Which is the Correct Theory?

JulesKorngold

Multiple lines of evidence support the theory of evolution:

1. Fossil evidence:

- Fossils show changes in organisms over time and provide a record of evolutionary history.

- Examples include fossils showing the evolution of humans and horses.

- Transitional fossils link different groups, like fish-tetrapod, dinosaur-bird, and human evolution fossils.

2. Anatomical evidence:

- Homologous structures in different species (like forelimb bones in whales, humans, birds, and dogs) suggest common ancestry.

- Vestigial structures provide clues to evolutionary history.

- Embryology shows similarities in early development across species.

3. Biogeographical evidence:

- The distribution of species across continents and islands reflects evolutionary history and geological changes.

4. Molecular biology evidence:

- DNA and genetic code similarities across species indicate common ancestry.

- DNA comparisons can show how closely related different species are.

5. Direct observation:

- Small-scale evolution can be directly observed in organisms with short lifecycles, like pesticide-resistant insects.

6. Comparative anatomy:

- Similarities in body structures across related species support common ancestry.

7. Embryology:

- Similarities in embryonic development across species suggest evolutionary relationships.

8. Artificial selection:

- Human-driven selection (like dog breeding) demonstrates how selection can change species over time.

9. Adaptive radiation:

- Examples like Darwin's finches show how species can diversify to fill different ecological niches.

10. Evolutionary developmental biology:

- Studies of how developmental processes evolve provide insights into evolutionary changes.

These multiple lines of evidence from different fields of biology converge to strongly support the theory of evolution. The evidence is compelling, extensive, and observable at every level of biological organization.

Citations:

[1] https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-011-0369-7

[2] https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

[3] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-wmopen-biology1/chapter/outcome-evidence-for-evolution/

[4] https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/cont-ed-62/olli/s21/kahn-evidence-of-evolution.pdf

[5] https://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/transitional-fossils

[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428117/

[7] https://necsi.edu/evidence-for-evolution

[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Swolliw ; Life was created through Elohim (Genesis 1:1) for cause...life cannot be the product of evolution but of design and purpose.

just_sayin

@JulesKorngold

1. Incomplete fossil record: The fossilization process is rare, so we only have a small sample of past life preserved as fossils. This means there are gaps in the fossil record, especially for soft-bodied organisms that don't fossilize well. The fossil record is often described as incomplete and biased, which limits its ability to provide definitive evidence for evolutionary transitions. Darwin himself acknowledged this limitation, suggesting that the geological record was too poorly known to support his theory robustly.  Recent studies indicate that while some evolutionary changes can be documented, many occur too rapidly to be captured in the fossil record, leading to gaps in our understanding.
2. Difficulty establishing ancestor-descendant relationships: It's very challenging to definitively prove that one fossil species is the direct ancestor of another. Fossils only show snapshots in time, not continuous lineages. Fossils often consist of fragmentary remains, such as bones and teeth, rather than complete organisms, making it difficult to ascertain evolutionary relationships. For instance, dinosaur fossils are primarily represented by isolated bones rather than complete skeletons.
3. Abrupt appearances: Some major groups appear relatively suddenly in the fossil record (e.g. the Cambrian explosion), without clear transitional forms leading up to them. This can be interpreted as gaps in the record or as evidence against gradual evolution.  The absence of clear transitional fossils has led some scientists to question the validity of gradualism in evolution, suggesting that punctuated equilibrium may better explain the fossil record.
4. Stasis: Many species show little change over long periods in the fossil record, which some argue conflicts with expectations of gradual evolutionary change. The presence of living fossils, which closely resemble ancient forms, raises questions about the continuity of evolutionary change and challenges the notion of gradual evolution.
5. Interpretation challenges: Fossils require interpretation, and different researchers may draw different conclusions from the same fossil evidence about evolutionary relationships. A critical issue is the scarcity of transitional fossils that would illustrate the gradual changes predicted by evolutionary theory. Claims of transitional forms, such as Archaeopteryx, are contested, with some arguing they do not represent true transitional species.
6. Dating uncertainties: While dating methods have improved, there can still be uncertainties in precisely dating fossils, which affects interpretations of evolutionary timelines.
7. Preservation biases: Certain environments and organism types are more likely to fossilize, potentially skewing our picture of past biodiversity.
8. Limited information: Fossils mainly preserve hard parts, providing limited information about soft tissues, behavior, etc.

Geez Jules,  My AI just kicked your AI's butt.

If chemical evolution is not possible, then all other discussion about evolution is pointless.  

"The odds against life having originated by chance are so astronomical that the idea is scientifically absurd." - Sir Fred Hoyle (astrophysicist),

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere." - Harold Urey (chemist)

Jules, the very guy who is considered a father of chemical evolution openly admitted it was too complex to have evolved.  Why don't you ask your AI about the specific problems with chemical evolution and their odds of happening.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@JulesKorngold

1. Incomplete fossil record: The fossilization process is rare, so we only have a small sample of past life preserved as fossils. This means there are gaps in the fossil record, especially for soft-bodied organisms that don't fossilize well. The fossil record is often described as incomplete and biased, which limits its ability to provide definitive evidence for evolutionary transitions. Darwin himself acknowledged this limitation, suggesting that the geological record was too poorly known to support his theory robustly.  Recent studies indicate that while some evolutionary changes can be documented, many occur too rapidly to be captured in the fossil record, leading to gaps in our understanding.
2. Difficulty establishing ancestor-descendant relationships: It's very challenging to definitively prove that one fossil species is the direct ancestor of another. Fossils only show snapshots in time, not continuous lineages. Fossils often consist of fragmentary remains, such as bones and teeth, rather than complete organisms, making it difficult to ascertain evolutionary relationships. For instance, dinosaur fossils are primarily represented by isolated bones rather than complete skeletons.
3. Abrupt appearances: Some major groups appear relatively suddenly in the fossil record (e.g. the Cambrian explosion), without clear transitional forms leading up to them. This can be interpreted as gaps in the record or as evidence against gradual evolution.  The absence of clear transitional fossils has led some scientists to question the validity of gradualism in evolution, suggesting that punctuated equilibrium may better explain the fossil record.
4. Stasis: Many species show little change over long periods in the fossil record, which some argue conflicts with expectations of gradual evolutionary change. The presence of living fossils, which closely resemble ancient forms, raises questions about the continuity of evolutionary change and challenges the notion of gradual evolution.
5. Interpretation challenges: Fossils require interpretation, and different researchers may draw different conclusions from the same fossil evidence about evolutionary relationships. A critical issue is the scarcity of transitional fossils that would illustrate the gradual changes predicted by evolutionary theory. Claims of transitional forms, such as Archaeopteryx, are contested, with some arguing they do not represent true transitional species.
6. Dating uncertainties: While dating methods have improved, there can still be uncertainties in precisely dating fossils, which affects interpretations of evolutionary timelines.
7. Preservation biases: Certain environments and organism types are more likely to fossilize, potentially skewing our picture of past biodiversity.
8. Limited information: Fossils mainly preserve hard parts, providing limited information about soft tissues, behavior, etc.

Geez Jules,  My AI just kicked your AI's butt.

If chemical evolution is not possible, then all other discussion about evolution is pointless.  

"The odds against life having originated by chance are so astronomical that the idea is scientifically absurd." - Sir Fred Hoyle (astrophysicist),

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere." - Harold Urey (chemist)

Jules, the very guy who is considered a father of chemical evolution openly admitted it was too complex to have evolved.  Why don't you ask your AI about the specific problems with chemical evolution and their odds of happening.  

True, information in science is incomplete. But we do have some information and that has been the result of generations of accumulate knowledge. You have brought no information on your fairytale elf god and your elf book is erroneous and contracts established facts of nature. Objective thinkers accept the reality of unknowns while religious apologists distrust their own gods ability to defend itself.

MayCaesar

Me:

Hi ChatGPT, If there are any scientific publications in reputable journals that demonstrate that chemical evolution (in the context of Evolution Theory) is not possible, please cite them. If there are no such scientific publications, please provide a comprehensive rebuttal to the assertion that chemical evolution is not possible (with references). Thanks!

ChatGPT 4o:

To my knowledge, there are no reputable scientific publications that conclusively demonstrate that chemical evolution, as it pertains to abiogenesis or the origin of life, is impossible. Chemical evolution, or abiogenesis, refers to the natural process by which life could have arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. This is an area of active research, and while there are unresolved questions, the current scientific consensus supports the plausibility of chemical evolution based on available evidence and models.

Comprehensive Rebuttal to the Assertion that Chemical Evolution Is Impossible

1. Plausibility of Chemical Evolution

Chemical evolution is a theoretical framework that explains how complex molecules could have formed from simpler ones on the early Earth, leading to the origin of life. The key stages of this process include the formation of organic molecules, polymerization into more complex compounds (e.g., proteins, nucleic acids), and the development of self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution.

Several studies and experiments lend credence to this model:

• Miller-Urey Experiment (1953): Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted a famous experiment simulating conditions thought to exist on early Earth. They demonstrated that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could be synthesized from simpler chemicals like methane, ammonia, and water when subjected to electrical sparks (simulating lightning). This experiment provided strong experimental support for the idea that organic molecules could have formed naturally under prebiotic conditions .

• RNA World Hypothesis: One of the leading hypotheses for the origin of life suggests that RNA, a molecule capable of both storing genetic information and catalyzing chemical reactions, may have been the first self-replicating system. Researchers have demonstrated that certain ribozymes (RNA molecules with enzymatic activity) can replicate and evolve under experimental conditions .

• Hydrothermal Vents: Recent research suggests that deep-sea hydrothermal vents could have provided the ideal environment for chemical evolution. The unique chemistry and energy sources at these locations could have facilitated the formation of complex organic molecules and eventually led to life. These environments are rich in minerals and chemical gradients that could drive the synthesis of essential biomolecules .

2. Misunderstandings About the Improbability Argument

A common argument against chemical evolution is the assertion that the probability of forming complex biomolecules, such as proteins or DNA, by random chance is astronomically low. However, this objection often misrepresents how chemical processes work. In prebiotic chemistry, reactions are not purely random; they are driven by natural laws of chemistry and physics. Certain environments could have provided selective pressures that favored the formation of more complex and stable molecules. Chemical evolution, therefore, is not a single, blind process but a series of smaller, guided steps that increase the complexity of molecules over time.

3. Modern Scientific Theories

There are several theories of abiogenesis that explore different pathways by which life might have originated. None of these are currently definitive, but they provide plausible, testable hypotheses:

• Metabolism First Hypothesis: This theory posits that self-sustaining chemical networks, rather than genetic materials like RNA or DNA, were the first forms of life. Some researchers believe that simple metabolic cycles could have emerged before genetic material, eventually leading to more complex systems .

• Clay Hypothesis: Proposed by Alexander Cairns-Smith, this hypothesis suggests that life may have originated on the surfaces of mineral clays, which could have provided a scaffold for organic molecules to organize and replicate .

4. Ongoing Research

There is ongoing research into the specifics of chemical evolution, and many aspects remain unresolved. However, significant progress has been made in understanding prebiotic chemistry. For example, researchers have recently demonstrated that simple molecules like cyanide and formaldehyde can combine to form ribose, a sugar component of RNA . Other studies have shown that nucleotides (the building blocks of RNA and DNA) can form under prebiotic conditions .

Conclusion

There is no credible scientific evidence suggesting that chemical evolution is impossible. While the exact steps leading from non-living matter to life remain an open question, there is robust support for the plausibility of chemical evolution through a variety of proposed mechanisms. The argument that chemical evolution is "impossible" often stems from misunderstandings about probability, the complexity of natural chemical processes, or oversimplifications of the evolutionary model.

For further reading, you may explore works such as:

• "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language" by John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry, which outlines various theories of the origin of life.
• Scientific articles on the RNA world hypothesis and experimental work in prebiotic chemistry (such as those found in journals like Nature, Science, and PNAS).

By considering the collective evidence, the assertion that chemical evolution is impossible is not supported by the scientific literature. The challenges of abiogenesis are complex, but ongoing research continues to provide promising insights.

Too much reading for our little ignorant friend?

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

I'm thinking even if he did read it he wouldn't comprehend. If we're thinking about the same person he don't realize the difference between science and religion. He thinks chemical evolution theory is fairytale while at the same time a collection of 66 myth books by ancient, unknown authors for much of it, is the blue print for which to base science on.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
Too much reading for our little ignorant friend? 

Well, not for me May.  Thanks for the response.  I know it was from a AI, but at least there was some content to it.  I get tired of debating atheists who never have any substance to what they say.  Anyway, I'm going to respond to your points, but I am going to break it up, as no one reads anything that runs on too long.

Miller-Urey Experiment (1953): Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted a famous experiment simulating conditions thought to exist on early Earth. They demonstrated that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could be synthesized from simpler chemicals like methane, ammonia, and water when subjected to electrical sparks (simulating lightning). This experiment provided strong experimental support for the idea that organic molecules could have formed naturally under prebiotic conditions.

First observation May, you get that one of the more outspoken people on how chemical evolution is to complex to have happened naturally, is Urey himself, right? 

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere." - Harold Urey

Geez, not a ringing endorsement of the results of his experiment. 



So just to recap, the guy May points to as the co-author of an experiment that proves his point, actually went on record and said chemical evolution is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  May's 'source' agrees with me that chemical evolution is too complex to have occurred naturally.

May, Did I just spike your own evidence and use it against you?  Why, yes, I did.  If I didn't know better I'd say you are actually trying to help me.  Thanks man. 

Miller admits the limits of his research:

The picture is powerful and appealing, but not all origin-of-life researchers are convinced. Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self- replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market--all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done. - From Discover Magazine, "How Did Life Start?" Nov 1, 1992.

Miller' experiment had some major set backs.  The kind of atmosphere he believed existed, a low oxygen one, has been shown to not be true.  His experiment does not do so well in an atmosphere where oxygen is common.  Further Miller used a trap to create trace amounts of amino acids. Stanley Miller recognized that the trap was an artificial element of the experiment that it did not represent actual prebiotic conditions, but admitted it was essential to collect the organic molecules produced during the simulation, preventing them from being destroyed by the same energy sources that created them.  Did you catch that May?  The same natural reactions that create amino acids, will also destroy them quickly.  Miller's experiment shows that if you have intelligence, tools, and a trap that doesn't exist anywhere in nature, you can get trace amounts of amino acids.  But not so much in a earth where oxygen is common.

Just a note here.  Before we can get to RNA, we first have to get to polymers, such as proteins (chains of amino acids) and nucleic acids (chains of nucleotides).  Hydrothermal vents lack the wet-dry cycles that are thought to be important for concentrating organic compounds and promoting polymerization.  In fact, May, I'm surprised your AI threw out such a debunked chemical evolution view.  Hydrothermal vents are a horrible environment for chemical evolution because water dilutes the amino acids, it breaks down proteins (the presence of water makes it thermodynamically unfavorable for monomers to form polymers spontaneously), high temperatures would  destroy organic molecules rather than promote their formation and complexity, and the instability of vents would limit the window of opportunity for life to form.  

I'm not done talking about problems with the RNA World Hypothesis, but I just wanted to point out that there are several miracles to go before we can even talk about RNA.  You have to form the right amino acids all in the same place, along without destroying them all with the same chemical reactions that create them, then you have start building.  You won't be able to do it in a water environment because water breaks down polymers through hydrolysis.  Forming polymers is another miracle level problem.  Polymers can form incorrectly through intramolecular cyclization, branching, or premature truncation.  Polymers easily break down in heat, UV rays, ionizing radiation, and free radicals.  The probability of achieving correct links decreases exponentially as the polymer chain grows longer. Realistic 'natural' polymerization reactions could never produce long chains of polymers due to high concentrations of monomers and water.  And we haven't even mentioned chirality yet.  

May, I'll stop this post now, but I'm not done laughing at it yet.  I'll post part 2 in a bit (some of us have to work for a living).  But know that I sincerely appreciate the content.  It makes for much better discussions.

Maybe later I'll chill in some primordial soup that doesn't exist anywhere anytime on the planet.  LOL

Factfinder

How is the theory 'elf god did it' falsified @just_sayin?

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

I'm thinking even if he did read it he wouldn't comprehend. If we're thinking about the same person he don't realize the difference between science and religion. He thinks chemical evolution theory is fairytale while at the same time a collection of 66 myth books by ancient, unknown authors for much of it, is the blue print for which to base science on.

"Thinks" is too strong a word for what he does.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; @MayCaesar ; Without Elohim, there is no science...without Jesus, you'll die in Hell...these are facts that you will come to terms with now or later...but you will see that what I've told you is Truth and that you've wasted your life in a lie and you will perish in nihilism and shame lest you repent.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Part 2 - Problems with Chemical Evolutions

@MayCaesar
RNA World Hypothesis: One of the leading hypotheses for the origin of life suggests that RNA, a molecule capable of both storing genetic information and catalyzing chemical reactions, may have been the first self-replicating system. Researchers have demonstrated that certain ribozymes (RNA molecules with enzymatic activity) can replicate and evolve under experimental conditions .

Again, thanks for the AI comments.  Its nice to have some content to respond to.  

The last sentence needs some clarification.  There was an experiment where ribozymes split, but omitted by your AI was that they did so in a limited way.  Let's say we needed a strand 200 proteins long - the experiment got a strand of 14.  And also of note was that a lot of content was lost making it unusable.  Also worth noting was the phrase 'experimental conditions' - think of it as code for we know this isn't plausible in the real world, but we are desperate.  

Anyway, there is a strong interdependency issue between proteins, RNA and DNA. The  "chicken and egg" paradox when considering the origin of life because each needs the others to exist.  DNA stores genetic information and is used as a template to produce RNA. RNA acts as a messenger to carry genetic information from DNA and is used as a template to produce proteins.  Proteins are required for DNA replication, RNA transcription, and their own synthesis (translation).  It's unclear how any one component could have functioned or replicated without the others.

RNA World hypothesis attempts to address this by proposing RNA acted as both genetic material and catalyst initially, but faces its own set of challenges.  Self-replicating ribozymes are highly complex molecules that seem very unlikely to have randomly polymerized in a prebiotic soup (which is a fairy tale).  Saying that the formation of such complex RNA molecules without pre-existing biological systems is difficult to explain is an understatement.  Experimental RNA replication has high error rates with nucleotides, which would destroy the strand, and prevent the evolution and maintenance of it.  Plus, RNA has a relatively limited range of catalytic abilities compared to proteins.  Meaning RNA alone could not perform all the necessary functions for life.  RNA is unstable and degrades quickly under many conditions, especially at higher temperatures (so no thermal vents), and there is no known way to get RNA nucleotides to polymerize into long chains, which is essential for life.  

However, this objection often misrepresents how chemical processes work. In prebiotic chemistry, reactions are not purely random; they are driven by natural laws of chemistry and physics. Certain environments could have provided selective pressures that favored the formation of more complex and stable molecules. Chemical evolution, therefore, is not a single, blind process but a series of smaller, guided steps that increase the complexity of molecules over time.

The argument is really why so many have given up on an earthly explanation for some of the chemical reactions.  it is theorized that these reactions could more likely occur in space on a meter where they think a preference for some reactions such as ionization are more likely.  Unfortunately, as I mentioned before UV rays can destroy proteins very quickly.  But I did want to briefly mention where the research is going.  And no it is not confirmed.

Getting stilted results naturally does not seem to be the case with chirality where proteins require exclusively L-amino acids to function properly and DNA requires exclusively D-sugars in its backbone.  There is no evidence of the creation of L or R amino acids forming in anything but 50/50 ratios.  And as you know,  homochirality is essential for proper folding and function of these biomolecules.  Non-biological chemical reactions produce equal mixtures of left- and right-handed molecules (called racemic mixtures - pay attention @FactFinder and learn something).  And there is no known natural process that can produce only one chiral form without pre-existing homochiral molecules or enzymes. Connecting to the wrong handed amino acid would stop its usefulness and burn it up.  

For a protein of a minute 100 amino acids, the probability of all being L-form is (1/2)^100, which is essentially zero.  So if this glorious 'favored formation theory' works, then why hasn't it been demonstrated, even on something as small as a strand with 100 amino acids?  Hint - because they can't get it to work. So if there was something chemically that favored chirality, it wouldn't have become such a well known problem in the last 20 years.  just sayin

@MayCaesar,  I give you a hard time, but I genuinely appreciate your response.  It is pointless to go into details with most of the atheists on the site, and I appreciate being able to lay out a slightly more detailed explanation of the problems.

I'll post a third part tomorrow.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@MayCaesar
RNA World Hypothesis: One of the leading hypotheses for the origin of life suggests that RNA, a molecule capable of both storing genetic information and catalyzing chemical reactions, may have been the first self-replicating system. Researchers have demonstrated that certain ribozymes (RNA molecules with enzymatic activity) can replicate and evolve under experimental conditions .

Again, thanks for the AI comments.  Its nice to have some content to respond to.  

The last sentence needs some clarification.  There was an experiment where ribozymes split, but omitted by your AI was that they did so in a limited way.  Let's say we needed a strand 200 proteins long - the experiment got a strand of 14.  And also of note was that a lot of content was lost making it unusable.  Also worth noting was the phrase 'experimental conditions' - think of it as code for we know this isn't plausible in the real world, but we are desperate.  

Anyway, there is a strong interdependency issue between proteins, RNA and DNA. The  "chicken and egg" paradox when considering the origin of life because each needs the others to exist.  DNA stores genetic information and is used as a template to produce RNA. RNA acts as a messenger to carry genetic information from DNA and is used as a template to produce proteins.  Proteins are required for DNA replication, RNA transcription, and their own synthesis (translation).  It's unclear how any one component could have functioned or replicated without the others.

RNA World hypothesis attempts to address this by proposing RNA acted as both genetic material and catalyst initially, but faces its own set of challenges.  Self-replicating ribozymes are highly complex molecules that seem very unlikely to have randomly polymerized in a prebiotic soup (which is a fairy tale).  Saying that the formation of such complex RNA molecules without pre-existing biological systems is difficult to explain is an understatement.  Experimental RNA replication has high error rates with nucleotides, which would destroy the strand, and prevent the evolution and maintenance of it.  Plus, RNA has a relatively limited range of catalytic abilities compared to proteins.  Meaning RNA alone could not perform all the necessary functions for life.  RNA is unstable and degrades quickly under many conditions, especially at higher temperatures (so no thermal vents), and there is no known way to get RNA nucleotides to polymerize into long chains, which is essential for life.  

However, this objection often misrepresents how chemical processes work. In prebiotic chemistry, reactions are not purely random; they are driven by natural laws of chemistry and physics. Certain environments could have provided selective pressures that favored the formation of more complex and stable molecules. Chemical evolution, therefore, is not a single, blind process but a series of smaller, guided steps that increase the complexity of molecules over time.

The argument is really why so many have given up on an earthly explanation for some of the chemical reactions.  it is theorized that these reactions could more likely occur in space on a meter where they think a preference for some reactions such as ionization are more likely.  Unfortunately, as I mentioned before UV rays can destroy proteins very quickly.  But I did want to briefly mention where the research is going.  And no it is not confirmed.

Getting stilted results naturally does not seem to be the case with chirality where proteins require exclusively L-amino acids to function properly and DNA requires exclusively D-sugars in its backbone.  There is no evidence of the creation of L or R amino acids forming in anything but 50/50 ratios.  And as you know,  homochirality is essential for proper folding and function of these biomolecules.  Non-biological chemical reactions produce equal mixtures of left- and right-handed molecules (called racemic mixtures - pay attention @FactFinder and learn something).  And there is no known natural process that can produce only one chiral form without pre-existing homochiral molecules or enzymes. Connecting to the wrong handed amino acid would stop its usefulness and burn it up.  

For a protein of a minute 100 amino acids, the probability of all being L-form is (1/2)^100, which is essentially zero.  So if this glorious 'favored formation theory' works, then why hasn't it been demonstrated, even on something as small as a strand with 100 amino acids?  Hint - because they can't get it to work. So if there was something chemically that favored chirality, it wouldn't have become such a well known problem in the last 20 years.  just sayin

@MayCaesar,  I give you a hard time, but I genuinely appreciate your response.  It is pointless to go into details with most of the atheists on the site, and I appreciate being able to lay out a slightly more detailed explanation of the problems.

I'll post a third part tomorrow.  

Still not one shred of evidence for elf god theory. How do you falsify your ignorant god theory. That's what we want to know. Stop running.  We're already aware you count your ignorance of science and reality as evidence for fairytale beliefs. That's well documented already. Thanks.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Part 3 - Kicking May's AI's butt

@MayCaesar

Modern Scientific Theories

There are several theories of abiogenesis that explore different pathways by which life might have originated. None of these are currently definitive, but they provide plausible, testable hypotheses:

• Metabolism First Hypothesis: This theory posits that self-sustaining chemical networks, rather than genetic materials like RNA or DNA, were the first forms of life. Some researchers believe that simple metabolic cycles could have emerged before genetic material, eventually leading to more complex systems .

• Clay Hypothesis: Proposed by Alexander Cairns-Smith, this hypothesis suggests that life may have originated on the surfaces of mineral clays, which could have provided a scaffold for organic molecules to organize and replicate .

So in point 1 May's AI suggested the RNA world Hypothesis or hydrothermal vents as the source of life, now in its 3 point, it suggests 2 other sources for the origin of life.  Geez, if there is such certainty about chemical evolution and the path that it took, why the need to pull so many debunked theories out of its port hole?  Maybe, May's AI made too big a deal about all of these 'plausible' theories that have been debunked. just sayin

There are lots of problems with the metabolism first hypothesis: 1) without a way to pass on information and variations, it's unclear how metabolic networks could evolve in complexity over time. Metabolism-first scenarios struggle to explain how heredity and evolution could occur without a genetic system in place. 2) It doesn't solve the homochirality in biological molecules.  3) The research on metabolism first has shown a lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks - so no new stuff.  4) No good energy source for them.  5) There is a lack of experimental support from specific chemical models for metabolism-first scenarios.

There are problems with the clay hypothesis: 1) While some studies have shown clays can catalyze certain reactions, there is a lack of comprehensive experimental evidence demonstrating how clays could facilitate the full range of processes required for chemical evolution. 2) The error rate in clay is to high for evolution and information transfer.  3) There is no known way for such a method to convert over to a DNA/RNA process.  4) While clays can catalyze some reactions, they lack the specificity and efficiency of enzymes or ribozymes for many crucial biochemical processes.5) Clay hypothesis focuses on replication, but can't address the issues of metabolism, with are essential for life.  6) There's no clear mechanism for how genetic information could be preserved and passed on from a clay-based system to an organic one.

So to recap:
1) May's AI touted a science experiment as showing chemical evolution was possible.  However, the guy who did the experiment said that the experiment proved to him that chemical evolution was too complex to be able to occur.  (Again May's AI - thanks for the assist)

2) May's AI suggested hypothermal vents - but water is the last place you want to have proteins, and the heat would destroy them.
3) May's AI then started pulling debunked theories out of its port hole like the RNA world hypothesis, then switched to the metabolism first hypothesis, then switched to the clay hypothesis.  Translation:  I got nothin', but as an AI I got to say something.  What's obvious is that all these are fatally flawed and there are no good options.

Did I just spike the football?  Why, yes, I did.



There is no credible scientific evidence suggesting that chemical evolution is impossible.
Well except for all the failed experiments.  Again, just to make the observation, Urey - the guy of Miller-Urey experiment fame, concluded from his research that chemical evolution was just too complex to have occurred.  Crick, who was a co-discoverer of DNA concluded that it was too complex to have arisen on earth and suggested panspermia and aliens.  

Since we are biological beings, I don't think it is possible to say that there is not a chance for chemical evolution, but numerous scientists have shown how these theories just don't work.  I've identified just a few problems with May's AI's touted 'success' stories (LOL).

When we see something that is as complex as code, we instinctively know there is a coder.  The 10 miracle level barriers to chemical evolution remain.  If you are an atheist who believes in chemical evolution, then know you have enough faith to believe in 10 miracles.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  

Maybe our atheists could pray and ask God to show them how nature performed 10 miracles.  just sayin