenging aspect of this work was devising new methods to characterize the droplets' properties and functions, as no one had analyzed such systems before. Jia noted that the team was fortunate to have such a diversity of multidisciplinary expertise, including chemists, biochemists, materials scientists and geologists. After determining their composition and showing their propensity to self-assemble, the next question was whether these cell-like structures might be able to do something chemically useful. Modern cell membranes perform many crucial functions that help maintain the cell, for example, retaining macromolecules and metabolites in one place, as well as providing a constant internal environment, which can be very different from the one outside the cell. They first measured how stable these structures were and found they could persist for very long periods depending on the environmental conditions, but could also be made to merge and coalesce.

They then tested the ability of these structures to sequester molecules from the environment and found they accumulated large dye molecules to a remarkable degree. They then showed that these droplets could also host RNA and protein molecules and still permit them to be functionally catalytic. Further, the team showed that the droplets could assist in the formation of a lipid layer on their surface, suggesting they could have helped scaffold protocell formation.


Jia and colleagues are not certain these structures are the direct ancestors of cells, but they think it is possible such droplets could have enabled the assembly of protocells on Earth. The new compartmentalization system they have found is extremely simple, they note, and could form easily in primitive environments throughout the universe. Says Jia, "This allows us to imagine non-biological systems on early Earth that could still have had a hand in the origins of life. This suggests there may be many other non-biological systems that should be targets of future investigations of this type." He thinks the development of these or similar model systems could allow better study of the evolution of diverse chemical systems representative of the complex chemistries likely to be found on primitive planetary bodies.

"The early Earth was certainly a messy place chemically," Jia explains, "and often, most origins of life studies focus on modern biomolecules under relatively 'clean' conditions. Perhaps it is important to take these 'messy' mixtures and see if there are interesting functions or structures that can arise from them spontaneously." The authors now think that by systematically increasing the chemical complexity of such systems, they will be able to observe how they evolve over time and possibly discover divergent and emergent properties.

"We have this new experimental system we can now play with, so we can start to study phenomena like evolution and evolvability of these droplets. The possible combinations of structures or functions these droplets might have are almost endless. If the physical rules that govern the formation of droplets are fairly universal in nature, then we hope to study similar systems to discover whether they also can form microdroplets with novel properties," adds Jia.

Finally, while the team is presently focused on understanding the origins of life, they note this basic research could have applications in other areas, for example, drug delivery and personalized medicine. "This is just a wonderful example of the unexpected ways projects can develop when a team of diverse scientists from around the world come together to try and understand new and interesting phenomena," said team member Jim Cleaves, also of ELSI.

Scientists discover new chemistry that may help explain the origins of cellular life

Before life began on Earth, the environment likely contained a massive number of chemicals that reacted with each other more or less randomly, and it is unclear how the complexity of cells could have emerged from such chemical chaos. Now, a team led by Tony Z. Jia at the Tokyo Institute of...

phys.org

"Before life began on Earth, the environment likely contained "
Curious...Where did the environment come from?

 

[Hollie]

Yet more evidence that creationists / supernaturalists are making appeals to gods who are not required for existence.

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

Complex processes that support all life have been serendipitously spotted with no cells needed, hinting that life could have started spontaneously in early oceans

www.newscientist.com

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.

“People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn’t form by environmental chemistry alone,” says Markus Ralser at the University of Cambridge who supervised the research.

But his findings suggest that many of these reactions could have occurred spontaneously in Earth’s early oceans, catalysed by metal ions rather than the enzymes that drive them in cells today.

The origin of metabolism is a major gap in our understanding of the emergence of life. “If you look at many different organisms from around the world, this network of reactions always looks very similar, suggesting that it must have come into place very early on in evolution, but no one knew precisely when or how,” says Ralser.

Happy accident
One theory is that RNA was the first building block of life because it helps to produce the enzymes that could catalyse complex sequences of reactions. Another possibility is that metabolism came first; perhaps even generating the molecules needed to make RNA, and that cells later incorporated these processes – but there was little evidence to support this.

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

Remarkably, the discovery was an accident, stumbled on during routine quality control testing of the medium used to culture cells at Ralser’s laboratory. As a shortcut, one of his students decided to run unused media through a mass spectrometer, which spotted a signal for pyruvate – an end product of a metabolic pathway called glycolysis.

To test whether the same processes could have helped spark life on Earth, they approached colleagues in the Earth sciences department who had been working on reconstructing the chemistry of the Archean Ocean, which covered the planet almost 4 billion years ago. This was an oxygen-free world, predating photosynthesis, when the waters were rich in iron, as well as other metals and phosphate. All these substances could potentially facilitate chemical reactions like the ones seen in modern cells.

Metabolic backbone
Ralser’s team took early ocean solutions and added substances known to be starting points for modern metabolic pathways, before heating the samples to between 50 ˚C and 70 ˚C – the sort of temperatures you might have found near a hydrothermal vent – for 5 hours. Ralser then analysed the solutions to see what molecules were present.

“In the beginning we had hoped to find one reaction or two maybe, but the results were amazing,” says Ralser. “We could reconstruct two metabolic pathways almost entirely.”

The pathways they detected were glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway, “reactions that form the core metabolic backbone of every living cell,” Ralser adds. Together these pathways produce some of the most important materials in modern cells, including ATP – the molecule cells use to drive their machinery, the sugars that form DNA and RNA, and the molecules needed to make fats and proteins.

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

In all, 29 metabolism-like chemical reactions were spotted, seemingly catalysed by iron and other metals that would have been found in early ocean sediments. The metabolic pathways aren’t identical to modern ones; some of the chemicals made by intermediate steps weren’t detected. However, “if you compare them side by side it is the same structure and many of the same molecules are formed,” Ralser says. These pathways could have been refined and improved once enzymes evolved within cells.

Reversible reaction
Detecting the metabolite ribose 5-phosphate is particularly noteworthy, Ralser says. This is because it is a precursor to RNA, which encodes information, catalyses chemical reactions and most importantly of all, can replicate.

“I think this paper has really interesting connotations for the origins of life,” says Matthew Powner at University College London. It hints at how more complex enzymes could have evolved, he says, because substances that made these early processes more efficient would have been selected for.

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.

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. “I would conclude that metabolism had to evolve, within cells, one reaction and one catalyst at a time.”

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.

Journal reference: Molecular Systems Biology, DOI: 10.1002/msb.20145228



Read more: Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells