<p>"actually there has been an experiment done, in a primitive earth condition, amino acids have been synthesised from their precursors. I don't know why you are choosing this link to attack, especially when it has been proven to be possible."</p>
<p>We're currently debating the spontaneity of the creation of amino acids, not the possibility of their formation. Of course you can make amino acids! You just need enough energy, but not in the form of heat. Besides, even without that, just by playing the numbers game, you'll eventually get a couple of amino acids...eventually...</p>
<p>"fine, for ANY molecules, the larger it is, the less organized it is because there are more ways to twist/turn (intermolecular bonds).</p>
<p>If you have never read a chemistry text in your life, I suggest you stop arguing on this front. You are making a fool out of yourself."</p>
<p>One amino acid has more entropy than one CO2 molecule. Yes, I know. But one amino acid has less entropy than 5 CO2's, 3 N2's, or whatever number of molecules it takes to make it</p>
<p>just because I'm unfamiliar with chem texts does not mean that I don't have common sense. Mom's homemade charcoal/poison gas has to have more entropy than Mom's meatloaf. That's just common sense.</p>
<p>"mean that I don't have common sense. Mom's homemade charcoal/poison gas has to have more entropy than Mom's meatloaf. That's just common sense."</p>
<p>common sense fails in science.</p>
<p>your mom's meatloaf actually had more entropy, because it's more disorganized (meatloaf), while gas are just, umm, gas. their organizations are good, and they are not random at all (their behaviors can be predicted), hence the ideal gas law.</p>
<p>"5 CO2's, 3 N2's, or whatever number of molecules it takes to make it"</p>
<p>unfortunately, amino acids don't just arise from Co2s, they arise from their precursors.</p>
<p>and fortunately, the primative earth had lighting. I never said amino acid form by heat alone, the primitive earth had the requirements for it to form.</p>
<p>What? Science is counter-intuitive? Yet it arises from human reasoning, which IS common sense presented with pretty wrapping paper? Sounds like a paradox to me...</p>
<p>"your mom's meatloaf actually had more entropy, because it's more disorganized (meatloaf), while gas are just, umm, gas. their organizations are good, and they are not random at all (their behaviors can be predicted), hence the ideal gas law."</p>
<p>Really. Fine, I'll do some reading before I continue. However, I doubt that you can get much farther up the chain before you run into entropy reduction...the cell? higher entropy than gas?</p>
<p>Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50</p>
<p>actually the amino acids in the meatloaf dont break down. The protien they were a part of changes shape an becomes denatured. </p>
<p>Oh yeah and ideal gas law doesnt have anything to do with entropy, because it assumes no intermolecular forces. I have to agree with tanonev on this one, the gasses will have a higher spontaninity then the protien except under rare circumstances.</p>
<p>"actually there has been an experiment done, in a primitive earth condition, amino acids have been synthesised from their precursors."</p>
<p>if you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiment(1953), then you are dead wrong. first of all, the gases miller used were methane(CH4), ammonia (NH3) and water (H2O). however scientists since the 1980's agree that the only gases that existed on primordial earth were N2, CO2, and H2O. when other scientist repeated the experiment with nitrogen, water and carbon dioxide, guess what..no amino acids formed.
another thing that was wrong with his experiment was that he used what is called a "cold trap", a mechanism to isolate the amino acids as soon as one formed. without the cold trap the amino acids would have been destroyed a few seconds later.Richard Bliss who wrote "Origin of Life" states that :"Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source[the electric charges miller used to power the experiment]".</p>
<p>Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See? I told you...human logic has limitations and tends quite often to end in paradoxes. Anyhow, the gift to "speak in tongues" is mysterious, but here's my theory:
Initially, we all communicated psychically
At the Tower of Babel, we were unceremoniously introduced to spoken language, and the psychic language was lost
The few with the ability to "speak in tongues" have somehow had the knowledge of that first language restored to them. The language is immediately comprehensible, but unspeakable without the gift.
Google Dannion Brinkley (I don't know if I spelled his name right)...</p>
<p>first, NH3 is present in intergalaxy gases, no reason that they don't present on earth.</p>
<p>"if you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiment(1953), then you are dead wrong. first of all, the gases miller used were methane(CH4), ammonia (NH3) and water (H2O). however scientists since the 1980's agree that the only gases that existed on primordial earth were N2, CO2, and H2O. when other scientist repeated the experiment with nitrogen, water and carbon dioxide, guess what..no amino acids formed.
another thing that was wrong with his experiment was that he used what is called a "cold trap", a mechanism to isolate the amino acids as soon as one formed. without the cold trap the amino acids would have been destroyed a few seconds later.Richard Bliss who wrote "Origin of Life" states that :"Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source[the electric charges miller used to power the experiment]"."</p>
<p>the electric charge (lighting) occurs sporadically in nature, while in his experiment it occurs continuously.</p>
<p>again, we are arguing about entropy of precursors of amino acids here, not elements that made up amino acid.</p>
<p>blackdream,
granted that ammonia might have existed in some regions of the galaxy, the primordial earth had no ozone layer therefore ultraviolet rays from the sun would have not allowed for the existance of ammonia and methane.</p>
<p>"blackdream,
granted that ammonia might have existed in some regions of the galaxy, the primordial earth had no ozone layer therefore ultraviolet rays from the sun would have not allowed for the existance of ammonia and methane."</p>
<p>they existed as aqueous solution in the ocean, where they are protected from UV rays. hence life start in ocean. go read your bio book, the evolution chapter, before you attempt to argue against evolution</p>
<p>"they[amino acids] existed as aqueous solution in the ocean."</p>
<p>even if amino acids existed in the ocean's then they still would not form any kinds of proteins because amino acids need to bond which results in a peptide bond and a water molecule.</p>
<p>if you are trying to form peptides in water, it can't happen because of LeChateliers Principle. Since amino acids are in an aqueous environment the reaction is always to the reactant side of the equation thus redering the formation of peptides in water</p>
<ol>
<li>Schlesinger, G. and S. L. Miller. 1983. Prebiotic synthesis in atmospheres containing CH4, CO, and CO2. I. Amino acids. Journal of Molecular Evolution 19(5): 376-382. </li>
</ol>
<p>Further Reading:
Ellington, Andrew D. and Matthew Levy. 2003. Gas, discharge, and the Discovery Institute. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 23(3-4): 39-40.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>EDIT: Reread post. As I (barely) understand it, the first peptides are thought to have formed on rocks or in mud. New theories emerge pretty frequently.</p>