What I am pointing out is that evolution cannot be the cause of the origin of life.
Nor does the Theory of Evolution claim so. Again, refuting a claim that has not been made does not lead to anything new.
The first proof I presented is "chirality." You never replied to my question, "How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules?"
I couldn't answer it to your liking for a multitude of reasons.
It is a bit unfortunate that you go into great detail explaining something, and I'll have to politely raise my hand and say something along the lines of "It's great that you are going through the different species of wood and how they will not have the strength for this application.. But I'm using steel."
That's not fun for me (either).
I've tried to point out many times how specific mechanisms can form out of some given constraints. Evidently, the production of DNA or RNA did not just spontaneously occur from 'nothing' by a series of random events.
The answer is that random chance and natural processes cannot create proteins with thousands of "Left-handed" molecules, or create DNA with billions of "Right-handed molecules.
Sure, but maybe something else than random chance can?
I am not a biochemist, but I quickly looked something up for you:
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i18/first-nucleotides-might-formed-Earth.html
When speculating about the naturalistic origins of life on Earth, evolutionists run into a major paradox of basic biological chemistry: While water is the critical medium for all life, it also forms a chemical barrier to the formation of chains of nucleotides such as RNA and DNA that are the foundation of life. In a living creature, this is not a problem because of the complex chemistry and machinery of the cell. But for the evolutionary theorist, this creates yet one more insurmountable barrier for how nucleic acids could have spontaneously formed in the first place.
Again, the formation of life as we know it is the next question. Evolution is already covered and irrefutable. As I showed in the link above, when it comes to the matter of origin of life, we have a pretty good understanding of the events that 'must have' happened, and even a good idea on 'how', just no proof as to exactly where and when - which may be impossible to ever find out. We can however in the future do the next best thing and create a working chain ourselves from 'dead matter', to then start experimenting in seeing all the possible situations when this could happen in nature.
Another major impediment to life’s naturalistic origin is the atmospheric problem. Earth’s current atmosphere is oxidizing (i.e., oxygen rich) and prohibits the spontaneous formation of biomolecules outside the protection of a living cell.
Incorrect, see the link. Please understand that I chose an article more or less at random to make a point.
I don't know where your view/idea comes from that makes you say that what we have discovered so far is impossible.
Have you considered writing a paper on it?
If not - why?
I went to the article. This is a direct quote:
The work “demonstrates how a biologically relevant structure can spontaneously self-assemble in aqueous solution*,” says David W. Deamer, an origins-of-life researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “A similar process was likely to have occurred in the prebiotic environment as an important step toward the linear polymers that were necessary for life to begin.”
*An aqueous solution is a solution in which the solvent is water. It is usually shown in chemical equations by appending (aq) to the relevant chemical formula. For example, a solution of table salt, or sodium chloride (NaCl), in water would be represented as Na+(aq) + Cl−(aq).
When speculating about the naturalistic origins of life on Earth, evolutionists run into a major paradox of basic biological chemistry: While water is the critical medium for all life, it also forms a chemical barrier to the formation of chains of nucleotides such as RNA and DNA that are the foundation of life.
Shalom, Steven
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Wasn't the main point of the article exactly that? That they found nucleotides form in a water-based solution?
Once again, things don't magically come into existence. The article points out that this is a plausible mechanism at work that predates RNA and DNA. The question is, what happens when all these nucleotides are around that didn't exist before?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The components necessary for life can be formed only by certain chemical reactions occurring in a specific environment. Water is an unreactive environment for all naturally-occurring chemicals. In a watery environment, amino acids and nucleotides cannot combine to form the polymeric backbone required for proteins and DNA/RNA.
In the laboratory, the only way to cause a reaction to form a polymer is to have the chemical components activated and then placed in a reactive environment. The process must be completely water-free, since the activated compounds would react with water. How could proteins and DNA/RNA be formed in some primordial, watery soup if the natural components are unreactive and if the necessary activated components cannot exist in water?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't know what "naturally occuring" means. The point is to show what preconditions can produce what. In this case, they were able to produce nucleotides in water. With nucleotides, other reaction may occur depending on the environment.
You may be forgetting the dynamics of the environment. Something that is in water doesn't have to remain in water - waves, tides and spray comes to mind.
We can't jump into conclusions on what happened and why, we need to understand every step first. And the best way to do so is to try create life. We all know that it is just a matter of time.
Like I said, by throwing things around. For example, something along the lines of this:
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50699/title/Building-Blocks-of-Life-May-Have-Formed-in-Water-Droplets/
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"Naturally occurring" means existing by nature and without man's assistance as opposed to "synthesizing" to make (something) by synthesis, especially chemically. There are 93 naturally occurring chemical elements.
There are 118 known elements (in this context, "known" means observed well enough, even from just a few decay products, to have been differentiated from other elements). Of these 118 elements, 94 occur naturally on Earth. The other 24 have been synthesized -- they were man-made.
Plastic is material consisting of any of a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic organic compounds that are malleable and so can be molded into solid objects BUT do nor occur naturally, they are man-made.
The experiments that you have shared with me -- are scientists trying to synthesize polymers through processes that naturally cannot occur. Yes, they can be synthesized but could never naturally evolve.
Earth’s atmosphere is oxidizing (i.e., oxygen rich) and naturally prohibits the spontaneous formation of biomolecules outside the protection of a living cell.
Water forms a natural chemical barrier to the formation of chains of nucleotides such as RNA and DNA that are the foundation of life.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit