Prebiotic chemistry and origins of life (continued)...

[bjjones37]

Karlos wrote:
I know what you are saying, but I think you are missing my point. There is no available evidence to support the notion that the fundamental biochemistry we know of is evolved from anything less primitive - no matter how far back you go, find the same chemistry. There are no cousins, no other evolutionary offshoots, rivals or specialisations that you might expect to find given the way biological evolution appears to have worked.

What a very interesting statement.

[bjjones37]

I thought these might be interesting to this thread.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
http://www.naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilrecord.html

They all three basically refer to the discovery of red blood cells within a partially fossilized T-Rex bone.  The first seeks to support it, the second seeks to disprove it, and the third is sort of neutral and just talks about it. What is interesting to me though is that none of the three denies that there is unfossilized bone tissue there.  This tissue could give us a better understanding of the biochemical makeup of these extinct reptiles, especially if the DNA strands in the nuclei are intact.  I wonder if these dinosaurs have been extinct for as long as it has been estimated.

[bjjones37]

KennyR wrote:

One problem - red blood cells have no nuclei and no DNA! :-(

I was not referring to the red blood cells, but the bone tissue itself. Bone cells must have a nuclei in order to be self replicating.  Of course the red blood cells do not replicate but are produced by the marrow. The existence of the red blood cells is under debate.  But if some bone cells are intact...

[bjjones37]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

As to there being no evidence of any other biotic chemistry in the past, we don't have much evidence of much in the past and the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Yes, there are many questions but that does not mean that answers cannot be found. Mathematics has run into many roadblocks over time but we didn't throw it out at the first sign of trouble.

Another very interesting statement. :-)

[bjjones37]

I hope no one minds my entering into this little debate.  My first two years in college were as a Chemistry major. I had two years of Chemistry, two years of Calculus, and a year of Engineering classes.  Just so you will understand why I am fascinated with what Karlos has to say.  I must say I am inclined to agree with him, perhaps because he does debate from the standpoint of math and chemistry. I have followed the debate raptly.  It only falls down for me when it devolves into some kind of theological discussion.  My stance is that God can neither be proved nor disproved with science.  He did that deliberately.  I view science as a description of what God did.  So the facts are of value to me no matter what viewpoint you present them from.  If the purpose of the debate is to disprove the existence of God, then I will step out of it right now, it is a waste of my time.  But if the purpose is to explore nature for a pure love of science and research, I would love to be involved and learn. There are some very educated people here who have much of value to say.  

I would like to ask some questions and I would even promise not to debate the response, just perhaps clarify my position or ask for clarification.

Respectfully,
BJ

[bjjones37]

@Karlos

Sometimes, from a scientific point of view, asking the right questions can be just as important as having the right answers.  The question gives the answer context and makes it meaningful.  So finding all of those questions can be a good thing. :-)

[bjjones37]

If I may take an opposing viewpoint, just for the sake of discussion and understanding. Consider the effect of entropy on a chemical reaction.  It is obvious that there is an inverse relationship between energy and entropy.  But this relationship has causal implications.  Within a closed system, the kinetic energy of the present substances affects more than simply the rate of reaction.  It is a known phenomenon that when two substances react, there are more than one or two products to the reaction. Take for instance H2 and O2.  2H2 + O2 yield 2H2O in theory.  In actuality, there will be H2O, H2O2, H2, O2, and possibly a variety of other by products to include O- and H+.  This is a result of the causal effect of the kinetic energy inducing the higher entropic state.  So one of the consequences of this increased state of disorder, at least from the standpoint of Chemistry, is actually the production of some more complex compounds. Granted these are produced in very minute quantities.  But they are produced nontheless.  

It has been some 20 years since I took chemistry so if there is some flaw in my reasoning, please point it out.

[bjjones37]

KennyR wrote:

Chemists should already be familiar with quantum superstates via the benzene molecule. I was taught in high school that benzene constantly swaps its pi and sigma bonds. However it was also known for years that this does not fit what we observe of its properties. Chemists found out later that  all the possible configurations of the kekule ring structure exist at once. It's the same properties of conjugated bonds that allow some polymers to conduct electricty. Neither of these phenomena are chemical, both are quantum.

Oh how I regret missing out on quantum chemistry. This opens up a whole new line of thought.

 We just have to find out how it did it, and what "its method" was.

So very true.