First Organic Molecules Found on Alien World

[Teleological]

Firstly: Get the Definition of Enzyme



In other words enzymes merely function as catalysts of reactions which would have already happened but are merely happening faster due to the catalytic effect.

One thing unique to enzymes is that they are unique to their substrate and the reaction they are catalyzing.

Enzymes are thus not crucial to any kind of evolution of organic molecules.

They are if you want to catalyze certain reactions above others. Enzymes are selective catalysts. A huge number of possible reactions are possible even with relatively simple carbon molecules and there is no rule that dictates that will result in the preferential formation of the subset of compounds needed for life with non-selective catalysts.

Secondly: Enzymes are Proteins but can also be other chemical molecules. Thus enzymes exist freely and abundantly in the universe deduced from the fact that proteins can be created naturally and that chemical molecules which can serve as catalysts can also be found throughout the universe.

Protein enzymes do not exist freely and abundantly in the universe as far as science knows, only speculation. Proteins are not created easily in nature, unless they are made in cells. Proteins breaks down easier in water than being built up.

Or "imo" is noted, and put where it should be.

Time provides no explanatory mechanism. Ask Trevors and Abel.
Trevors JT, Abel DL. Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life. Cell Biol Int. 2004;28(11):729-39.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

There is some good reading for Teleological and the rest of you guys.

Besides the Miller Experiment in which we yielded some complicated Organic Molecules here are some other aspects on the topic.

Fox's experiments

Fox's experiments did not use plausible starting material (pure amino acids). Read up a bit more on his particular experiments and what his results actually showed.

Eigen's hypothesis

A combination of the RNA world and metabolism first world and scientists have not found a plausible prebiotic synthesis scenario of any molecule that can give rise to other molecules that are capable to catalyze the synthesis of molecules of its own kind. This phenomenon has never been observed in nature or even in the most ingenious laboratory condition.

Wächtershäuser's hypothesis

Wächtershäuser is pushing for the metabolism first scenario. Leslie Orgel was very critical of these proposed hypotheses in his last published article. The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth

Evolution always wins because it makes more sense and because it is more satisfying as it regularly provides us with more insight into many aspects of Medicine and science which results in cures, treatments and other advances.

Observable evolution yes. The notion that life came from non-life through SDL and selection is just interesting and does not contribute to Medicine. The philosophical notion of junk DNA looks like it is stifling science progress.

The Evolution of Inorganic Molecules to Organic Molecules to Bacteria to other Organisms and to Life as we know it is very fascinating really. And if you knew anything about science back in the day you would realise what a massive impact Miller's experiments had on Science and man's perception of the world.

Bacteria turning into other organisms? Would be nice to have a testable example... The interpretations of the Miller experiments were wildly exaggerated.

 

[nauseous_monkey]

One thing unique to enzymes is that they are unique to their substrate and the reaction they are catalyzing.

They are if you want to catalyze certain reactions above others. Enzymes are selective catalysts. A huge number of possible reactions are possible even with relatively simple carbon molecules and there is no rule that dictates that will result in the preferential formation of the subset of compounds needed for life with non-selective catalysts.

Protein enzymes do not exist freely and abundantly in the universe as far as science knows, only speculation. Proteins are not created easily in nature, unless they are made in cells. Proteins breaks down easier in water than being built up.

Time provides no explanatory mechanism. Ask Trevors and Abel.
Trevors JT, Abel DL. Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life. Cell Biol Int. 2004;28(11):729-39.


Fox's experiments did not use plausible starting material (pure amino acids). Read up a bit more on his particular experiments and what his results actually showed.
A combination of the RNA world and metabolism first world and scientists have not found a plausible prebiotic synthesis scenario of any molecule that can give rise to other molecules that are capable to catalyze the synthesis of molecules of its own kind. This phenomenon has never been observed in nature or even in the most ingenious laboratory condition.
Wächtershäuser is pushing for the metabolism first scenario. Leslie Orgel was very critical of these proposed hypotheses in his last published article. The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth

Observable evolution yes. The notion that life came from non-life through SDL and selection is just interesting and does not contribute to Medicine. The philosophical notion of junk DNA looks like it is stifling science progress.

Bacteria turning into other organisms? Would be nice to have a testable example... The interpretations of the Miller experiments were wildly exaggerated.

Hypothese mean just that... untested ideas which might be plausable.

I think you lost me on the whole "The notion that life came from non-life".

I suspect you lean towards creationalist mambo jambo ?

Here is why it cannot be accepted by the mainstream or ever written into a serious University Text book or in fact never be taught in a University or College... it does not qualify as Science.

Science involves the following steps: Hypothese (coming up with a plausible idea) then after the hypothese is accepted by your peers to be logically sound then it develops and eventually end up as a theory after observable evidence can be found. So the step from Hypothese to Theory is massive... Creationalists always raise the flag on the fact thet Evolution is just a Theory but it seems they never look up the definition of the word within a scientific context. Theories are commonly accepted hypothese cemented by observable fact mostly. We have an enourmous amount of mutually supporting evidence in science to support Evolution. It can though never be a fact because we can hardly ever show how a fish evolves into a human being in a Lab because it involves to much time.

Creationalism does not even stand as a Hypothese, it is no more than a Bronze Age Myth told to people and by people with little scientific knowledge.

Jews and Muslims have read the Old Testament... why do you think they don't care much for creationalism? Christian unqualified people perpetuated first in the states and the naive dumb masses in the Red states followed. Americans are dumb, don't fall into the same trap. Keep in mind these people thought up OBE education and produced G. W. Bush jr.

I respect religious people untill they decide to peddle lies off on kids at schools and make them believe the Bible is 100% fact and that evolution is the devil.

Lastly answer this because I am keen to know: Why can Christians not believe in Jesus or The Bible if evolution is true? Maybe God made Evolution

 

[Teleological]

Hypothese mean just that... untested ideas which might be plausable.

And when the plausibility of a hypotheses is found wanting, should it be perpetuated as a myth that it might just happen...?

I think you lost me on the whole "The notion that life came from non-life".

Abiogenesis

I suspect you lean towards creationalist mambo jambo ?

No, objective signals of teleology, not SDL and selection mambo jumbo.

Science involves the following steps: Hypothese (coming up with a plausible idea) then after the hypothese is accepted by your peers to be logically sound then it develops and eventually end up as a theory after observable evidence can be found. So the step from Hypothese to Theory is massive...

Philosophical naturalism prevents ID from becoming a hypothesis.

Creationalists always raise the flag on the fact thet Evolution is just a Theory but it seems they never look up the definition of the word within a scientific context. Theories are commonly accepted hypothese cemented by observable fact mostly. We have an enourmous amount of mutually supporting evidence in science to support Evolution. It can though never be a fact because we can hardly ever show how a fish evolves into a human being in a Lab because it involves to much time.

Creationalism does not even stand as a Hypothese, it is no more than a Bronze Age Myth told to people and by people with little scientific knowledge.

I think you fell for the widely spread "ID=YEC" meme.

Jews and Muslims have read the Old Testament... why do you think they don't care much for creationalism? Christian unqualified people perpetuated first in the states and the naive dumb masses in the Red states followed. Americans are dumb, don't fall into the same trap. Keep in mind these people thought up OBE education and produced G. W. Bush jr.

America seems to be doing fine in producing good science literature.

Lastly answer this because I am keen to know: Why can Christians not believe in Jesus or The Bible if evolution is true? Maybe God made Evolution

Perhaps it is a bad thing to generalize like that. Many Christians are not like that.

 

[Claymore]

I think you fell for the widely spread "ID=YEC" meme.

All the ID proponents seem to have fallen for it too...