Let us consider very briefly what are the absolute minimum requirements for a living cell.
The complexity of the simplest known living organism is mind-boggling. You need the cell wall, the energy system, a system of self-repair, a reproduction system, and means for taking in food ( what food? All food derives ultimately from chlorophyll which has no existence outside fully functioning plants. In our supposed pre-biotic earth, there was nothing to eat or breathe before chlorophyll) and processing and expelling waste, the complex genetic code, thousands of specific proteins which all depend on each other and must be perfect or they don't work at all, a means for interpreting and replicating genetic code, osmotic regulation and other indispensable homeostasis mechanisms, plus detecting and correcting errors as they occur, and much more besides. All these features must be present and fully functioning from the start, or there is no start. There are no parts of a cell that you can take away and still have a viable living cell.
First there must be a cell wall, or else the contents would drift apart and the organism would lose it's integrity and cease to exist. Antibiotics kill bacteria by breaking their cell wall, showing without doubt that the wall is indispensable. It is a barrier but not a simple one, for example during mitosis it stretches, splits into 2 and seals itself perfectly without leaking contents. This is quite a 'simple' process, but like all the other things about the cell, if it goes wrong, the cell is dead. Cell walls are not completely impermeable, they could not work if they were. Dissolved carbon dioxide and oxygen diffuse across, also there are molecular active transport systems which move chemicals across the barrier as required. These active transport mechanisms have to be exactly right.
The cell is filled with cytoplasm, a semi liquid milieu which supports everything else physically and chemically. This is maintained homeostatically by various mechanisms in the cell, for example with the right level of acid/base balance, osmotic tension and dissolved gases etc.
Intracellular structures of several kinds exist, including ribosomes, where protein synthesis takes place under the control of DNA/RNA by means of specific protein building enzymes. The process is powered by ADP/ATP energy systems which burn carbohydrate to produce energy, just the right amount, just the right place, just the right time. Chemicals are transported across the cell to be taken to the right place at the right time for various reactions to take place.
In the middle of the cell is the nucleus which contains the massive DNA molecules, which are normally wound up on special spindles. They unravel when required and are copied on to RNA molecules. This unravelling, and re-ravelling, don't just happen, specific molecular engines exist which wrap and unwrap them just as required. This is just an outline sketch of the complexity, there is far more which is quite easily searchable but beyond the scope of this little site.
Enzymes are necessary for protein synthesis, energy production and all kinds of processes. They are themselves complicated proteins. They are necessary to make and maintain DNA, and are themselves made using precise instructions from DNA. DNA itself goes wrong sometimes, not very often considering how active it is, but often enough. Errors accumulating in DNA if not corrected would corrupt the information and eventually kill the organism but there is an automatic spell check and repair mechanism which detects errors in the nucleotide sequence and mends or cuts out and replaces them. Without this system (which incidentally is an impassable barrier to any possible beneficial mutations as it recognises and deletes random changes in the DNA, removing evolution's only possible progress mechanism) DNA would quickly accumulate errors and cease functioning, causing sickness and death as in the terrble genetic disease Xeroderma Pigmentosum.
DNA check and repair is found in all living things.
It had to be present from the beginning, or life as we know it would have been impossible.
http://www.questiondarwin.com/abiogenesis.html
Originally posted by RJHindsNot true. That one particular organism can be killed by destroying its cell wall, does not show that all organisms require a cell wall. For example, Human beings will drown in water - this does not 'show without a doubt that breathing air is indispensable for all living things'.
Antibiotics kill bacteria by breaking their cell wall, showing without doubt that the wall is indispensable.
It had to be present from the beginning, or life as we know it would have been impossible.
A totally unfounded assertion.
Originally posted by RJHindsNot true:
First there must be a cell wall,......
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/090723_listerien_per/index_EN
In the middle of the cell is the nucleus which contains the massive DNA molecules,
Only true for eukaryotes. Prokaryote's do not have a nucleus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote
Originally posted by ZahlanziOK. how about this:
twhite has found 3 things wrong with his wall of text. how many can others spot?
let's have a contest on this.
( what food? All food derives ultimately from chlorophyll which has no existence outside fully functioning plants.
twhitehead pointed out correctly that not all food comes from chlorophyll but the assertion that chlorophyll “ has no existence outside fully functioning plants” is also false because we have chlorophyll in cynobacteria which are NOT plants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
“...have chlorophyll b ...”
In our supposed pre-biotic earth, there was nothing to eat or breathe before chlorophyll)
1, the first protocell would not have any need to “ breathe” nor would it need free oxygen just like many bacteria called anaerobic bacteria don't need free oxygen:
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-aerobic-and-anaerobic-bacteria/
“...Aerobics are able to use oxygen, whereas anaerobic bacteria can sustain itself without the presence of oxygen. ...”
2, there was “food” ( for protocells ) on the early Earth: RNA bases, fatty acids, and even amino acids if they were used then.
Antibiotics kill bacteria by breaking their cell wall
not all antibiotics do!
In the middle of the cell is the nucleus which contains the massive DNA molecules, which are normally wound up on special spindles.
FALSE! The spindles only form during cell division when the cell nucleus has temporally not there because it has been unravelled and spindles for cell decision are never inside the cell nucleus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_apparatus
“...spindle apparatus refers to the subcellular structure that segregates chromosomes between daughter cells during cell division. ...”
Without this system (which incidentally is an impassable barrier to any possible beneficial mutations as it recognises and deletes random changes in the DNA, removing evolution's only possible progress mechanism)
FALSE!
The repair mechanism for DNA does NOT remove ALL mutations.
DNA check and repair is found in all living things.
It had to be present from the beginning, or life as we know it would have been impossible.
FALSE!
Before DNA there was probably only RNA in life.
How am I doing? -that is 7
Originally posted by humyYou guys are like the guy called "Thunderfoot" or something like that on this video that is annotated by an apparent Atheist, whose thinking is just as screwed up as the Athesist on the video that seems to think he has won the argument at the end. It is a bit tedious to listen to the Atheist trying to wiggle out of answering any question, but somewhat funny too.
the title of this thread is moronic just as its author:
“Abiogenesis Education for Evolutionists “
- this comes from a man who doesn't know what evolution is or at least pretend to not know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=A9BfsHsVGNg&feature=endscreen
Originally posted by RJHindsThis does not constitute fighting your OP's corner, nor does it address any of the responses your OP has drawn.
You guys are like the guy called "Thunderfoot" or something like that on this video that is annotated by an apparent Atheist, whose thinking is just as screwed up as the Athesist on the video that seems to think he has won the argument at the end. It is a bit tedious to listen to the Atheist trying to wiggle out of answering any question, but somewhat funny too.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe fact that you found descrepancies in the article does not negate the premise.
Not true:
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/090723_listerien_per/index_EN
[b]In the middle of the cell is the nucleus which contains the massive DNA molecules,
Only true for eukaryotes. Prokaryote's do not have a nucleus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote[/b]
Originally posted by humyThe point is chlorophyll has to be produced and an intelligent source was necessary to design and create something that could produce it. It did not bring itself into existence. The main point was to show that, and regardless of any errors in the article, abiogenesis has not been shown to be true or even possible.
OK. how about this:
( what food? All food derives ultimately from chlorophyll which has no existence outside fully functioning plants.
twhitehead pointed out correctly that not all food comes from chlorophyll but the assertion that chlorophyll “ has no existence outside fully functioning plants” is also false because we have chlorophyl te]
FALSE!
Before DNA there was probably only RNA in life.
How am I doing? -that is 7
The Anaerobic Bacteria just need less oxygen, not no oxygen at all.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe premise was that you could educate others in Biology. Clearly you can't. You clearly don't know much about the subject, and are quite happy posting whole pages of falsehoods simply because you think it supports your religious beliefs.
The fact that you found descrepancies in the article does not negate the premise.
Originally posted by RJHinds
The point is chlorophyll has to be produced and an intelligent source was necessary to design and create something that could produce it. It did not bring itself into existence. The main point was to show that, and regardless of any errors in the article, abiogenesis has not been shown to be true or even possible.
The Anaerobic Bacteria just need less oxygen, not no oxygen at all.
The point is chlorophyll has to be produced and an intelligent source was necessary to design and create something that could produce it.
how do you know this?
There was even a discovery a few years back of complex organic molecules similar to chlorophyll formed by exploding stars:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread179715/pg1
“...October 11, 2005-NASA has announced a new change to the way we look at our universe. The discovery of interstellar organic compounds is not new, but the latest discovery of large quantities of organic compounds critical to the formation of life, is important news. The key factor, is the discovery of nitrogen in the depths of interstellar space. It can be found in a organic form similar to chlorophyll, ejected into space around dying stars. ...”
so no “intelligence” needed to make such complex molecules.
abiogenesis has not been shown to be true or even possible.
it has been proven to be possible.
The links show that.
The Anaerobic Bacteria just need less oxygen, not no oxygen at all
That is a lie!
http://www.fishnfriends.com/The%20Jaubert%20System%20method.html
“...the growth of the anaerobic bacteria an environment which has no oxygen at all to thrive....”
SHOW us the evidence that "The Anaerobic Bacteria just need less oxygen, not no oxygen at all"....
why can't you admit it? -You simply don’t know what you are talking about.
You have the arrogance to call this thread “Abiogenesis Education for Evolutionists” and then demonstrate your complete ignorance of biology by saying at least ten falsehoods -3 of which twhitehead pointed out and 7 of which I pointed out and we proved it with the links! -and there may be more! -so much for this “ Education” of yours 😛
And now you just cannot admit you were just talking a load of crap.