The Origin of Life

Originally posted by dj2becker
And there is not an element of faith required to believe this?

Only faith in natural processes, that can be measured or inferred from physical evidence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Great charge. Based on what, it's hard to imagine, but great charge.
For some odd reason, wholly unknown by you, you continue to attack everything but the salient point of any assertion or argument put forth.
Lacking a rational line of reason, you are left to protect your own indefensible position with whatever club or rock you find nearby. Aren't ab ...[text shortened]... the truth leads--- one will remain in ignorance of varying degrees. Don't be a truthaphobe.

When you post a discussion of attributes worth taking seriously, I'll be there. Until then, have another banana.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Iron reduces in the presence of oxygen..b]

Of course as I am sure you know iron is oxidised in the presence of oxygen and reduced in the presence of free hydrogen. Oxygen build-up in the oceans from prokaryotic photosynthesis oxidized the Fe2+ (ferrous iron form) to Fe3+ (ferric iron) resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds you mention.

An oxygen-rich early atmosphere would have oxidised all early building blocks so a reducing environment for these early simple biomolecules from which life is presumed to have began is posited and the evidence is in this precipitates among other things.

A council of perfection is being asked for..

Originally posted by micarr
Of course as I am sure you know iron is oxidised in the presence of oxygen and reduced in the presence of free hydrogen. Oxygen build-up in the oceans from prokaryotic photosynthesis oxidized the Fe2+ (ferrous iron form) to Fe3+ (ferric iron) resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds you mention.

An oxygen-rich early atmosphere would have ...[text shortened]... nce is in this precipitates among other things.

A council of perfection is being asked for..

Oops, sorry a slip of the brain to be sure! Indeed, oxidises (i.e. rusts) not reduces.

Yes, the early environment would have been very reducing, lots of free energy out there. Only under those conditions, nothing like today, could life have evolved!

Originally posted by micarr
Of course as I am sure you know iron is oxidised in the presence of oxygen and reduced in the presence of free hydrogen. Oxygen build-up in the oceans from prokaryotic photosynthesis oxidized the Fe2+ (ferrous iron form) to Fe3+ (ferric iron) resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds you mention.

An oxygen-rich early atmosphere would have ...[text shortened]... nce is in this precipitates among other things.

A council of perfection is being asked for..

Hahaha...

Really, read about some basic chemistry before you start making prepostorus claims like this. The atmosphere is 20% oxygen at the moment, yet there is plenty of Iron (II) (and Iron (0)). Besides the kinetic stability of the ions (lets not even go there seeing as your chemistry is barely above the level I would expect from a 10 year old), oxygen doesn't dissolve in water to any great extent, where this oxidation is supposed to be carried out. And you wonder why noone takes creationists seriously....

~corp1131

(1/2 way through a chemistry degree)

Originally posted by corp1131
Hahaha...

Really, read about some basic chemistry before you start making prepostorus claims like this. The atmosphere is 20% oxygen at the moment, yet there is plenty of Iron (II) (and Iron (0)). Besides the kinetic stability of the ions oxygen doesn't dissolve in water to any great extent, where this oxidation is supposed to be carried out. And you ...[text shortened]... why noone takes creationists seriously....

~corp1131

(1/2 way through a chemistry degree)

(lets not even go there seeing as your chemistry is barely above the level I would expect from a 10 year old)
Damn! And I thought I was a task master by having my kids learn Latin and Algebra in the third grade.

Originally posted by corp1131
Hahaha...

Really, read about some basic chemistry before you start making prepostorus claims like this. The atmosphere is 20% oxygen at the moment, yet there is plenty of Iron (II) (and Iron (0)). Besides the kinetic stability of the ions (lets not even go there seeing as your chemistry is barely above the level I would expect from a 10 year old), oxyg ...[text shortened]... why noone takes creationists seriously....

~corp1131

(1/2 way through a chemistry degree)

Fe2+ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe3+ is insoluble. During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe2+ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe2+ to Fe3+ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? This was the point we were discussing.

Originally posted by micarr
Fe2+ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe3+ is insoluble. During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe2+ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe2+ to Fe3+ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? This was the point we were discussing.

Science-a-go-go-tastic!


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20000706041735data_trunc_sys.shtml

Yes, of course, O2 is only slightly soluble in water (wave action is fantastic for increasing that - in O2 rich atmospheres that is!), CO2 dissolves about 10,000 times more readily. Yep, iron deposits do, indeed, show insignificant atmospheric oxygen up until 2 billion years ago (probably got upto the dizzy heights of about 1% at a guess (pre-Silurian it was no higher than ~5% probably, during the carboniferous it may have got up to about 28% - high enough that even wet vegetation would burn). Localised O2 production probably from 3.8 bya.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
.....all views on the origin of the universe and life must be based ultimately on faith rather than upon direct observation.

I keep hearing this term "direct observation" bandied about by creationists as if such a thing exists. What I see with my own eyes happened slightly before I observe it and could easily be an optical illusion anyway. We can not observe anything "directly". We can however put quite a lot of "faith" in what we see and would not live very long if we didnt. There is no real difference between making conclusions about what we see "directly" and what we observe as evidence of what happened yesterday or the day before or even millenia ago. You probably think the Bible was written by a person or persons. Did you use "direct observation" or is it a matter of pure faith? The one you read was printed on a printing press, is that "direct observation" or "pure faith"?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I do not wish that the Atheists start smacking each other over this one.

I quote Starrman: [b]"Again, the TOE is not concerned with the process of formation of chemicals, it is concerned with the process beyond the creation of life."


http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=37005&page=21

If that is the case for all the other A ...[text shortened]... uld like to know from you, where, when, and how was life created, and who do you think did it?[/b]

I think Starrman was wrong on this one.
The problem however is to first define life as there is no universally understood definition of the word. It could mean the ability to reproduce or it could mean more. If we are to find its origins we must know what we are talking about. Some would call viruses life, some would not. What about computer viruses? Some structures in a cell could be considered to have a life of thier own.
Whatever the definition there is still no hard and fast line where you can say one set of chemical processes is dead and then a few generations later it is suddenly alive. Its a bit like the anti-abortion arguments. When does a sperm and egg change into a Baby? Is the egg on its own a human life or just a cell?

The origin of life ? I believe that life has been created more than once and possibly is regularly created to this day. I believe that parts of TOE can be used to explain some of the processes that create life but how much depends on what you wish to include in TOE!

Originally posted by micarr
Fe2+ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe3+ is insoluble. During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe2+ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe2+ to Fe3+ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? This was the point we were discussing.

But if oxygen doesn't dissolve in sewater, then why would the ions be oxidised? Redox chemistry is a LARGE and complicated topic; oxygen is not the only (or even most effective) oxidant, likewise with Hydrogen with reducing. Anyway, you can put as much Fe3+ and Fe2+ in a pure Hydrogen atmosphere as you like and very little of it will be reduced. You can put as much Fe(0) and Fe(2+) in an Oxygen atmosphere and very little of it will be oxidised. You need temperature, catalysts, other factors. For example, tools don't rust up inside, where the oxygen content is just as high as outside. Outside they get exposed to water and salts and acids, PLUS oxygen, this is what makes them rust.

~corp1131

Originally posted by corp1131
But if oxygen doesn't dissolve in sewater, then why would the ions be oxidised? Redox chemistry is a LARGE and complicated topic; oxygen is not the only (or even most effective) oxidant, likewise with Hydrogen with reducing. Anyway, you can put as much Fe3+ and Fe2+ in a pure Hydrogen atmosphere as you like and very little of it will be reduced. You can ...[text shortened]... exposed to water and salts and acids, PLUS oxygen, this is what makes them rust.

~corp1131

Oxygen DOES dissolve in seawater - jut not very well. If it didn't dissolve at all, nothing (no aerobic organism, that is) could survive in the oceans. No fish, no whales, no dolphins, no seaweed. Nothing would have evolved to live on the surface. Oxygen does dissolve in seawater. The rocks in question (3.8 byo ones), would have been underwaterat the time in question. The iron ions would be oxidised in situ in a localised, oxidising environment (maybe like a small hole in the rock, or a puddle or something). This environment would be oxidising because of the presence of life, even if the general environment was reducing.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Oxygen DOES dissolve in seawater - jut not very well. If it didn't dissolve at all, nothing (no aerobic organism, that is) could survive in the oceans. No fish, no whales, no dolphins, no seaweed. Nothing would have evolved to live on the surface. Oxygen does dissolve in seawater. The rocks in question (3.8 byo ones), would have been underwaterat t ...[text shortened]... oxidising because of the presence of life, even if the general environment was reducing.

I completley agree, I wasn't disputing your point, merely the point micarr made, I should have put "doesn't dissolve very well" in seawater in my last post. Keep fighting scottishinnz, im sure someone with a background in biology has a much better chance of rubbishing the claims that IDers/Creationists/idiots make than I do (unless they start spewing the 2nd law of thermodynamics crap again..)!

Originally posted by twhitehead
We can not observe anything "directly".

I keep hearing this term "direct observation" bandied about by creationists as if such a thing exists.
As in your other post relative to saving faith, you are onto something here, realtive to the salient point of the beginning.

We have no more proof of George Bush than we do of George Washington. Until we personally meet either of them, we are taking others' accounts as the fact of their existence, and then, that proof is only good to the person who made contact.

Those who posit that matter arose from nothing (or, even more indefensible, that matter just has always been), do so on faith. They were neither there to observe it, nor are they able to either repeat it or observe it occuring now. They change their theories on a regular basis. They argue among themselves as to how it all started. They will constantly and continually remodel their model, based upon new discoveries which make the old theories "as brittle fossils," to quote telly's simile.

Despite the conflagaration of data, when the zeroes have been stripped away, the essential point remains, naked, shivering and quite embarassed to have been so-exposed: from whence did the matter arise?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b](lets not even go there seeing as your chemistry is barely above the level I would expect from a 10 year old)
Damn! And I thought I was a task master by having my kids learn Latin and Algebra in the third grade.[/b]

You're not a task master. You're just delusional.