more posters

Self-Replicating RNA, Evolution Posters

Fabio Slideshow

Bogus Abiogenesis Examined (8)

Today, 11:23 AM Miracle #12: Humility Quote: It has to be said that this research is in its infancy - Or perhaps just the researchers are. Quote: and current hypotheses are nowhere near as solid as the Theory of Evolution Which would put them somewhere between Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.... Please, don't draw us any more diaphrams. Its the yeast you can do.   Quote: Originally Posted by xxxxx It really doesn't take any effort to check these things. I just popped them into a search engine, and copied the first links that came up. Nazaroo of the "Newton was wrong" thread is looking rather sloppy and lazy today. Don't need to be a PhD chemist to do a quick search. Oh brother. Your 'self-replicating' molecule is a bust: Quote: Rather than start with RNA enzymes - ribozymes - present in other organisms, Joyce's team created its own molecule from scratch, called R3C. It performed a single function: stitching two shorter RNA molecules together to create a clone of itself. Further lab tinkering made this molecule better at copying itself, but this is not the same as bringing it to life. It self-replicated to a point, but eventually clogged up in shapes that could no longer sew RNA pieces together. "It was a real dog," Joyce says. To improve R3C, Lincoln redesigned the molecule to forge a sister RNA that could itself join two other pieces of RNA into a functioning ribozyme. That way, each molecule makes a copy of its sister, a process called cross replication. The population of two doubles and doubles until there are no more starting bits of RNA left. Its clear from the description that all it was able to do was join two specific half-RNAs (premade) together. This molecule had no capacity to build itself from scratch out of neucleotides. They had to provide an artificial 'soup' of half-beasts. When the supply runs out it stops. Thats obviously dead in the water in minutes, not a program that can run for 3.5 million years. The main point is that the molecule CAN'T replicate itself. It can only make a couple of lucky connections by being a landing-zone for half-pieces. In the second place, crystals aren't compounds, they are just self-organizing surface structures that only work typically by submersion in a salt solution. You can get the same result in a room full of rubber balls at McDonalds. Quote: Originally Posted by xxxxx Like it or not, it self replicates in a specific environment. It demonstrates the principle quite nicely. Not at all. It only demonstrates self-repair, in a collective, communistic sense. Not even one strand of RNA was manufactured out of singular nucleotides or other basic materials. Instead, conveniently, RNA strands were synthesized, broken in half, and repaired again by jostling them onto receptor-sites. This isn't RNA generation at all, which is what "replication" would and should mean, to a real scientist. This is just RNA pre-synthesis and assembly. The Analogy: Its as if you had a favourite son who was a hopeless retard, unable to fall out of a wheelchair, let alone tie his shoe: So you build a thousand copies of the Eiffel Tower out of Lego. Then you carefully break them exactly in half. Now you pass two halves to your idiot-son, and after a struggle, he manages to stick two halves together every few hours. You keep it up until most of the towers are re-assembled. Now you announce to the world that your idiot-son can build the Eiffel Tower out of Lego! You get him on America's Got Talent. You aren't booed off the stage instantly, because the whole crowd cries with you from pity and compassion. No one dares shout "Fake! Fraud!" Instead, everyone donates $10 to your favourite charity, retarded children. Oh yes, its a miracle! But not the kind you meant.

Bogus Abiogenesis Examined (7)

Miracle #8: OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCES

It couldn't get more absurd than RNA replicating itself among the lighting storms, but somehow it DID!

Over millions of years, tramping across lava pools, breathing sulphuric gases, and huddling together during Ice Ages, ducking meteor showers in shallow pools, "RNA got more complex".

Quote:

Step 5: RNA to DNA Over 100s of millions of years RNA grew more complex.

At this point, somebody should have told old RNA,
YOU'VE ALREADY WON!

Anything that can survive virtually unchanged except for a few atoms, and of course overall length, for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS,
has Already Won the game of Evolution!

What need to evolve now?
I think RNA has proven it has already evolved itself to perfection!
No need to turn into a horseshoe crab or Diplodon.

Any Supreme Being would have to acknowledge RNA's awesome staying power.

But with age comes near infinite wisdom.
Behind our backs, RNA has become more complex.
Whereas before he was as transparent as superman's disguise,
now he's more like Spiderman, or even Batman.

Who knew?

Brace yourself:

Miracle # 9: RNA morphs into DNA - - - - OUTSIDE THE BODY.

Quote:

The single-strand became a double-strand and the better-adapted DNA molecule evolved. One of the differences between RNA and DNA is that DNA needs proteins to replicate itself.

But how?
Our narrator informs us that now as DNA,
the little molecule that could will now depend upon the availability of a whole slew of new compounds, namely proteins!

How is that 'adapting'? How is that "better-adapted"?

Fill in the blanks dear reader:
RNA is obviously now swimming in a protein-rich environment,
in spite of the fact that there is still no Life forms as we know them,
not even a virus!

Where did all the oceans of protein come from?
Duh: magic mud, fool.

Miracle #10: MAGIC MUD REVISITED!

Never mind that our RNA had to morph into DNA to survive the seas of protein,
only to starve because there actually was none,
Ta Da!

Amino Acids magically appear on the surface of Magic Mud.
Don't worry scro, they'll get stuck in the montmorillonite TAR PITS,
and turn into proteins just in time to
slide up against horny and insatiable DNA, that is just begging for it.

Quote:

Step 6: Formation of Amino Acids So where did the first ones come from? No, there was no need for God: ----- > A number of experiments using montmorillonite have produced not only amino acids, but long chains of amino acids called polypeptides. Montmorillonite it turns out, is a natural breeding ground for all kinds of complex organic chemicals.

Miracle #11: All in the same teapot!


What luck!
It all must have happened on the same barren seabed
or sedimentary layer, all within molecule walking distance.
No need to commute.

Bogus Abiogenesis Examined (6)

Miracle #7: Self Replicating Molecules!

Are you kidding me?
RNA and DNA duplicate themselves all alone,
without any life-organisms surrounding them?
Sure, anything's possible now! Get out of our author's way, man.
He's on a roll!
He's in such a hurry, he has to quickly sketch paintshop drawings of sperm-molecules!

Quote:

As RNA molecules replicated themselves, they shared their environment with other chemicals that thrive in montmorillonite clay. One group, called lipids, have a natural tendency to clump together, to form spherical structures called mycells.

I know: You're thinking this guy is really one of my troll characters!
A straw-man I created just to take huge crap all over Abiogenesis.

But I kid you not, I promise you, this idiot is NOT one of my
artificially invented foils! He is as real as Ronald McDonald!

Only the USA could produce such a moron out of an alleged educational environment:
In Canada, a man like this would be granted welfare
and encouraged to find work in a gas-station or grocery store.
He could be rehabilitated by shovelling real snow, instead of this.

Quote:

RNA molecules that attracted these lipids, would therefore find themselves protected inside a mycell membrane. Because they were better protected, they better survived and replicated more successfully.

Won't someone tell this poor idiot that
RNA molecules can't replicate in the wild by themselves?

Read this article carefully:


Artificial Molecule "evolves" in the Lab

Quote:

There you have the first primitive cells. They looked nothing like the complex cells we have today for a very good reason: Over 3.7 billion years they've evolved.

And of course, these early 'cells' didn't have the advantage of Photoshop,
to improve their cosmetic appearance.

OMG!

Quote:

"I'll tackle the subject of evolution in another video"

AHAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I think I p*ssed my pants!

I hope evolution is wearing a cup when you tackle it.

Bogus Abiogenesis Examined (5)

Uber-Miracle # 4: Magic Mud!

Quote:

In the 1980s researchers found that a clay calledmontmorillonite, which was abundant on the primordial seafloor and in hot pools of water on land, is the perfect catalyst for this process.

Mud, a 'catalyst' ?!?! But why quibble over scientific terms and theory,
when we've already allowed for "Ludicrous Miracle mode"?

So why not magic mud?

The 80s were an unusual time, when the whole world was bought out by homosexuals,
and no one yet really believed in the miracle of AIDS.


Ludicrous Miracle # 5: Uber-Magic Mud!

But this isn't ordinary magic mud. Oh no.

Its not just the perfect catalyst for RNA formation,
it also works for Amino Acids and just about everything Abiogeneticists wish for.
Did I mention biologists also did a lot of 'Acid' in the 80s,
and I don't mean Dioxyribonucleic acid either....

Quote:

As RNA molecules replicated themselves, they shared their environment with other chemicals that thrive in montmorillonite clay.

Are you kidding me? NO. The idiot is really claiming this!

I know:
You're thinking the story just can't get any stupider, ...but it does:

Miracle # 6: Molecules start Evolving!

Somehow the author has gotten his wires crossed,
and thinks life has already begun, and that the
magic rules of Evolution apply equally to DEAD things,
like molecules and compounds!

Quote:

"Some of these long polynucleotide chains like ribonucleic acid or RNA are able to make copies of themselves. The copies aren't always perfect: mistakes creep in. But some imperfectly copied molecules would have been better adapted to the environment than others. These successful molecules continue to replicate and pass on their traits, while weaker or less well adapted molecules would have broken apart."

I couldn't have made this up.
Someone should call Comedy Central.

The molecules are now competing a la Evolutionary mode!
You are witnessing the "Evolutionary Theory of Chemistry"!!!!!

Forget regular Chemistry; now molecules compete like rabbits,
foraging for food, and avoiding predator compounds.
Its the Survival of the Fittest! Only the strongest molecules will survive!

Just when you thought it was safe to listen to pop-scientism,
the stakes have been raised beyond "conspiracy" mode,
to walking talking molecules with a natural penchant for survival:

Bogus Abiogenesis Examined (4)

Remember, we may have needed superhuman miracles to form just one nucleotide useful for life in the last step,
but now the author is going to up the anti by hundreds of orders of magnitude!

And we mean ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE:

To make even one poly nucleotide for a proto-RNA chain, of course we need thousands, millions of perfect mono nucleotides (singles), to string together!.
Every one of them has to be perfect, just as with the first one!
How? How can this insane improbability come about?

Magic mud. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Remember, we HAVE TO end up with long, long, long RNA chains at the end of our process. Its true, it doesn't have to be all at once; it could be a chain built up gradually over millions of years. Of course that requires ANOTHER INSANE MIRACLE: that the chain didn't get cooked, heated, broken, or attached to some poisonous piece of garbage in this hostile lightning-filled, stormy blast furnace of early Earth:

Or, ........... we could have many false starts, break-ups, and reattachments: But how? Nothing helps except a soup literally chock-full of near-identical miracle mono-nucleotides just suited to proto-life. This is the only intelligent way we can imagine long chains hooking up with more of the same long chains, forming more, longer chains.

If the ridiculous odds aren't hitting you yet, you aren't reading with comprehension. This magic pool of almost pure proto-RNA, mono and poly-nucleotides, all with miraculous properties of balanced percentages and chiralities, very few with poisonous impurities, could only have existed a short time. And therefore, the long chains could not have formed over long times either, for where did the raw materials come from?

We can no longer appeal to "millions of years" style arguments, because the environments needed are so special and fragile that they couldn't sit around that long, and long times would now be redundant.

So, "POOF!" we got some long pure polynucleotides! WoW!

And we only had to ratchet up the astronomical odds to "Ludicrous Speed".

Ludicrous Speed

Bogus Abiogenesis Examined (3)

Quote:

In 1961 a researcher called Huan Oto left hydrogen cyanide and ammonia to stew in an aqeous solution in his laboratory under conditions very similar to those that prevailed on the primordial earth. Left alone the solution produced adenine, one of the four nucleotide bases that make up DNA.

Just to grant the above claim for sake of argument:

The author praises the formation of Adenine, but leaves out mention of the crippling corollary:

THE OTHER THREE NUCLEOTIDE BASES COULD NOT BE SYNTHESIZED IN THE SAME ENVIRONMENT.
Why? Because they would have to be formed in quite different conditions.
This means the four 'horsemen' of the RNA apocalypse could never be in the same room long enough to join together...

He glosses over this glaring catastrophic failure (i.e., lack of parts for the synthesis of an RNA chain), and skips to another absurdity:

Quote:

To make a single complete nucleotide these bases need to gain a sugar called Ribose, and a group of phosphates.

Now two more equally absurd and improbable chemical reactions are supposed to take place!

Note that the only mechanism available is raw environmental chemistry;
no MITOCHONDRIA or other partial cell-structures (i.e., factories) are yet in existence!

We have adenine, now magically joining with ribose sugar!

Where did it come from? Its not found floating around volcanoes or lightning storms. Worse, there are five different versions of Ribose, most unusable for life. Yet worse, only the beta-ribopyranose form will predominate in aqueous solution. Finally, its the d-ribose order that is needed (this refers to the chirality stereo-chemical 3-d arrangement of the carbon atom).

Remember, out in the lightning, ANYTHING could hook up to our Adenine molecule. We can only rely upon simple chemistry, and the availability of nearby chemically active agents, of which there are probably millions in an uncontrolled volcanic/lightning-storm earth.
But somehow, we luck out on the exact d-ribose that we need, coming from heaven! The author says we don't need God, but for this critical step alone we probably do!

Now, because we're in for a penny, in for a pound, we need yet another miracle! the right phosphate group hooks up next, in the right orientation and order. We have:

Quote:

In the living organism however, this process of linking the pieces in the right order takes place under an extremely controlled environment.

Out here in lightning-land, we must rely upon impossible odds of both formation, preservation, and critical timing for assembly, all with ordinary raw random chemistry in an insane invironment of wild temperature fluctuations and collisions of millions of atoms and molecules at all speeds and angles.

Of course:

Quote:

"Biochemists think they know how the phosphate group formed.

Although none of them can tell us!

Quote:

They are now trying to find out how the ribose is attached."

...because they don't know how such a superhumanly impossible feat could possibly take place 3.7 billion years ago.

Bogus Abiogenesis Examined (2)

I'll try not to pick on the petty flaws of the video, like the childish drawings
made by the author, or the perloined and poorly reproduced molecule pics.


Lets cut to the first big crock of B.S.

Quote:

In 1961 a researcher called Huan Oto left hydrogen cyanide and ammonia to stew in an aqeous solution in his laboratory under conditions very similar to those that prevailed on the primordial earth. Left alone the solution produced adenine, one of the four nucleotide bases that make up DNA.

Lets cut to the chase:

Here's a bit more complete and accurate description of the claim(s):

Quote:

Miller/Urey Experiment By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life. Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments. In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere. These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun. There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced. Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall. If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.

Now here's my take as a physicist:

These results were forged, and this series of experiments
represent some of the greatest frauds in the history of science.

No one has convincingly reproduced the results of these "experiments",
and I'm convinced that both contamination and forgery/fraud were involved.

I'll also add that the discovery of the supposed "outer space" finds is also cooked data (fraud).

Bogus Abiogenesis Examined (1)

Lets take the very opener:

Quote:

When Bill O'Reilly asked Kirk Cameron to give his best shot in proving the existence of God this is what he said: "The fact that there's a painting proves there must be a painter; The human body proves there must be a designer because of its complexity and because of the information we can see down at the DNA level" The problem for fundamentalists like Cameron is that this argument can be too easily flattened. ... so let's start by putting the 'artist and painting' myth to rest. Why can't paintings paint themselves? Simple: Because they're made of chemicals that can't replicate themselves.

This explanation is pure balderdash.
The author of the narrative is suffering from an overwhelming (for his intellect) delusion.

Paintings can't replicate themselves. That is true.
But the reason he gives is nonsense.

Its not because paintings are made of chemicals that can't replicate themselves.
The point is, NO chemical can replicate itself.
Not even RNA or DNA.

Here's why:
RNA molecules, for all their length and atom-counts,
are not complex at all in the real sense needed here.
They are actually awfully simple molecules, in terms of chemistry.
As noted, they contain patterns of only four basic building-blocks,
a simple 'data-language' in which it is believed all the genetic information is coded.

RNA molecules are not manufacturing plants,
or even the simplest machines at all.
They are semi-rigid coils that do almost nothing mechanical or chemical at all, on their own.
They have no real 'moving parts', no complex geometry beyond simple atomic arrangements, and no 'programming' in the sense of manufacturing instructions or algorithms, except in the sense
that they seem to store encoded 'information' of use to a REAL machine,
namely a complete living organism.

Thus even RNA molecules are not "self-replicating" in any meaningful sense,
unless we mean a magical one, not based on chemistry at all,
but on some other set of operating principles.
As far as the chemistry is concerned, RNA is drearily ordinary,
and unable to account for any function that the RNA strand has,
in its real context of a real self-replicating machine, namely a living cell.
Its just a piece of 'READ-ONLY MEMORY', a biological ROM chip.
Its not even a computing device, let alone a manufacturing plant.

So how is RNA really replicated?
This is done in a very real manufacturing plant,
deep inside a real living cell.
The RNA is merely the container for instructions, designs, and chemical, electromagnetic and mechanical algorithms, used in a much larger
and far more complex 'system', namely the living cell.
All its meaning, power, and ability is granted and sustained by that context,
a context so much larger and more complex than an RNA strand,
as to dwarf our very ability to record and articulate it.

From the standpoint of mere chemistry,
the RNA molecule is no different than the thousands of
other complex organic compounds in the painting.
None of the molecules under discussion have any power whatever
to replicate themselves, whether they be RNA strands from a cell,
or organic pigments on a canvas.

In fact, the comparison is stupider than this,
since the painting is literally chock-full of RNA!
The painting, from its canvas to its egg-white gesso,
carries around millions of times the RNA found in a single cell,
and actually, will be covered with many different types of living organisms,
all of which are quite capable of reproducing themselves, and even evolving.

So what is the video author talking about?

He is trying to mislead the viewer,
or else is hopelessly misled himself,
about the true nature of the RNA molecule before us,
and its true 'function', which only exists in the context of a living organism.

There is no such thing as a 'self-replicating' molecule.
RNA is one of millions of molecules which are replicated (and/or recycled)
inside a living organism, and since this is so obviously true,
neither RNA nor DNA has any 'special status' or magic.

RNA is simply one of billions of chemical compounds manufactured by living organisms. It is certainly 'replicated', but so are a billion enzymes in the liver. It is certainly reproduced, but so are millions of starch strings and fat molecules and other complex organic compounds.

The only thing unique about RNA and DNA is that these particular molecules are used for storage of INFORMATION.
Information which informs and controls the REAL machinery inside a living creature.

We may also note the remarkable, novel, almost "magic" way
that RNA and DNA are in fact reproduced, copied, replicated in living organism.

RNA acts as its own "mold", able to act as a receptor-site for other components which will make up a copy of itself.
But RNA is not itself a 'self-replicating' machine.
It only works in the context of the living organism,
wherein an environment is constantly provided and maintained,
where the components are collected, organized and transported
to the 'receptor-sites' for the assembly of a new copy.

The RNA itself is NOT a manufacturing plant:
Its only PART of an already running factory, a complete system.
Neither RNA nor DNA can survive (except in a dormant state),
let alone reproduce, without a living organism as their host.

When we look at an RNA or DNA strand, we must interpret it
in the context of its actual environment and function.
Without that environment, its just a meaningless, dead molecule,
purposeless, and paralysed, helpless and meaningless.

Suppose we had a robot capable of extracting material from the outside environment;
It could assemble copies of itself, and even had programming to
build its own parts. It was set up to make most critical components
right inside itself, like for instance ROM chips.
It could "eat" silicon and doping material, and had a little chip-making plant
built right in. It also had a 'burning' device so it could encode ROM chips,
for use in building another robot identical to itself.
If this robot dropped a ROM chip, that chip would remain inert,
lifeless and dormant, incapable of even copying itself, let alone building a robot.
Only if by accident or intent the ROM chip was plugged into another robot,
would it come to life and be part of a process to make more robots.
This is precisely the case for RNA and DNA. Its just a piece of magnetic tape,
a CD-ROM or chip. Its incapable of even playing itself, let alone making
a copy of itself.

The author of the video, by misdirection or misunderstanding,
embues RNA and DNA with magic powers it simply doesn't and cannot have.

This is chemical pop-scientism run rampant.
The result is nonsense.

Quote:

Living matter on the other hand does contain a chemical that can replicate itself.

And here is the first big lie.

Living organisms don't contain any such magical chemical.
Living organisms ARE the replicators.

Quote:

Even if God made DNA he doesn't need to intervene every time animals mate. The DNA does the job on its own.

Again, either gross misunderstanding or lying at an epic level:
The DNA doesn't do any reproducing, or replicating, the organism does.
God may not have to intervene, but the DNA does nothing at all:
its only a passive molecule which is read and copied, and used as a
copying-site by a much larger and more complex machinery, the living organism.
Its the ORGANISM that "does the job on its own" of replicating RNA/DNA,
and reproducing more copies of itself.
The only 'job' the RNA does is store critical data patterns,
and act as a passive assembly-site for a giant factory.

The individual DNA/RNA which is involved in Mitosis for instance,
is best viewed not as a complete 'factory' or replicating machine,
but rather as an elegant flexible mold and catalyst which facilitates
a process which happens coincidentally to be one that reproduces RNA/DNA.

Quote:

So the real question is, how did DNA appear?

Again a misdirected question based on ignorance:
The real question is not how did DNA appear,
but how did a living organism appear?
This is the object to which we should and must attribute
the ability of "replication", "reproduction", "maintenance", etc.,
not a mere 'car-part'/reusable mold sitting in the factory.

Quote:

How did living matter come from non living sludge?

The only honest and true question in the whole narrative so far,
and one which completely contradicts the previous question.

Bogus Abiogenesis

I'm quoting the narrative from this corny Youtube video
for pure entertainment value.

Its really quite the load of B.S.:

I'll be analysing it shortly:

___________________________________________

 The Origin of Life Made Easy  
  
When Bill O'Reilly asked Kirk Cameron to give his best shot in
proving the existence of God this is what he said:

"The fact that there's a painting proves there must be a painter;
The human body proves there must be a designer because of its complexity  and because of the information we can see down at the DNA level"

The problem for fundamentalists like Cameron is that this argument can be too easily  flattened.  In this video I want to show what scientists have actually deduced about the origins of life, so let's start by putting the 'artist and painting' myth to rest.

Why can't paintings paint themselves? 
Simple: Because they're made of chemicals that can't replicate themselves.
Living matter on the other hand does contain a chemical that can replicate itself. Even if God made DNA he doesn't need to intervene every time animals mate. The DNA does the job on its own. So the real question is, how did DNA appear?

How did living matter come from non living sludge?
Here again fundamentalists need to drop a common argument that seems to be based  on complete ignorance of current scientific hypotheses, which is this:
"Scientists believe life just popped out of nowhere."

Of course that's not what scientists believe.
Life popping out of nowhere is no better a theory
than life popping out of the hand of a deity.
So what do scientists believe about the origin of life?

Let's take this step-by-step: 
The first step involves looking at the primordial earth 4.7 billion years ago.




There it is, very wet, very warm and with an atmosphere composed of all sorts of gases;
 hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide, methane, and ammonia among them.

Step 1: Formation of Nucleotides

DNA is a long chain molecule made from just four different types of nucleotide, so the first question is where did the nucleotides come from. 

In 1961 a researcher called Huan Oto left hydrogen cyanide and ammonia
to stew in an aqeous solution in his laboratory under conditions
very similar to those that prevailed on the primordial earth.


Left alone the solution produced adenine, one of the four nucleotide bases that make up DNA.



  To make a complete nucleotide these bases need to gain a sugar called Ribose, and a group of phosphates.





Biochemist think they know how the phosphate group formed.
They are now trying to find out how the ribose is attached.



 
Step 2: Nucleotides to Polynucleotides

------------------------- >

Once nucleotides formed, the next step was to join together to make chains called polynucleotides.


 

 In the 1980s researchers found that a clay called montmorillonite, which was abundant on the primordial seafloor and in hot pools of water on land, is the perfect catalyst for this process.



 

Step 3:  Polynucleotides to RNA

 

Some of these long polynucleotide chains like ribonucleic acid or RNA are able to make copies of themselves.  The copies aren't always perfect: mistakes creep in.  But some imperfectly copied molecules would have been better adapted to the environment than others.

These successful molecules continue to replicate and pass on their traits,  while weaker or less well adapted molecules would have broken apart.

Step 4:  RNA to Protocells

As RNA molecules replicated themselves, they shared their environment with other chemicals that thrive in montmorillonite clay.




One group, called lipids, have a natural tendency to clump together, to form spherical structures called mycells.




RNA molecules that attracted these lipids,

would therefore find themselves protected inside a mycell membrane.




Because they were better protected, they better survived and replicated
more successfully.  There you have the first primitive cells.  They looked nothing like the complex cells we have today for a very good reason:  Over 3.7 billion years they've evolved. 




I'll tackle the subject of evolution in another video.




 
Step 5:  RNA to DNA

Over 100s of millions of years RNA grew more complex. 




The single-strand became a double-strand and the better-adapted DNA molecule evolved.



One of the differences between RNA and DNA is that DNA needs proteins to replicate itself.

Proteins are made of amino acids, which are often called the building blocks of life.




 
Step 6: Formation of Amino Acids

So where did the first ones come from?
No, there was no need for God:

----- >

 

 

 

 

 

 

A number of experiments using montmorillonite have produced not only amino acids, but long chains of amino acids called polypeptides.

 


Montmorillonite it turns out, is a natural breeding ground
for all kinds of complex organic chemicals.





It has to be said that this research is in its infancy and current hypotheses are nowhere near as solid as the Theory of Evolution,  which has been around for 150 years, and has overwhelming evidence to support it.

But the reality is a far cry from the idea that scientists believe life popped out of nowhere. If God did indeed create life then where did he come in? Step one?  - step two?  and why?  If the chemical process can happen on its own, why would God intervene at all?

Before I go I just want to look at a couple of other hoary old arguments that are being used, and which also show a complete ignorance of science.

"It's impossible for simple chemicals to form more complex chemicals
without intvervention."

Just because creationist websites like to pass this myth around doesn't make it true. We know it's not true.  Left alone, organic chemicals can and do polymerize, to form longer more complex chemicals.

"But this goes against the Law of Thermodynamics."

Oh that sad argument: The fact is that the natural formation of replicating chemicals doesn't conflict with any of the laws of thermodynamics.
People who make that argument need to read the law, because I suspect most of them have never done so and are just mindlessly repeating an urban myth, that's already been debunked.

As I've said we still have a lot more to learn about this process.
Researchers know that there are many more intermediate steps that we haven't  yet discovered. 

And when all of them are found, there will still be fundamentalists around
 to say, "Ah, but you can't prove that this is how life started on earth."
No, we probably never will.  But what we can say is if there's a natural process by which the first replicating molecules appeared on earth,  then we don't need to invent Gods, goddesses and other invisible deities to explain it.  Ultimately this isn't a guessing game, it's a detective trail.'  
 
_____________________________________
End of video text


-- Uploaded by potholer54 on Nov 13, 2008         

The video explains current ideas as to how life might have originated on Earth. The idea that inorganic mud can miraculously turn into cells is a claim made in the Bible and the Qu'ran, not science. What biologists are trying to do is understand how carbon-based chemicals combine to form nucleotides, the building blocks of replicating chemicals. The chemistry is complex, but it's starting to be understood, and it's not magical.

Please also see The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis by cdk007
which gives an excellent description on the latest hypotheses about cell formation. 
  
-----------------------------------------------
Okay, there's the text with some snaps from the video.

I'll critique it as time permits.