What Defines an Organism? Biologists Say 'Purpose.'

ICR News ^ | December 10, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[metmom]

Actually as temp goes up, the rate of reaction increases

Poorly worded there.

I know that.

However, presuming that the amount of reactants isn't unlimited, which it wouldn't be, the reaction will always decrease as it progresses as the reactants are used up, no matter what the temperature is.

[xcamel]

And your advanced degrees in paleobiophysics came from exactly where?

(probably the same BS* website you just cut-and-pasted that creationist tripe from)

"The Miller-Urey experiment remains the subject of scientific debate. Scientists continue to explore the nature and composition of Earth's primitive atmosphere and thus, continue to debate the relative closeness of the conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment (e.g., whether or not Miller's application of electrical current supplied relatively more electrical energy than did lightning in the primitive atmosphere). Subsequent experiments using alternative stimuli (e.g., ultraviolet light) also confirm the formation of amino acids from the gases present in the Miller-Urey experiment. During the 1970s and 1980s, astrobiologists and astrophyicists, including American physicist Carl Sagan, asserted that ultraviolet light bombarding the primitive atmosphere was far more energetic that even continual lightning discharges. Amino acid formation is greatly enhanced by the presence of an absorber of ultraviolet radiation such as the hydrogen sulfide molecules (H2S) also thought to exist in the early Earth atmosphere.

Although the establishment of the availability of the fundamental units of DNA, RNA and proteins was a critical component to the investigation of the origin of biological molecules and life on Earth, the simple presence of these molecules is a long step from functioning cells. Scientists and evolutionary biologists propose a number of methods by which these molecules could concentrate into a crude cell surrounded by a primitive membrane."

Bonner, J. T. First Signals: The Evolution of Multicellular Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Lodish, H., et. al. Molecular Cell Biology. 4th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co., 2000.

Kerridge J.F. "Formation and Processing of Organics in the Early Solar System." Space Sci Rev. 90(1999):275-88.

Miller SL, Urey HC, Oro J. "Origin of Organic Compounds on the Primitive Earth and in Meteorites." J Mol Evol. 9 (1976):59-72.

[UCANSEE2]

I know. What or who’s to say that Jupiter and Saturn don’t have, or are not in the process of producing ‘life’(organisms)?

It would appear that planets that have less of a substantial atmosphere (like Mars) have less lightening, and also seem to have no life (that we can tell).

We are pretty sure the Earth’s moon has none at all, and we know it has absolutely no atmosphere, and nobody has ever reported any lightening.

[Texas Songwriter]

Where did the Ribose come from to fit into the space generated uracil to generate Ribonucleic acid? As you must know the 1/2 live of uracil is about 12 years, adenosine and guanine - about 1 year, and cytosine about 19 days if held at 100 degrees centigrade. I wonder, though where the ATPase and ATP became available to synthesize in the ribosome the - over 200 small to medium sized proteins which biologists say is the minimum number to comport with the most genetically primitive life form. It is the details which must be addressed.

[Texas Songwriter]

adenosine - mistake -

I meant adenine (details)

[Hank Kerchief]

” Evolution flatly rejects the creations of life

‘Rejects’ isn’t the correct word. Evolution is like looking at a map of how to drive from Phoenix to Dallas. That map has nothing to do with the laying down of the asphalt that makes up the road you drive on. It is simply what is involved in getting from point a to point b. Way too many people mess up the debate when they try to condemn the map because it doesn’t tell you how the asphalt on the road was made.”

Not that I care what you think, but I do appreciate your providing an example of exactly why I could never accept any current so-called evolutionary argument. They6 all make the same kind of disingenuous arguments as yours.

Do you accept evolution? Do you accept that life was created? Do you see any contradiction in these views?

I do not expect an honest answer. But I would be interested in the answer to this question. Why would you care that I absolutely cannot accept any of the evolutionary arguments? I’m not a creationist, and I have no truck with so-called intelligent design. I just don’t believe the pseudo-science of “evolution” has any of the answers to origins of life or its diversity.

Hank

[mnehring]

Do you accept evolution? Do you accept that life was created?

Ignoring the snide comments; responding to the only serious part of that question, the answer is Yes and Yes. One is the method of the other.

[mnehring]

I just don’t believe the pseudo-science of “evolution” has any of the answers to origins of life or its diversity.

Evolution's study isn't in the origins, that is abiogenesis, a different science. As for diversity, that is interesting because even the Young Earthers argue for microevolution as why we see the diversity of life after the great flood. Take the few thousand years after that where they get the diversity is claimed sprung from micro and think about with that rate, what could have happened in the millions of years prior.

As to, do I see a contradiction? Absolutely not. As I said, one is the method of the other.

[Texas Songwriter]

Just so I understand you...are you saying that a gymnosperm is sentient and ‘desires’ (teleology) to reproduce? I don’t need a lesson in life cycle biology, but I am interested in your botanical expertice regarding your assertion as applied to any plant.

[Texas Songwriter]

I understand your need to change the meaning of words, but I am well aware of the meaning of the word “moment”. Democrats change the meanings of words, use euphemisms to explain or explain away that which is.

[Texas Songwriter]

Diversion, ad hominem,....O.K. I am all of the bad things you can thing of....I am guilty. Now, will you answer my questions or continue to obfuscate?

[UCANSEE2]

For me, the identical twins failed to be identical.

Perhaps because 'identical' is being used (in reference to 'twins') metaphorically and not scientifically.

[xcamel]

Ask one and I might consider it.

Otherwise I simply refuted your claim of Miller-Urey experiment “abject failure” and included necessary citations.

Obfuscation seems to be your parlay, not mine.

[Hank Kerchief]

“Earth itself it life. Life has always been here.”

No, the earth is not “life.” But you could be right that life has always been here, or at least always have been in the univers, if not on this particular planet.

I don’t think that is what you meant, however. Perhaps you could make it clearer.

Hank

[Texas Songwriter]

.....I simply refuted your claim of Miller-Urey experiment

At least you are consistent. All of your remarks are simply opinion, an not based in science.

[Hank Kerchief]

“Perhaps because ‘identical’ is being used (in reference to ‘twins’) metaphorically and not scientifically.”

No, it’s meant “scientifically,” to mean they have the exact same DNA, as opposed to fraternal twins, who do not. Identical DNA does not produce identical results.

Hank

[xcamel]

Nice try - remember words mean things -

Epic Fail.

[stormer]

Kind of like the whole 6 day thing?

[Texas Songwriter]

Stanley L. Miller1, Harold C. Urey1 and J. Oró2 (1) Department of Chemistry, University of California, 92037 San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA (2) Departments of Biophysical Sciences and Chemistry, University of Houston, 77004, Texas, USA Summary The role and relative contributions of different forms of energy to the synthesis of amino acids and other organic compounds on the primitive earth, in the parent bodies or carbonaceous chondrites, and in the solar nebula are examined. A single source of energy or a single process would not account for all the organic compounds synthesized in the solar system. Electric discharges appear to produce amino acids more efficiently than other sources of energy and the composition of the synthesized amino acids is qualitatively and quantitatively similar to those found in the Murchison meteorite. Ultraviolet light is also likely to have played a major role in prebiotic synthesis. Although the energy in the sun's spectrum that can be absorbed by the major constituents of the primitive atmosphere is not large, reactive trace components such as H2S and formaldehyde absorb at longer wavelengths where greater amounts of energy are available and produce amino acids by reactions involving hot hydrogen atoms. The thermal reaction of CO + H2 + NH3 on Fischer-Tropsch catalysts generates intermediates that lead to amino acids and other organic compounds that have been found in meteorites. However, this synthesis appears to be less efficient than electric discharges and to require a special set of reaction conditions. It should be emphasized that after the reactive organic intermediates are generated by the above processes, the subsequent reactions which produce the more complet biochemical compounds are low temperature homogenous reactions occurring in an aqueous environment.

What is the point you are making? Stanley Miller concluded in 1998 that "a high temperature origin of life involving these compounds (RNA bases) are unlikely (Miller and Levy, "The stability of the RNA Base; Shapiro, "A Simpler Origin of LIfe."Miller further concluded in the same publication that of the four bases cytosine has the shortest half-life even at low temperatures and raises the possibility tha the 'GC pair' may not have been used in the first genetic material." Miller himself refuted his own early experimentation....his words, not mine.

[Texas Songwriter]

Nice try - remember words mean things - Epic Fail.Ad hominem again. Again you will not address the issue.