undirected energy flow through the alleged primordial soup

ChristPuncher
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-07-30
User is offlineOffline
undirected energy flow through the alleged primordial soup

Quote:
“Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.”

I'm corresponding with a good friend of mine who's an ardent creationist without a mind of his own. I'm doing pretty well in my rebuttal to his ridiculous copy-and-paste e-mail from answersingenesis.com, but I need a bit of help on the last part.

I didn't see anything referenced on talkorigins, so maybe someone here could lend a hand in explaining this?

Thanks!


Ig
Posts: 96
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
I'm no expert on

I'm no expert on abiogenesis but we are not talking about human bodies. Trees handle tons of solar energy just fine. Also, the atmosphere of the earth was very different back then. You had a lot more ultraviolet radiation from what I understand. The effect of the sun weakens as you go deeper in the water. Maybe life arose in deep  ocean vents?

 

Just some random thoughts from a layman. I've havent studied any abiogeneis hypothesis.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
A limited amount of energy

A limited amount of energy merely alters the state of the matter solution with vaporizing it.

Fried eggs anyone?

How about caramel?

Would you like some Jell-O? 

Wait. Let's get Bessie to churn out liquid hay.

What's the difference between a lump of coal and a diamond? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Ig
Posts: 96
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
I personally wouldnt even

I personally wouldnt even debate abiogenesis because at this stage the best we have are hypothesis...if that.

Is he your typical idiot that doesnt realize that evolution really happens? If so abiogenesis is a moot point because even if you convince him your still havent gotten anywhere.

I've altered my approach and will just make a few corrections to their ignorant statements and then try to trigger them to look inside themselves as to why they refuse to accept the obvious.

After a month or so of debating them, I have realized that there is some mechanism in their brain that protects them. Imagine yourself running thru a gauntlet of machine gun fire. Your mind will trigger you to think different so you can make it thru. You will be saying "dont think about it! keep running! dont think! keep running!"

I will ask them questions such as - Why are you scared? You know deep down inside that you are wrong. You know this evidence is there and it shows we evolved. Why are you suppressing it or not even looking at it? Don't be afraid. There are millions of Christians that accept evolution. Are you sure that Genesis should be taken 100% literaly? Who wrote Genises? Stuff like that.

 

Anyways, just some thoughts. Hopefully someone that knows a lot more science will respond.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The main problem I'm having

The main problem I'm having in responding here is that there's no specification. What level of energy and what duration? How constant? Does it variate? What is the basis for the assumption in the first place?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Well, I will use Richard

Well, I will use Richard Dawkins work as a reference here and say that the beginnings of life were probably not the carbon-based DNA-using life we see today. They were most likely mud silicates that evolved in structure to "survive" and cessate rivers into pools where more mud could form. Amino acids became useful to certain mud silicates and gave them an evolutionary advantage by providing them with a self-replicating outer layer which allowed them to stick better, allowing them to "survive". This can be seen in organic clays today.

 Then, over time, the RNA became excellent at surviving on its own, and the real primordial soup began, albiet it was built up on the shoulders of organic muds and clays.

 By that time, RNA had become advanced enough to self-replicate using free-floating, simple RNA synthesizing protiens. Solar radiation would have been mostly irrelevant by the time DNA came around and replaced RNA simply because the RNA would have evolved enough to withstand it during the mud/silicate phase.

 

Of course, these are all rough hypothesies, but they have some significant laboratory data to support them.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
The problem here is a

The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics and basic chemistry. I'm not in the mood to type it out at the moment, but I will try to post something more substantive tomorrow or this weekend.

Essentially the point is that chemical interactions of the kind we are discussing require energy input in most cases. There is a reason we expected to find (and found) more than methan on Titan when the Huygens probe made a visit. There is a reason amino acid precursors are visible in gigantic clouds throughout the solar system. 

Yes, solar radiation can SLOWLY break down chemical bonds, but it can ALSO trigger polymerization. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Hey Mike. Is the fried egg

Hey Mike.

Is the fried egg and Jell-O example decent enough for laypeople? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


solidsquid
solidsquid's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
ChristPuncher

ChristPuncher wrote:
Quote:
“Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.”
I'm corresponding with a good friend of mine who's an ardent creationist without a mind of his own. I'm doing pretty well in my rebuttal to his ridiculous copy-and-paste e-mail from answersingenesis.com, but I need a bit of help on the last part. I didn't see anything referenced on talkorigins, so maybe someone here could lend a hand in explaining this? Thanks!

I know I'm a bit late replying to this but I figured I'd toss in my two cents.

Mulkidjanian, Cherepanov and Galperin (2003) showed that UV may have played a part in the formation of early life.  Their simulations showed that: 

Quote:
UV irradiation could have worked as a selective factor leading to a relative enrichment of the system in longer sugar-phosphate polymers carrying nitrogenous bases as UV-protectors. Partial funneling of the UV energy into the condensation reactions could provide a further boost for the oligomerization (pp. 1).

 

 UV has also been shown to aid in the formation of more complex molecules as well.  Research conducted by Bernstein, Sandford, Allamandola, Gillette, Clemett and Zare (1999) showed: 

Quote:
Peripheral carbon atoms were oxidized, producing aromatic alcohols, ketones, and ethers, and reduced, producing partially hydrogenated aromatic hydrocarbons (pp. 1135).

 Therefore, the claim that UV radiation would have decimated all precursors to life on the planet is not one substantiated by the evidence.

Mulkidjanian, A., Cherepanov, D., Galperin, M. (2003). Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light.  BMC Evolutionary Biology, 3(12), 1-7.

 Bernstein, M., Sandford, S., Allamandola, L., Gillette, J., Clemett, S. and Zare, R. (1999). UV Irradiation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ices: Production of Alcohols, Quinones, and Ethers.  Science, 283, 1135 – 1138