• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Prebiotic selection - Adios Materialism

rationalist

Member
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
Open questions in prebiotic chemistry to explain the origin of the four basic building blocks of life

https://******************************/t1279p75-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible#7759

Life: What A Concept! https://jsomers.net/life.pdf
Craig Venter: To me the key thing about Darwinian evolution is selection. Biology is a hundred percent dependent on selection. No matter what we do in synthetic biology, synthetic genomes, we're doing selection. It's just not
natural selection anymore. It's an intelligently designed selection, so it's a unique subset. But selection is always part of it.
My comment:
In regards to the prebiotic synthesis of the basic building blocks of life, I list 23 problems directly related to the lack of a selection mechanism on the prebiotic earth. This is one of the unsolvable problems of abiogenesis.
Selecting the right materials is absolutely essential. But a prebiotic soup of mixtures of impure chemicals would never purify and select those that are required for life. Chemicals and physical reactions have no "urge" to join, group, and start interacting in a purpose and goal-oriented way to produce molecules, that later on would perform specific functions, and generate self-replicating factories, full of machines, directed by specified, complex assembly information. This is not an argument from ignorance, incredulity, or gaps of knowledge.

William Dembski: The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort through all those options. The problem is that natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Natural processes could theoretically form a protein, but also compatible with the formation of a plethora of other molecular assemblages, most of which have no biological significance. Nature allows them full freedom of arrangement. Yet it’s precisely that freedom that makes nature unable to account for specified outcomes of small probability. Nature, in this case, rather than being intent on doing only one thing, is open to doing any number of things. Yet when one of those things is a highly improbable specified event, design becomes the more compelling, better inference. Occam's razor also boils down to an argument from ignorance: in the absence of better information, you use a heuristic to accept one hypothesis over the other.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1256

Out of the 27 listed problems of prebiotic RNA synthesis, 8 are directly related to the lack of a mechanism to select the right ingredients.
1.How would prebiotic processes have purified the starting molecules to make RNA and DNA which were grossly impure? They would have been present in complex mixtures that contained a great variety of reactive molecules.
2.How did fortuitous accidents select the five just-right nucleobases to make DNA and RNA, Two purines, and three pyrimidines?
3.How did unguided random events select purines with two rings, with nine atoms, forming the two rings: 5 carbon atoms and 4 nitrogen atoms, amongst almost unlimited possible configurations?
4.How did stochastic coincidence select pyrimidines with one ring, with six atoms, forming its ring: 4 carbon atoms and 2 nitrogen atoms, amongst an unfathomable number of possible configurations?
5.How would these functional bases have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made?
6.How could the ribose 5 carbon sugar rings which form the RNA and DNA backbone have been selected, if 6 or 4 carbon rings, or even more or less, are equally possible but non-functional?
7.How were the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar selected to be joined together?
8.How could right-handed configurations of RNA and DNA have been selected in a racemic pool of right and left-handed molecules? Ribose must have been in its D form to adopt functional structures ( The homochirality problem )

Out of the 27 listed problems of prebiotic amino acid synthesis, 13 are directly related to the lack of a mechanism to select the right ingredients.
1. How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth?
2. How were bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups, so they combine with two others selected, and unifunctional monomers (with only one functional group) sorted out?
3. How could achiral precursors of amino acids have produced/selected and concentrated only left-handed amino acids? ( The homochirality problem )
4. How did the transition from prebiotic enantiomer selection to the enzymatic reaction of transamination occur that had to be extant when cellular self-replication and life began?
5. How would natural causes have selected twenty, and not more or less amino acids to make proteins?
6. How did natural events have foreknowledge that the selected amino acids are best suited to enable the formation of soluble structures with close-packed cores, allowing the presence of ordered binding pockets inside proteins?
7. How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth?
8. How were bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others selected, and unifunctional monomers (with only one functional group) sorted out?
9. How could achiral precursors of amino acids have produced and concentrated/selected only left-handed amino acids? (The homochirality problem)
10. How did the transition from prebiotic enantiomer selection to the enzymatic reaction of transamination occur that had to be extant when cellular self-replication and life began?
11. How would natural causes have selected twenty, and not more or less amino acids to make proteins?
12. How did natural events have foreknowledge that the selected amino acids are best suited to enable the formation of soluble structures with close-packed cores, allowing the presence of ordered binding pockets inside proteins?
13. How did nature "know" that the set of amino acids selected appears to be near ideal and optimal?

Out of the 12 listed problems of prebiotic cell membrane synthesis, 2 are directly related to the lack of a mechanism to select the right ingredients.
1. How did prebiotic processes select hydrocarbon chains which must be in the range of 14 to 18 carbons in length? There was no physical necessity to form carbon chains of the right length nor hindrance to join chains of varying lengths. So they could have been existing of any size on the early earth.
2. How would random events start to produce biological membranes which are not composed of pure phospholipids, but instead are mixtures of several phospholipid species, often with a sterol admixture such as cholesterol? There is no feasible prebiotic mechanism to select/join the right mixtures.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
You've misunderstood the term 'selection'. It's not 'selected' in advance as if there's a choice that's taken, it's 'selected' through survival - survival IS selection. Your entire 'argument' is based on your misunderstanding.

And you don't actually have a comment directed to Venter because you don't possess the relevant knowledge.
 
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
You've misunderstood the term 'selection'. It's not 'selected' in advance as if there's a choice that's taken, it's 'selected' through survival - survival IS selection. Your entire 'argument' is based on your misunderstanding.

And you don't actually have a comment directed to Venter because you don't possess the relevant knowledge.
there was no survival before life started.. LOL
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
you did. you wrote: it's 'selected' through survival - survival IS selection.

Another great non-sequitur. Yes, chap - not only do I know what I wrote, there's hardly a need to quote back to me what I said when there's been only one single exchange.

As I said: you've got it arse about tit when it comes to the term 'selection' - you are using it in entirely the wrong sense and this is pro forma for Creationists ineptly attempting to attack science. From the scientific meaning of the term, there's no foresight or plan or fortuitousness or foreknowledge remotely necessary - that amounts to either a foundational ignorance on your part, or an intentional lie, a strawman. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt: Hanlon's Razor. Survival is the result. All the items of your Gish Gallop contain the same flawed thinking - you're mistaking the outcome for the cause.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Adios Materialism

A Gnat flew over the meadow with much buzzing for so small a creature and settled on the tip of one of the horns of a Bull. After he had rested a short time, he made ready to fly away. But before he left he begged the Bull's pardon for having used his horn for a resting place.

"You must be very glad to have me go now," he said.

"It's all the same to me," replied the Bull. "I did not even know you were there.
 
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
Another great non-sequitur. Yes, chap - not only do I know what I wrote, there's hardly a need to quote back to me what I said when there's been only one single exchange.

As I said: you've got it arse about tit when it comes to the term 'selection' - you are using it in entirely the wrong sense and this is pro forma for Creationists ineptly attempting to attack science. From the scientific meaning of the term, there's no foresight or plan or fortuitousness or foreknowledge remotely necessary - that amounts to either a foundational ignorance on your part, or an intentional lie, a strawman. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt: Hanlon's Razor. Survival is the result. All the items of your Gish Gallop contain the same flawed thinking - you're mistaking the outcome for the cause.
You can keep bitching and whining as much as you want. You have not explained why molecules would select or sort out those that are useful for life, from those that aren't. Go. Keep trying....
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
You can keep bitching and whining as much as you want. You have not explained why molecules would select or sort out those that are useful for life, from those that aren't. Go. Keep trying....


:lol:

Oh that's cute. You think I'm actually going to engage with mendacious Gish Galloping? Fuck that chap.

If you want to make an argument, then do so... but when you dump a bunch of crap on the table of discourse and I clean off a portion of it, you don't get to point to the remaining offal as if it's my responsibility to clean up all your mess.
 
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
:lol:

Oh that's cute. You think I'm actually going to engage with mendacious Gish Galloping? Fuck that chap.

If you want to make an argument, then do so... but when you dump a bunch of crap on the table of discourse and I clean off a portion of it, you don't get to point to the remaining offal as if it's my responsibility to clean up all your mess.
Oh. Look the deflection.

You have nothing. And science proves it.

Physico-Chemical and Evolutionary Constraints for the Formation and Selection of First Biopolymers: Towards the Consensus Paradigm of the Abiogenic Origin of Life 21 September 2007 1
It was suggested that the accumulation and interaction of increasingly complex compounds, formed under primordial conditions, could eventually lead to the origin of life. This initial paradigm did not contain much detail on the particular chemical routes involved. Absence of a consensus among the members of the scientific community is causing problems outside science by opening the window for the proponents of the intelligent design as another, supposedly equally plausible hypothesis of origin of life. Therefore, we see an urgent task to formulate a consensus scenario for the abiogenic origin of life that 1) would be scientifically plausible, 2) could serve as a common basis/paradigm for the scientists with different views, and 3) could eventually be offered to the general public. the replication first and metabolism first hypotheses complement, rather than contradict, each other. Further, we suggest that life on Earth has started from a metabolism-driven replication and attempt to reconstruct the conditions under which such a replication could have occurred.

An important chemical constraint, which often remains unrecognized, is the reversibility of most (bio)chemical reactions. Therefore, any scheme that explains biopolymer formation under certain environmental conditions should also be able to explain why the synthesis of the given biopolymers would not be followed by their immediate hydrolysis. One cannot help noting that, in virtually all papers describing origin of life, the corresponding schemes contain unidirectional arrows, instead of bidirectional ones. However, the mechanisms that underlie that unidirectionality are almost never described. In a way, the mechanisms for formation and maintenance of
biopolymers require some kind of Maxwell<s Demon that would allow the reaction to go in the direction of increasingly complex compounds. Such a demon is hard to imagine, which serves as fertile ground for ideas of some kind of Supreme Being that was needed to breathe life into disorganized organic matter. The simplest substitution for this kind of Maxwell's Demon would be a Darwin's Demon, a selective mechanism that favors complex molecules (structures) over simple ones. Obviously, it would require external source(s) of energy. However, such a selective mechanism acting for a sufficiently long period of time appears to be a necessary condition for sustaining abiogenic evolution that could have produced a variety of pre-biological molecules and eventually brought about the first living organisms.

My comment: It is remarkable how the authors see the hypothesis of intelligent design as a problem ( a problem to whom??). Also, if, as the authors propose that metabolism and replication had to emerge together, than this is a nice admittance of irreducible complexity, which i fully agree with.

Formation and maintaining of increasingly complex biopolymers could proceed only if supported by a constant flow of utilizable energy. This consideration severely constrains otherwise plausible hypotheses of origin of life
under impact bombardment that tend to treat emergence of life as a one-time event. The second law of thermodynamics imposes an additional, less obvious constraint on the origin of life, namely, that heat cannot be used
as an energy source for the formation of increasingly complex chemical compounds. Hence, the ultimate source of energy must be external and constant, which effectively leaves solar radiation as the most likely candidate.

Prebiotic source of hydrocarbons
How would an ensemble of minerals present anywhere on the primitive Earth be capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle? How would a cycle mysteriously organize itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface? How would such a cycle, despite the lack of evidence of its existence, a transition to the “life-like” complexity of the Wood-Ljundahl cycle, or reverse TCA cycle, commonly proposed as the first carbon fixing cycles on earth?

In this work, we emphasize the role of selection during the prebiological stages of evolution and focus on the constraints that are imposed by physical, chemical, and biological laws. The key feature of the scenario is the participation of the UV irradiation both as driving and selecting forces during the earlier stages of evolution.

Ultraviolet radiation was then already considered as an energy source but was not used, since it was difficult to generate radiation of appropriate wavelength with sources available at that time (Miller and Urey 1959). 2 The prebiotic UV environment was exposed to high levels of UV radiation relative to the present day due to lack of UV-shielding O2 and O3. 3. High environmental fluxes of UV–C and UV–B restricting protocyanobacteria to refuges. J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1962) independently proposed the existence of a prebiotic soup in the oceans (Haldane 1954) and suggested that subjecting a mixture of water, carbon dioxide and ammonia to UV light should produce a variety of organic substances. Dauvillier (1947) was one of the first in suggesting UV radiation as an energy source for the synthesis of organic matter. In the words of Sagan & Khare (1971), “the availability of the ultraviolet solar radiation was some 100 times greater that of all the others”. It is a paradox how the molecule responsible for the replication of information has such a large absorption in the damaging UV spectral range. Sagan (1973) suggested the existence of a protecting layer of purines and pyrimidines surrounding the primitive organisms.The decrease in UV surface fluxes was essential for the access of living beings to the land and the subsequent evolution of complex life forms. 4
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Why do you keep quote-mining, Otangelo?

Is it because you enjoy lying to strangers? Or do you just have no moral compass whatsoever?
 
Back
Top