"Stephen E. Jones" writes
in message <200010012307.HAA08687@muzak.iinet.net.au>:
> Reflectporites
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:12:01 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> There is no doubt that bacteria consume "proteins". We are
> talking about whether *modern day* bacteria would prevent life
> from arising again. That is , whether modern day bacteria would
> consume the *precursors* of life, namely raw amino and nucleic
> acids, so that life could not ever arise again.
Well, since modern day bacteria not only break down proteins
but amino acids and nucleic acids, it seems quite likely.
<snip>
> Anyway, it seems that only the chemical called "vitamin B12" can
> metabolise (i.e. eat) amino acids:
That's vitamin B12's role in the human digestive process, yes
(although I suspect it's oversimplification to say that's the
only way amino acids can be metabolized in humans). However,
I'm not sure what this has to do with bacteria. I know B6 is
important in certain bacterial processes but I haven't
heard that B12 is critical for all amino acid breakdown.
As I wrote before (which apparently you've ignored) is that
putrefactive bacteria do the following conversions through
decarboxylation: lysine -> cadaverine, arginine -> agmatine,
tyroseine -> tyramine, orithine -> putrescine, histidine ->
histamine through decarboxylation. Yes, lysine, arginine,
tyroseine, orithine, and histidine are amino acids.
Let's take one particular example, B. cadaveris. This bacterium
creates a lysine decarboxylase enzyme which breaks down lysine
into CO2 and cadaverine. B12 is not a participant.
<snip>
> So it seems that in today's world amino acids could accumulate so
> long as "a few species of microorganisms" which could make vitamin
> B12 did not find them, and the chance of that might be quite good
> because of these "few species of microorganisms" that can make
> vitamin B12, "Many of these live symbiotically in the large intestines
> of animals".
No. Again, how do you think things in nature decay if the process
requires ubiquitous B12?
> >SJ>According to the above text on page 274, there are *both* aerobic and
> >>anaerobic bacteria in human and animal intestinal tracts.
>
> TH>That sounds right to me.
>
> So Tedd's statement above that "The gut ... doesn't have an appreciable
> quantity of O2 in it" is false in the original context of his statement (or
> implication) that only anaerobic bacteria lived in the gut?
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there zero aerobic bacteria
in the gut. The bulk of bacteria in the gut are anaerobic, however,
and they survive because there is not an appreciable quantity of
"air" in the gut.
> I have already pointed out that "dead plant and animal matter" are
> not raw amino acids. They are complex organic compounds that the
> bacteria's "chemotaxis" detects. As I pointed out, if the bacteria's
> chemotaxis detected raw amino and nucleic acids it might try to
> cannibalise itself or other bacteria nearby.
You're saying bacteria are raw amino and nucleic acids? I thought
they were complex proteins just like all other life.
> As I pointed out, if the bacteria's chemotaxis
> detected raw amino and nucleic acids it might try to cannibalise itself or
> other bacteria nearby.
Two flaws:
1) bacteria are not "raw" amino and nucleic acids
(Perhaps you should define what you mean by "raw" so we can be clear.)
2) By your logic, a pack of carnivores would eat each other
as often as they would prey animals. However, they don't
because there are other evolutionary mechanisms not related
to simple food detection that prevent cannibalization. It
is reasonable to expect that similar mechanisms exist in
bacteria.
> TH>You don't really think that we'll find a big pile of
> >amino acids in some unfortunate's coffin after the appropriate
> >decomposition interval?
> Well since bacteria are composed of nucleic acids and proteins
> (which are in turn composed of "amino acids), if the "coffin" was
> sealed, and if the "appropriate...interval" was long enough for
> the bacteria to have all died, then yes, I would expect to find
> "amino acids" (not necessarily "a big pile" since all living things
> are mostly air and water),
No, live bacteria will feed on fragments of dead bacteria.
(Recall this was one hypothetical origin of nucleic acid
exchange).
<snip>
> >SJ>Is there any evidence that bacteria eat non-biological amino
> >acids?
>
> TH>Well, point me to a source of non-biological amino acids and
> >I'll check.
>
> It was Tedd's point about "amino acids that do not occur in
> life", not mine.
>
> I assumed he meant "non-biological amino acids" but I guess he
> could have mean "biological amino acids" that were not part of
> any living organism, i.e. `free-standing'?
No, I understood you to be talking about non-biological amino
acids -- i.e. those amino acids that do not occur biologically.
The best way to check if bacteria eat those kinds of amino acids
would be first to find a source.
<snip>
[Prebiotic soup stuff. Stephen quotes Denton:
"Yet rocks of great antiquity have been examined over the past
two decades and in none of them has any trace of abiotically
produced organic compounds been found." ]
> TH>Further research appears to prove this wrong. See
> >http://www.uta.edu/geology/geol1425earth_system/images/gaia_chapter_10/
Early_Life.htm which indicates that there *is* signs of organic
> >material in those rocks.
<snip>
> The short answer is that Tedd is misreading this.
No, I'm not. Denton uses his statement to pose a serious
argument against abiogenesis: the earliest rocks show no sign
of a "soup". However, this argument is flawed in light of later
research because early rocks actually show that life was already
started. It remains reasonable to suppose that life would
consume or contaminate any proposed prebiotic soup.
Denton's argument shows evidence of *no soup*. However, the
evidence now shows *no* evidence of no soup. See the difference?
<snip>
> That is, it is a report of the remains of life that was *already
> in existence*, not of a *pre*-biotic soup.
A minor point next to the major point I was making,
as I explain above.
> In fact it makes it harder to claim that there was a prebiotic
> soup but it eroded away. If they can find traces of biologically
> produced products 3.85 bya, then they should be able to find
> traces of a whole *ocean* of abiotic precursors to life, like
> the large quantities of the tarry chemicals that ar e the
> by-product of Miller-Urey type experiments, which allegedly
> existed just before this, and in fact would have continued on
> for a long time after since much of it is not consumable by
> organisms.
Doesn't follow, given 1) we don't have rocks older than 3.85
bya to check (to my knowledge), 2) life forms would likely
consume or contaminate any such prebiotic soup. Remember, these
rocks have gone through major heat processes. Detecting the
existence or non-existence of organic compounds appears to be
limited to detecting the existence or nonexistence of carbon
signatures. I'm not sure you can easily rule out a
sort of "biotic" soup from that.
> >SJ>*If* the origin of life was fully naturalistic it should be
> >one of the *easiest* problems of evolution to solve. That is
> > because, if it was solely by undirected natural chemical
> > processes, there is only a limited number of these (though
> > large) and it should be fully deterministic and therefore
> > completely reproducible in a laboratory.
> TH>That doesn't follow logically. 1) the existence of advanced
> >life now very likely eliminates all evidence of the proper
> >configuration of environments and chemicals;
>
> It is interesting how the evidence to decisively test Darwinist
> claims is always missing?
Non sequitur. We're not talking about Darwinist claims, we're
talking about the ubiquitity of life and the fact that bacteria
have had billions of years to "learn" how to break down amino
acids.
> But what *Tedd* claims "doesn't follow logically". Why should
> "*all* evidence" be eliminated?
There is no elimination of evidence here that I can see.
> The living world is full of `living fossils' that have hardly
> changed in the fossil record. There are fundamental biochemical
> processes that are conserved across the whole of biology.
Yes, that's true. How does it relate to what we're talking
about, though?
> TH>2) the number of configurations of environments and chemicals
> >is still astronomical.
>
> Again what *Tedd* claims "doesn't follow logically". The "number
> of configurations of environments and chemicals" *on the early
> Earth* is *not* "astronomical". It is *large* but it is not
> "astronomical".
I'm sticking to "astronomical". There are literally billions
of molecules known, each of which may play a subtle part in
possible origins of life.
> Any large problem can be broken down into manageable components
> and tested, and those that fail can be eliminated. And any
> limited successes can be zeroed in on. With the accumulated
> knowledge how molecules work and with the simulating power of
> supercomputers, they should be able to do it, "*If* the origin
> of life was fully naturalistic."
Yes. I figure another 10-20 years should give us a pretty
good idea.
<snip>
> In fact that is what they have been doing these last
> 40+ years. The problem is that *none* of the possibilities
> work. Which is good evidence that the origin of life on the
> early Earth was *not* fully naturalistic.
No, that's currently just an argument from ignorance.
We've had more than 40 years to cure cancer and we haven't
done it.
> [...]
> >SJ>I regard Tedd's dragging in of the common cold as just a
> > red-herring. There is little or no connection between curing
> > the common cold and demonstrating an abiotic origin of life.
> TH>The only connection I wish to stress is that they both seem
> to be simple problems which turn out to be difficult to solve.
> >No red-herring.
> And as I pointed out they *are* "simple problems which turn out"
> *not* "to be difficult to solve" just that they are not *worth*
> solving. They already *can* "solve" influenza (which is the same
> family of virii), because that is *worth* solving.
False. They can't solve the influenza problem currently (you
claim they've developed the perfect flu vaccine now?) much like
they can't cure cancer, AIDS, or any of a variety of virus or
bacteria induced diseases. The problem is more complicated than
it appeared to be 50 years ago.
> TH>Heh, post something up to date, not 12 years out of date!
>
> This is another ploy that Darwinists use. They always assume
> that the passage of time resolves their problems automatically,
> so that all they have to do is ignore a problem long enough and
> they can declare out "out of date":
No, I'm not declaring the problem out of date, I'm declaring
your summary of the problem out of date. 12 years out of
date to be exact.
[Davies:
> >Having spent a year or two researching the field
> I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in
> >our understanding. To be sure, we have a good idea of the
> >where and the when of life's origin, but we are a very long
> >way from comprehending the how. This gulf in understanding
> >is not merely ignorance about certain technical details,
> >it is a major conceptual lacuna. I am not suggesting that
> >life's origin was a supernatural event, only that we are
> >missing something very fundamental about the whole business.]
I agree with that. I recently posted a research URL here that
goes along that lines -- proposing lipid molecules as a potential
origin for early replicators -- i.e. a radically new approach
to origins of life. Whether that particular approach will pan
out remains to be seen.
> The only problem is that they assume it has to be "new"
> *naturalistic* "idea s"!
Yup, there's so many of them to test.
> >SJ>The only way to "eliminate" possibilities is to test them
> >all out. There are probably thousands of labs across the world
> > who could divide-and-conquer this problem.
>
> TH>Don't forget that the availability of research grants severely
> >constrains this approach.
>
> Especially when trying the same old naturalistic "approach" has
> failed!
True, 1) it's a hard problem with no immediate solution on the
horizon, and 2) research grants seem to be a little skewed
towards endeavors that will eventually turn a profit for industry.
> Virtually all the "public funding" on OoL these days in in NASA's
> budget and that's why it has this "alien-life form" spin. It is
> even starting to be criticised by other scientists:
[New Scientists Editorial:
> NASA needs to broaden its aims and find other ways to capture
> the imagination. If it doesn't, it risks getting lost in space. ]
Yeah, let's hope twice bitten, twice shy.
<snip>
> The point about "abiogenesis" being "a threat to religious
> belief" began with materialistic-naturalistic science assuming
> it was simple and that would validate their whole
> materialistic-naturalistic program.
Nah, science is skewed towards naturalistic processes because
those are the ones that work. If supernatural process worked
as well, science would consider those as well.
<snip>
> Yet they cannot escape now. If the origin of life requires
> intelligent input , then the whole materialistic-naturalistic
> program would collapse:
Nah, it just moves the natural origin of life to another part
of the universe.
[On abiogenetic research]
> TH>Exactly. There is a great deal of material there that you
> can't simply dismiss out of hand because you don't know enough
> >about early Earth conditions to rule it out.
>
> I don't "dismiss out of hand" or "rule ...out" *anything* - I
> am not a Darwinist!
>
> If Tedd wants to claim something, then let him do so and post
> his *evidence* so *everyone* on this List can see it.
I've already made my claim and supported it. There is a
great deal of material out there that you can't simply dismiss
out of hand because you (the generic sense of "you") don't know
enough about early Earth conditions to rule it out. Thus,
you can't claim we know too much about abiogenesis.
> TH>We do *not* know too much about abiogenesis, we know too
> little and that is amply demonstrated by the variety of approaches
> >being attempted, suggested and often rejected.
> Tedd would need to support this claim from the scientific
> literature otherwise it sounds too much like something he just
> made up or has accepted uncritically from an unreliable source.
You really think there *aren't* a variety of approaches to
abiogenesis being attempted, suggested and often rejected?
> I am not claiming that Tedd does not really believe this, but
> there is no claim that I am aware of in the OoL literature that
> "we know too little" "about abiogenesis".
It's obvious we know too little. Anytime you have two theories
to explain one phenomenon, we know too little. Look at the
history of science for gosh sakes.
> Indeed in a recent book co-authored by a Professor of Biochemistry
> (Weber) claims that because of what we know about the molecular
> level, "it is now overwhelmingly likely that life...will be
> produced and replicated under laboratory conditions within a
> fairly short time":
5-10 years, perhaps? That seems a tad optimistic to me mainly
because such predictions in any area of human-oriented science
seem to fail. Whatever designed humans, be it evolution or an
intelligent force, did it in a very counter-intuitive manner.
> The *real* problem is not that OoL researchers don't know enough,
> but that they know *too much* and on naturalistic philosophical
> grounds refuse to acknowledge what is staring them in the face!
> That is, the origin of life was not fully naturalistic but required
> the input of intelligence.
No, I disagree. The number of environments combined with
potential chemical interactions is astronomical. Now we're
discovering that critical compounds may come from space: comets,
meterorites, etc., and that only adds to the search space.
What other area of science seeks to elucidate one particular
molecular reaction that might or might not have taken place 4
billion year ago? Talk about a needle in a hay stack.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 14:06:47 EDT