How Evolution is not pure random chance, Pt. 4

[Mich.K.M.]

- A B I O G E N E S I S -

"Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong"
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Biogenesis - Spontaneous Generation

The belief that life can come spontaneously from non-life. Today we know this is not true.

"Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1848770/posts

Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.

"Creation Ministries International"
http://creation.com/questions-for-faith

Not only has no mechanism ever been proposed for abiogenesis, but no biochemist could even produce the required results under controlled, contrived laboratory conditions!

"Evolution is a Religion"
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/EvolutionReligion.htm

They believe that undirected by any divine intelligence, these complex chemicals eventually came into being, made a concentrated organic soup, and then A FIRST LIVING CELL! Evolutionists believed the ingredients of living things must have been easily available because of the predictions of the naturalistic position.

"Evolution Exposed"
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-life

Even though many of them still believe in abiogenesis, they are not complete idiots. If all it takes were “carbon plus water plus an energy source,” they would have succeeded in making life in the laboratory long ago.

"Evolution Exposed"
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-life

The Bible also explains that we should not expect to see life coming from nonliving matter since God ceased His creative activity after Day 6 of creation. So, evolutionists accept that spontaneous generation happened to get life started, but it can’t happen today - a clearly fallacious argument that is necessary to support evolution.

ginckgo: "I said (like susu) that abiogenesis is impossible to happen again on earth as it is today."

susu.exp: "Because the conditions we have on earth right now preclude it. Early earth was quite different in the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the oceans, permitting abiogenesis. It isn´t permitting today."




- A T M S P H E R E -

"Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong"
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Primitive Atmospheres

Another problem with the primitive atmosphere is the presence of oxygen. Oxygen would destroy much of the organic compounds so the evolutionists came up with a reducing atmosphere or one without O2 and with CH4 as the main carbon carrier.

"Creation Ministries International"
http://creation.com/questions-for-faith

The elements of life-oxygen, carbon and nitrogen and so on—should not be capable of coexisting especially in the formative stages, and especially in the presence of copious amounts of dangerous radiation from the sun and outer space.

ginckgo: "An oxygen-rich environment would oxidize the early molecules about as quickly as they could form."

susu.exp: "There´s oxygen in both atmosphere and ocean waters, which will destroy free RNA. In addition to that there´s a lot of life ready to devour organic compounds. (and now I see, Ginckgo already pointed that out)"

ginckgo: "But if the primordial soup starts out without RNA, there's no 'concentration' and O2 will more readily attack early versions. Oxydative damage is a severe problem for genetic material. Oxidation of a molecule like RNA doesn't just 'change the function', it will likely change it to something other than RNA."

ginckgo: "Chemists and biochemists have concluded that the amount of damage free molecular oxygen would have caused in the environments of early earth to any nascent life would have meant that pretty much all of them would have been degraded before any chance of them getting into a vesicle could have occurred."




- C H I R A L I T Y -

"Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong"
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

The Problem of Chirality

All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA, RNA and in the metabolic pathways are ‘right-handed’.

"Evolution Exposed"
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-life

Another significant problem is that the amino acids in living things, 20 of the over 2,000 types, are found in left- and right-handed forms called “enantiomers.” Miller’s experiment produced a racemic mixture (equal left- and right-handed forms) that is detrimental to life—proteins in living things contain only left-handed amino acids (with few exceptions). No natural process is known that makes only left-handed amino acids.

"Creation Ministries International"
http://creation.com/questions-for-faith

Then there is the problem of the very one-sided chirality of many organic chemicals. Many chemicals occurring in living matter can exist in TWO forms, mirror images of each other. However, biological proteins have only left-handed amino acids, and DNA and RNA have only right-handed sugars.

susu.exp: "Why would both use L-amino acids? Why would both use the same triplet code? Why would they use the same 5 bases? Why would they use the same 20 amino acids."

susu.exp: "Both are possible chemically and in fact, if you synthesize amino acids from simple compounds like in the Miller-Urey experiment you get both. In life only the one with "R" being further away occurs. There´s no chemical law that would demand this."

susu.exp: "This common ancestor of all living things used the genetic code common to all life and the 20 standard amino acids in their left handed form."



Gotcha!

Dear religious missionaries, my enemies that I call friends, why are you hiding in disguise?

[ginckgo]

Nobody is refuting abiogenesis, they are disputing your interpretation of the work of the Szostak lab.

Their claims are supportable, and are far more modest than your claims for them...

Yeah, my interpretation is not "interpretation", but direct quotes and statements made by leading scientist in this field, backed up with verifiable evidence, taken out of technical papers, online articles and sources like 'Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School'. Claims I present here are not mine, but made by scientist performing the most advanced and current research in this field. What evidence are you talking about?

You certainly quote a lot of scientific material - problem is, none of it really supports your ideas the way you think they do. Other people have also posted scientific material - but it gets either ignored, misrepresented, or outright denied.

It is also way outside the topic, indeed I am wondering if this should be split.

Who do you imagine you are? Why do you flatter yourself by "wondering" how moderators should be managing the forum? You are member of public just like I am, are you not? So, speak if you have something to say, if not, just mind your own business, will you?

You're a touchy little critter. All he was saying (which I have alluded to myself), is that all this abiogenesis stuff is quite off-topic, as the OP is about evolution. But no real surprise that you didn't bother or weren't able to understand what was said.

It is right on the topic as explained when I said this:

Convergent evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

Significance

The degree to which convergence affects the products of evolution is the subject of a popular controversy. In his book Wonderful Life, Steven Jay Gould argues that if the tape of life were re-wound and played back, life would have taken a very different course. Simon Conway Morris counters this argument by arguing that convergence is a dominant force in evolution, and that since the same environmental and physical constraints act on all life, there is an "optimum" body plan which life will inevitably evolve towards, with evolution bound to stumble upon intelligence - a trait of primates, crows and dolphins - at some point.

yep, evolution, not abiogenesis.

ANSWER THE QUESTION BEFORE ASSUMING NONSENSE 1:
- "Convergent evolution", as explained in Wiki quote above, is what this argument is about, right?

Which argument? The original one about evolution, or the one about your wacky brain diarrhea?

Now, maybe not so obvious, but there is 2nd argument there as well, which is what I started to argue couple of pages ago. The point there is that I yet have to hear any scientist or published paper say the first living cell emerged alone, all by itself. It is important to realize there must have been many emerging cells simultaneously, if any of them was to have any chance to grow and evolve. Only then, we can see talk about how random environmental elements, symbiosis and natural selection shaped evolution and explain apparent converging features.

READ THE FUCKING RESPONSES! Probably the majority of organisms even today don't feed off other organisms, they feed of non-living organic and inorganic compounds.

ANSWER THE QUESTION BEFORE ASSUMING NONSENSE 2:
- Can you provide verifiable quote, statement or other on-line reference that shows any scientist or published paper say the first living cell emerged alone, all by itself?

ugh! once again: It is almost certain that pseudo-organisms like vesicles etc originated by the bucket load (not life though, just the essential precursors - of course there is no definite, natural line between life and non-life, but the definition of life as it currently stands does not include vesicles, no matter how well they grow and divide). It is also quite possible that there were several abiogenesis events from which numerous genetically (as in how the genetic code is set up to code for amino acids) and biochemically distinct clades of life evolved, but all except one lineage died out. Of course genetics isn't always nice and clean, and it's not unusual to get lateral gene transfers, as well as integrations like mitochondria and chloroplasts, so early on there would have been quite a bit of mingling, this would be the early 'gene pool'. But the chances that there was mingling between the clades of separate abiogenesis origins is very small, as there is a good likelihood that they were genetically and biochemically incompatible. And for this reason it is also likely that today's Life all came from a single cell.

[ginckgo]

Good to see your creationist bookmarks are coming in handy.

- A B I O G E N E S I S -

"Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong"
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Biogenesis - Spontaneous Generation

The belief that life can come spontaneously from non-life. Today we know this is not true.

Spontaneous Generation IS NOT Abiogenesis. Your idea that Szostak et al simply used plain tap water or sea water to generate life is more akin to the old spontaneous generation. FAIL!

"Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1848770/posts

Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.

Everyone here has said that self-replicating molecules quite happily form naturally. FAIL!

"Creation Ministries International"
http://creation.com/questions-for-faith

Not only has no mechanism ever been proposed for abiogenesis, but no biochemist could even produce the required results under controlled, contrived laboratory conditions!

We have described the various hypotheses for abiogenesis, and it is quite likely that some day soon some lab will recreate a type of abiogenesis (it just hasn't happened yet). It will probably confirm everything we have said here. FAIL!

"Evolution is a Religion"
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/EvolutionReligion.htm

They believe that undirected by any divine intelligence, these complex chemicals eventually came into being, made a concentrated organic soup, and then A FIRST LIVING CELL! Evolutionists believed the ingredients of living things must have been easily available because of the predictions of the naturalistic position.

"The natural position"?!? Anyway, we know that various building blocks of life occur naturally, quite abundantly in outer space even. They form readily under the right conditions due to physical and chemical interactions. FAIL!

"Evolution Exposed"
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-life

Even though many of them still believe in abiogenesis, they are not complete idiots. If all it takes were “carbon plus water plus an energy source,” they would have succeeded in making life in the laboratory long ago.

Yeah, silly scientists. We also know the physics behind hydrogen fusion (much simple than abiogenesis), and yet we haven't managed to harness it. FAIL!

"Evolution Exposed"
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-life

The Bible also explains that we should not expect to see life coming from nonliving matter since God ceased His creative activity after Day 6 of creation. So, evolutionists accept that spontaneous generation happened to get life started, but it can’t happen today - a clearly fallacious argument that is necessary to support evolution.

ginckgo: "I said (like susu) that abiogenesis is impossible to happen again on earth as it is today."

susu.exp: "Because the conditions we have on earth right now preclude it. Early earth was quite different in the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the oceans, permitting abiogenesis. It isn´t permitting today."

Creationists think life needs a 'spark', we just think it needs an environment free of molecular oxygen (and a couple of other conditions, but who's counting). FAIL!

- A T M S P H E R E -

"Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong"
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Primitive Atmospheres

Another problem with the primitive atmosphere is the presence of oxygen. Oxygen would destroy much of the organic compounds so the evolutionists came up with a reducing atmosphere or one without O2 and with CH4 as the main carbon carrier.

What does O2 have to do with the 'main carbon carrier'? CO2 was probably very abundant. Total non-sequitur. But that's not even relevant. At least they agree that O2 would destroy simple organic compounds. FAIL!

"Creation Ministries International"
http://creation.com/questions-for-faith

The elements of life-oxygen, carbon and nitrogen and so on—should not be capable of coexisting especially in the formative stages, and especially in the presence of copious amounts of dangerous radiation from the sun and outer space.

Really not sure what they mean by this. All elements can co-exist. It's not like nitrogen is the antimatter of oxygen. FAIL!

ginckgo: "An oxygen-rich environment would oxidize the early molecules about as quickly as they could form."

susu.exp: "There´s oxygen in both atmosphere and ocean waters, which will destroy free RNA. In addition to that there´s a lot of life ready to devour organic compounds. (and now I see, Ginckgo already pointed that out)"

ginckgo: "But if the primordial soup starts out without RNA, there's no 'concentration' and O2 will more readily attack early versions. Oxydative damage is a severe problem for genetic material. Oxidation of a molecule like RNA doesn't just 'change the function', it will likely change it to something other than RNA."

ginckgo: "Chemists and biochemists have concluded that the amount of damage free molecular oxygen would have caused in the environments of early earth to any nascent life would have meant that pretty much all of them would have been degraded before any chance of them getting into a vesicle could have occurred."

Yeah, we said that quite well. Damn we're good!

- C H I R A L I T Y -

"Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong"
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

The Problem of Chirality

All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA, RNA and in the metabolic pathways are ‘right-handed’.

apples and oranges. amino acids and sugars. FAIL!

"Evolution Exposed"
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-life

Another significant problem is that the amino acids in living things, 20 of the over 2,000 types, are found in left- and right-handed forms called “enantiomers.” Miller’s experiment produced a racemic mixture (equal left- and right-handed forms) that is detrimental to life—proteins in living things contain only left-handed amino acids (with few exceptions). No natural process is known that makes only left-handed amino acids.

Exactly: no natural (as in no abiotic physical or chemical) process. You need life to be so selective. But there's no reason that life couldn't have chosen a different set of 20 standard (plus 2 non-standard) amino acids to code for. Or settled on left handed ones predominantly.. FAIL!

"Creation Ministries International"
http://creation.com/questions-for-faith

Then there is the problem of the very one-sided chirality of many organic chemicals. Many chemicals occurring in living matter can exist in TWO forms, mirror images of each other. However, biological proteins have only left-handed amino acids, and DNA and RNA have only right-handed sugars.

again: So what? they are two different things. One is the molecule that codes for the other molecules. Never the twain shall conflict. FAIL!

susu.exp: "Why would both use L-amino acids? Why would both use the same triplet code? Why would they use the same 5 bases? Why would they use the same 20 amino acids."

susu.exp: "Both are possible chemically and in fact, if you synthesize amino acids from simple compounds like in the Miller-Urey experiment you get both. In life only the one with "R" being further away occurs. There´s no chemical law that would demand this."

susu.exp: "This common ancestor of all living things used the genetic code common to all life and the 20 standard amino acids in their left handed form."

Amen!

Gotcha!

Dear religious missionaries, my enemies that I call friends, why are you hiding in disguise?

Oooh, this one's new. You really are creative and cheeky. I like you. No wait. You're a creotard, I fart in your general direction.

EPIC FAIL!!!!

[Dlx2]

EPOCH FAIL!!!!

Fixed it for you.

[Mich.K.M.]

- Can you provide verifiable quote, statement or other on-line reference that shows any scientist or published paper say the first living cell emerged alone, all by itself?

ugh! once again: It is almost certain that pseudo-organisms like vesicles etc originated by the bucket load (not life though, just the essential precursors - of course there is no definite, natural line between life and non-life, but the definition of life as it currently stands does not include vesicles, no matter how well they grow and divide).

It grows, divides and replicates by itself, does that not mean "alive"?

I think you are imagining. There is nothing on the whole WWW, except creationists websites, to support your claims. I don't see any verifiable quote, statements, links or other on-line reference, where is it?

1.) Do you realize bacteria is just a vesicle like Szostak's cells?
2.) Do you realize they are alive by definition you provided just few pages ago?
3.) Do you realize Szostak's vesicles have membranes identical to some bacteria or archaea?
4.) Do you realize those lipid cells are more alive than virus, since they replicate without the host?

Szostak's cells function on the same principles as bacteria, no other difference but complexity and genome size.

...this would be the early 'gene pool'. But the chances that there was mingling between the clades of separate abiogenesis origins is very small, as there is a good likelihood that they were genetically and biochemically incompatible. And for this reason it is also likely that today's Life all came from a single cell.

LOL I see you keep repeating that.
Where is verifiable source? Where are quotes, statements and links?


You're misunderstanding all this terribly.
There is no single scientist, especially knowing about Szostak experiment, who claims anything like that.

[eversbane]

There is no single scientist... who claims anything like [the completely assinine bullshit that I have falsely attributed to you].

Damn, that sounds familiar!!!


I wonder if Articullete has stooped to playing with sock puppets?

[Mich.K.M.]

There is no single scientist... who claims anything like [the completely assinine bullshit that I have falsely attributed to you].

Damn, that sounds familiar!!!


I wonder if Articullete has stooped to playing with sock puppets?

My dear friend, let me simplify it for you. I'm referring to this statement - "...today's Life all came from a single cell." - I've been asking for some verifiable reference, quote, link or article about that claim. Are you able to respond to such request, or you simply do not know what to say, but mumble?


Why can't I get some answer to this question:
It grows, divides and replicates by itself, does that not mean "alive"?

[Recursive Prophet]

I wonder if Articullete has stooped to playing with sock puppets?

Wow Evers, talk about a low blow!! Seriously, Mich is way beyond her! Besides, she knows better than to show up here where so many would recognize her. Unlike evolution, artic is quite predictable.

[susu.exp]

You are not understanding what is meant by "LUCA", they mean "gene pool".

You are aware that all genes, still go back to a common ancestor, right? Mitochondrial eve was a single individual. LUCA very probably was one individual as well.

Those EIGHT YEARS OLD books

PB II is 8 years old. Evolution by Barton et al. if from 2008 and Futuyma is from 2005, though a new edition is due to be out this year (April 30th).

are not even valid reference, since we only see your opinion about it

That´s what references are for: To read them.

and they are not peer-revived technical papers based on experimental studies.

The named paper comes from PB II, which is basically a book of review articles. Review articles are a staple in science, where authors review recent developments in a field, citing the technical papers in that field. The articles are peer-reviewed and a good resource to keep up with parts of the discipline that are not your speciality (i.e. as somebody working on fossil insects, they are what I read when I want to know what´s going on with studies on fossil Mollusks - and if I´m interested in something specific, I´ll find the technical papers referenced there).

Mentioning some books and names does not confirm your assertion. Your statement is still unverifiable claim.

No scientific statement is verifiable. Falsifiability is where it´s at.

Provide the statements and exact quotes you think confirm your assertion, provide VERIFIABLE arguments, ONLINE articles, papers and links, will you?

Libraries are friends...

None of them make the claim you are asserting they do. None of them are saying there was only one single cell in the beginning, emerged all by itself.

No? Would escape me. Dawkins does place the central part even earlier, before life even is undebatably life: with the first replicator.

Your claim is not supported by anything that can be found on-line or any textbook

I linked you to (count them) two textbooks on evolution making the same claim we do.

You are making unverifiable claims, I'm not making claims,

Yes, you are. And most of them are wrong.

I'm only trying to educate you and provide you with the correct and most recent information, as well as explain the principles behind it. The claims have been made by the most prominent scientists in this field, and all the relevant information about experimental evidence was already presented in this thread as verifiable quotes, reference, links, images, diagrams, peer-reviewed papers and articles, but you are free to ask and I will explain it again.

OK, you´ve claimed several times that there´s only a limited range of possible amino acids. The clearly is debunked by works where additional amino acids were placed in peptides, by aminocylating t-RNA with different AAs (in other words: they took a tRNA triplet, added an amino acid that does not belong to the usual 20 and presto: the Ribosomes would insert the non-standard amino acid into peptides).

Subtelny AO, Hartman MC, Szostak JW. Ribosomal synthesis of N-methyl peptides. J Am Chem Soc. 2008 May 14;130(19):6131-6. Epub 2008 Apr 11.

Hartman MC, Josephson K, Lin CW, Szostak JW. An expanded set of amino Acid analogs for the ribosomal translation of unnatural peptides. PLoS ONE. 2007 Oct 3;2(10):e972.

Tsai CH, Chen J, Szostak JW. Enzymatic synthesis of DNA on glycerol nucleic acid templates without stable duplex formation between product and template. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Sep 11; 104(37): 14598-603.
(all available as PDFs from the Szostak lab).

Anyway, to answer your question - Abiogenesis one. The experiment we are talking about here. The one which produced living unicellular organisms. They grow, divide and replicates by itself, does that not mean "alive"?

I don´t find that in the published papers. You may want to check that list. I do find
Hanczyc MM, Szostak JW. Replicating vesicles as models of primitive cell growth and division. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2004 Dec;8(6):660-4
Where you´ve got growth dividsion and merging of vesicles, but they lack heridity and therefore replication. So no, they did not produce living unicellular organisms.

Experiments prove those self-diving vesicles containing self-replicating RNA are more alive than virus and just as alive as any other unicellular organism, do you agree?

Do they have a metabolism? The ones in the paper above, did not contain RNA, BTW.

There is a very good reason for it, it is called organic/mineral abundance (CONCENTRATION) and thermodynamics, as confirmed by Szostak's experiments and explained here by me. Provided all the reference, info, links and quotes - do you understand Szostak's experiment now? It grows, divides and self-replicates all by itself, does that not mean "alive"?

No, you gave us a website, which doesn´t say they built a living cell and contains a list of peer-reviewed papers by that work group, none of which make that claim either.

- all life originated from one miraculous cell, which just happened once, one single cell, emerged all by itself:

1. susu.exp: "In life only the one with "R" being further away occurs." REFUTED
2. susu.exp: "All life use the same 20 standard amino acids." SOON TO BE REFUTED

20 standard amino acids, eh? That is some proof? Can it be any different? Why do you expect there should be more? And if I prove there is actually 21 or more, what would that mean? Then, you would say how number 21 proves something, right?

There are a couple of non-standard ones that - like alterations of the genetic code and instances of right handed ones appear in rare instances. Which is exactly what one would expect from descent with modification.

[Mich.K.M.]

Provide the statements and exact quotes you think confirm your assertion, provide VERIFIABLE arguments, ONLINE articles, papers and links, will you?

Libraries are friends...

There is no single online reference about what are you talking about? That's weird, my friend. Go talk to librarians then, talk to them and when they refute what you saying, then tell them to "Google it". I have enough religious missionaries referring me to the Bible, that's no argument, nor it makes for sensible discussion. You are not fit for public, even less scientific discussion, go preach somewhere else kid.

You are not understanding what is meant by "LUCA", they mean "gene pool".

You are aware that all genes, still go back to a common ancestor, right? Mitochondrial eve was a single individual. LUCA very probably was one individual as well.

Individual? What is "individual" now? What are you trying to say? Genes and cells are made of sugars and proteins and that's why similarity. It does not mean they evolved from single cell, it only means genes are made from same building blocks. Are you actually saying mitochondrial could have emerged independently after all?

Do you agree emergence of life (abiogenesis), the amount and possibility of this occurrence is proportional and depends only on biological/mineral abundance and thermodynamics or do you think there must be something else for the "real abiogenesis" to happen?

Mentioning some books and names does not confirm your assertion. Your statement is still unverifiable claim.

No scientific statement is verifiable. Falsifiability is where it´s at.

You did not put forward any scientific statements, but only your own opinions and interpretation.

Provide some links to material and statements, so we can check if what you claim material says is really true.

None of them make the claim you are asserting they do. None of them are saying there was only one single cell in the beginning, emerged all by itself.

No? Would escape me. Dawkins does place the central part even earlier, before life even is undebatably life: with the first replicator.

You misunderstood his statements, just like mine here. You keep mumbling, just show me!

Anyway, to answer your question - Abiogenesis one. The experiment we are talking about here. The one which produced living unicellular organisms. They grow, divide and replicates by itself, does that not mean "alive"?

Where you´ve got growth dividsion and merging of vesicles, but they lack heridity and therefore replication. So no, they did not produce living unicellular organisms.

Yes, they did. So, you did not read it, you are refusing to learn about and that is how you are going to refute abiogenesis? Are you saying it is absolutely impossible to create life (abiogenesis), according to your criteria, in laboratory today and why is that? (we already discussed oxygen)

Experiments prove those self-diving vesicles containing self-replicating RNA are more alive than virus and just as alive as any other unicellular organism, do you agree?

Do they have a metabolism? The ones in the paper above, did not contain RNA, BTW.

Yes, they have metabolism as much as bacteria. Do you mean to refute his experiments with the lack of your knowledge? Do you believe there is any difference between those cells and bacteria or archea, what difference?

http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostak ... hemBio.pdf

By monitoring a fluorescent
dye that was encapsulated in the initial vesicles, we were
able to show that all of the dye remained encapsulated
during growth and only a little more than expected was
lost during the division step due to the geometrical
constraint of division with constant surface area. The
growth and division cycle was completed five consecutive
times and presumably could be repeated indefinitely.

Jack W. Szostak

Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School
Massachusetts General Hospital
Center for Computational and Integrative Biology
Szostak's webpage is this: http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/index.html
Szostak's labpageis this: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~biophys/Jack_W_Szostak.htm

Research Interests:

We have recently identified multiple distinct pathways by which fatty acid vesicles can be made to grow and divide solely under the influence of chemical and physical forces.

Growth occurs when pre-formed vesicles are fed with new lipid in the form of micelles, or when osmotically swollen vesicles grow at the expense of relaxed neighboring vesicles.

We have recently found that suitably activated nucleotides can spontaneously cross fatty acid membranes, and can then take part in template copying reactions in the protocell interior.

Nucleic acid molecules replicating inside replicating vesicles should begin to evolve spontaneously due to the strong selection for better replication.

It grows, divides and replicates by itself, does that not mean "alive"?

His conclusion is clearly that he has achieved the FULL abiogenesis and the rest of the process is up to evolution to explain. Can you explain then how such vesicle could evolve into archea or bacteria?

There is a very good reason for it, it is called organic/mineral abundance (CONCENTRATION) and thermodynamics, as confirmed by Szostak's experiments and explained here by me. Provided all the reference, info, links and quotes - do you understand Szostak's experiment now? It grows, divides and self-replicates all by itself, does that not mean "alive"?

No, you gave us a website, which doesn´t say they built a living cell and contains a list of peer-reviewed papers by that work group, none of which make that claim either.

WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION:
- It grows, divides and replicates by itself, does that not mean "alive"?

- all life originated from one miraculous cell, which just happened once, one single cell, emerged all by itself:

1. susu.exp: "In life only the one with "R" being further away occurs." REFUTED
2. susu.exp: "All life use the same 20 standard amino acids." SOON TO BE REFUTED

20 standard amino acids, eh? That is some proof? Can it be any different? Why do you expect there should be more? And if I prove there is actually 21 or more, what would that mean? Then, you would say how number 21 proves something, right?

There are a couple of non-standard ones that - like alterations of the genetic code and instances of right handed ones appear in rare instances. Which is exactly what one would expect from descent with modification.

LOL

1. susu.exp: "In life only the one with "R" being further away occurs." REFUTED
2. susu.exp: "All life use the same 20 standard amino acids." REFUTED

Yet, Suse still finds this is a proof of some "universal common ancestor of all things alive".