Now that you have the obligatory insult laid at my feet....you may presume that I have some knowledge in the area of chemistry. But you may also assume I am ignorant in many areas...of that I plead guilty.
We will bypass the fundamentals on covalent bonds, ionic bonds, electrovalent bonding, and nucleosynthesis. Presume I have a working knowledge there.
Molecular oxygen and carbon you account for via nucleosysthesis. Then you hand off the ball to the physists as to the origin of Hydrogen, helium (not mentioned) and subatomic particles which must have existed very early on in that event which you referenced as the Big bang. The fundamental question which I originally asked was,....As we know, and you affirm an origin to the universe (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc), and given that science does not deny, yes, it affirms that the universe came to be from nothing, (the eternity of the universe has thoroughly been scientifically dismissed-(see Borde, Guth, Vilkin) please account for the Cause of the big bang. Everything which comes to be has a cause....the universe came to be....therefore the universe had a Cause. (Please, before you go into the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Copenhagen Model, the above referenced authority has disposed of it). This was my question to you.
Next, the early earth did NOT contain free O2 and early organisms did not respire the way all eukaryotes and many prokaryotes do now. All of the O2 currently in the atmosphere is there because of biological activity.
Therefore you say these early organisms were anaerobes. I will assume you will agree with this. Do anaerobes give off elemental O2 as a byproduct of their physiological process (For now I will not ask you where and how the enzyme process survived an atmosphere in which was highly reduced.) So how did they respire? BUT, before you answer that question how did this 'primitive life' come to be?
Now, when I speak of those chemical molecules carrying tangible information, I am being absolutely literal.
Tanglible...ok. I understand that word. Now INFORMATION....we need to look at that word. That is an interesting word. Is it a 'piece of knowledge', as Webster indicates or, as Websters also indicates, is it 'the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects'? By this last definition it indicates a string of characters, specifically which indicate a particular outcome or performs a communication function. So DNA contains particular sequences to a specific effect. What humans recognize as 'information' always originates from mind or consciousness when applied to our technology. The information in the books of Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Shakespeare originated in the minds of those men. In nature the only place we find 'information' is in our biology, indeed in the cells of every living organism. So my question is...."How did this information arise?" Who or what wrote this book of life? It seeems to me that DNA is the medium which holds the information, not the the information itself. DNA is like a CD. It is not the music recorded by the Os and 1s sequenced in the CD. Who wrote the song? What wrote the song? As you know you can go into the lab and extract the molecule DNA (or pieces of it) put it in any medium which you desire, and you will not produce an organism. There is all the information you need to produce an organism, but there is no execution of production.
Thank you for the link to the video.
Now that you have the obligatory insult laid at my feet....you may presume that I have some knowledge in the area of chemistry. But you may also assume I am ignorant in many areas...of that I plead guilty.
Let me go back to the post I was answering. You said, Please explain how a solute containing Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and hydrogen will spontaneously large quantities of organic molecules according to physical laws. That is not a question I would expect to see from someone who has a basic knowledge of chemistry. No one who has studied chemistry would ever question the fact that chemical reactions proceed spontaneously. And so, when I remarked that it would be easier to answer if you had some knowledge of chemistry, I meant exactly that, no insult intended. It can be incredibly difficult to explain highly technical matters to someone who doesn't have the background.
We will bypass the fundamentals on covalent bonds, ionic bonds, electrovalent bonding, and nucleosynthesis. Presume I have a working knowledge there.
Do you know that ionic bonding = electrovalent bonding? Chemists, at least in the U.S., use the term "ionic" bonding almost exclusively; I have never heard the term "electrovalent" used.
Then you hand off the ball to the physists as to the origin of Hydrogen, helium (not mentioned) and subatomic particles which must have existed very early on in that event which you referenced as the Big bang. The fundamental question which I originally asked was,....As we know, and you affirm an origin to the universe (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc), and given that science does not deny, yes, it affirms that the universe came to be from nothing, (the eternity of the universe has thoroughly been scientifically dismissed-(see Borde, Guth, Vilkin) please account for the Cause of the big bang. Everything which comes to be has a cause....the universe came to be....therefore the universe had a Cause.
Actually, whether the universe is eternal or it sprang into being from some means (the big bang?), is really irrelevant to the process of evolution. Chemistry acts according to physical law in either case, and chemical reactions form the basis of the evolutionary process as we scientists observe it within the course of our everyday work.
Therefore you say these early organisms were anaerobes. I will assume you will agree with this. Do anaerobes give off elemental O2 as a byproduct of their physiological process (For now I will not ask you where and how the enzyme process survived an atmosphere in which was highly reduced.) So how did they respire? BUT, before you answer that question how did this 'primitive life' come to be?
Of course the early organisms were anaerobes; that's what the fossil record indicates from billions of years ago. No, they did not produce free O2; O2 is not a product of respiration. Early organisms, like modern anaerobic organisms, used atoms/molecules other than O2 as the final electron acceptor in the respirative process. Instead of generating energy through the citric acid cycle, they used various fermentation pathways. Finally, the enzymes of anaerobes are adapted to the anaerobic environment, just as the enzymes of aerobes or facultative anaerobes are adapted to oxidizing environments. Since proteins can have many different chemical characteristics, organisms can adapt to an incredible variety of environments.
As for how primitive life came to be, I believe there are hypotheses about the form of that life, but no one has definitively answered that question yet. The answer to that question doesn't affect what we know about evolution in any case, because evolution concerns the mechanisms of how species change over time and doesn't really address how all life began.