Login

Join for Free!
119197 members


Flaws of Life in a Tube

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Flaws of Life in a Tube

Postby Tomn » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:17 pm

I will simply list the flaws of life in a tube. I encourage debate, although I cannot understand how you can debate the flaws of an experiment which are sealed in time and unchangeable.

1)This experiment was done without the presence of oxygen.
-oxygen is needed to support life. therefore, how can life exist in a tube without oxygen? I would appreciate if you could explain how.

2)This experiment was done with the presence of tar (85%)
-i would like everyone to consider the tar pits. which, when living things stepped into them, they became fossilized in mid-movement. I would like to refer specifically to a elephant that was frozen in an epic still life, where the trunk is pointing in the air, presumably above the surface of the tar, while it is attempting to breathe.

3)This experiment only synthesized amino acids and simple proteins
-of the amount of amino acids synthesized, it was about 50-50 right and left handed amino acids. Life uses almost 100% left handed amino acids.

4)The simple proteins synthesized were not the beginning of DNA
-the proteins used in DNA are a bit more complex that the proteins synthesized. Also, DNA is an interviewing of a mass amount of guanine, thiamine, cytosine, and adenine. So much so that when unraveled, it extends form the earth 'till the moon. However, there was nowhere near the amount of this material produced in this tube.

This is much more than is needed to show that this experiment was flawed and does not reproduce, in any fashion, the origins of the theory of evolution. The massive majority of evolutionists in the scientific community has yet to properly reproduce the processes which are stated in the theory of evolution to have occurred. If you do know of any lab reproductions of evolution, I would like to hear about it so that I may correct myself.
Attachments
2828710_f248.jpg
2828710_f248.jpg (18 KiB) Viewed 21020 times
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Postby aptitude » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:52 am

Are you referring to the Miller-Urey experiments?
aptitude
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:58 am

Postby JackBean » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:37 am

so, you want to compare experiment in a small tube with whole-planet-size "experiment" (No 4)?

Well, again and again, you anti-evolutionarists are fighting againt evolution by focusing on the origin of life, but you do not realize, that these two things are basically independent.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm


Re: Flaws of Life in a Tube

Postby scottie » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:25 pm

Jackbean
Well, again and again, you anti-evolutionarists are fighting againt evolution by focusing on the origin of life, but you do not realize, that these two things are basically independent.


Sorry but you are wrong.
These two are not independent of each other.

The most basic form of life is a single cell prokaryote or archaea.
Nothing below these are considered live.

These are the most basic form of species and it is from these that all other forms of life evolved, according to evolutionary theory. This common ancestry is a fundamental pillar.

Darwin's original narrative is entitled "Origin of Species.."
The origin of life and the origin of species are one and the same thing.
scottie
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:41 pm

Postby Tomn » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:07 am

aptitude: yes, the Miller-Urey experiments.

Jackbean: For one, No.4 is only a fourth of the argument. How can life develope in a tube of tar, without oxygen? He synthesized simple proteins without oxygen. Life needs oxygen.

Jackbean, a portion of evolution states that the very first forms of life came from the sea as a result of the chemical slosh (chemical revolution). It sais that prokaryotes developed, then eukaryotes, then multicellular eukaryotes (biological revolution). This is found in my Miller science book. Obviously, this is the origin of life. And tagging off of scottie, Darwin's name for evolution was the "Origin of Species".
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Postby canalon » Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:23 am

Is oxygen really necessary for life. Really? And what about all that bacteria that are strictly anaerobic and cannot survive in presence of oxygen?
And survival (or lack thereof) of complex organisms in tar is not related to the survival of prokaryotes in the same environment. Bacteria can survive in tar, use it, degrade it (albeit slowly) and multiply in it. So the fact that a mammoth is not happy in a tar pit is irrelevant about the ability of tar to sustain life.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Tomn » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:03 pm

In reference to the presence of tar: tar does not represent the majority of the conditions around the world. The tar pits are rare to California. It is not an accurate representation of life on Earth.

Yes, there are anaerobic bacteria. However, how can organisms who need and produce oxygen come from a bacteria that does not need or produce oxygen? This is impossible. Also, where in nature has the evolution of anaerobic bacteria been observed to havecome out of tar?

In addition, the molecules synthesized were not representatives of the beginning of DNA. DNA is much more complex and is produced in much larger amounts. Also, the amino acids produced were about 50-50 left and right handed amino acids. Life uses almost 100% left. This was not an accurate representation of life.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Postby JackBean » Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:37 pm

but you must consider that you are not thinking about present-day organisms, but ancient pre-organisms, which had no idea about oxygen in air, but were kind of adapted to the ancient enviroment. However, later one of them started to produce the killing oxygen (it was probably by-product of a metabolism) and thus had to evolve defence against it. Later on, we learned, how to use it to have more efficient metabolism.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby Tomn » Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:08 pm

I would appreciate if you could find evidence, not conjecture, to show that "ancient pre-organisms" did not need oxygen and could be killed by oxygen. Until then, I will say that this is false.

Also, how did organisms that did not use oxygen develop organisms that used oxygen?
Also did these "ancient pre-organisms" develop from the chemical slosh? If not, how did they develop? Where did "ancient pre-organisms" come from?
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Postby aptitude » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:54 am

Oxygen is not required for the synthesis of proteins or nucleic acids in any way. It is required only for aerobic respiration.

Also, the first organisms on earth were not heterotrophic, they were autotrophic. They were probably chemoautotrophic rather than photoautotrophic and evolved in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, but they did not in any way require O2. In fact, O2 was probably poisonous to the organisms due to its oxidizing power.

The tar pits that you have used in your point #2 have nothing to do with the Miller-Urey experiments.

As for point #4, the amount of DNA in a typical human cell stretches out for 2 meters, not "from the earth till the moon". The first organisms had nowhere near this amount of DNA (or may have lacked DNA altogether). However, it has been conclusively shown that amino acids, poteins, nucleic acids, and other biomolecules can be synthesized in large amounts near deep-sea hydrothermal vents in modified Miller-Urey experiments. In recent analysis of the vials produced by the experiments, far more biochemicals were uncovered than previously thought, including 23 amino acids rather than just 5.

Also acknowledge the fact that the Miller-Urey experiments are only a small part of the extensive amount of research on abiogenesis. This includes experiments done by Wachtershauser, Fox, and Eigen, along with many others, which uncover new evidence and provides new models. These include new models to explain homochirality in biological systems, which you are arguing in point 3.

Your (rather primitive) argument is thus flawed on many accounts.
aptitude
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:58 am

Postby Tomn » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:34 pm

1)The problem with the first organisms evolving at thermal vents, is that they need to produce organisms that can move away from those thermal vents. Why would these organisms need to evolve if the vents arent going away, or if they have no predator? There is nothing to coax the adaptation of being able to move away from vents.

How can organisms well accustomed to vents produce organisms that do not need those vents?

Also, if O2 is poisonous to them, then the organisms evolving from that would also be susceptible to this. Also, how can organisms that dont need oxygen and are killed by oxygen produce organisms that produce oxygen and are not poisoned by oxygen? Also, if this is where oxygen came from, how did the early organisms know or create an element that did not exist on earth?

2)In the Miller-Urey experiments, their tube contained 85% tar. The tar pits contain tar. The tar pits encased life at the instant it stepped into it. Even if a complex organism with complex organelles (cell) could develop from the random, unorchestrated arrangement of chemicals, that life would be encased in tar.

If this is the result, then the sea should be a bunch of tar instead of water. I understand that some microorganisms can break down tar, but at what speed and into what do they develop it?

3)Still, in the Miller-Urey experiment, it produced 50-50 left and right hand amino acids. Again, life uses almost 100% left handed. This is not an accurate representation of life. Obviously, this fact cannot be avoided. You did not talk about it in you previous account. What is your take on it?

4)You are referring to experiments of which I had no knowledge of. If these experiments are such convincing proof, then why havent they been made as famous or more famous than life in a tube? If they are so convincing, can you please cite specific experiments and how they prove evolution instead of referring to them in a general sense? Also, I would appreciate if you could provide me with the names for these experiments and the scientists who conducted them so that I may investigate the facts.

As a side note, I will be posting a new thread about sciences and facts that do not allow evolution to be possible. Its title is "Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution". I would appreciate if you could be on the look out for this and I would appreciate you review of those facts.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Postby Tomn » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:12 pm

Normally, I see responses in 24 hours. It seems that when aptitude was asked very serious questions unexplained by evolution, it was quite difficult to validate and defend the results of the Miller-Urey experiments.

Also, he said that "experiments done by Wachtershauser, Fox, and Eigen, along with many others, which uncover new evidence and provides new models".

I asked for further response, for the name of the experiments and the scientists. I think this quote is all I have to go on. I will soon be researching with the limited information I have here, and will be posting flaws in their experiments.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
User avatar
Tomn
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:13 am

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests