Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At SciTech Daily: Scientists Solve an Origin of Life Mystery

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Seawater might have supplied the phosphorus required for emerging life.

Researchers from the Universities of Cambridge and Cape Town may have found a solution to the mystery of how phosphorus came to be an essential component of life on Earth by recreating prehistoric seawater containing the element in a laboratory.

Their findings, which were published in the journal Nature Communications, suggest that seawater may be the missing source of phosphate, suggesting that it could have been present in sufficient quantities to support life without the need for particular environmental conditions.

Phosphate is a crucial component of DNA and RNA, which are the building blocks of life, although it is one of the least common elements in the universe relative to its biological significance. Phosphate is also relatively inaccessible in its mineral form – it can be difficult to dissolve in water so that life can utilize it.

Scientists have long suspected that phosphorus became part of biology early on, but they have only recently begun to recognize the role of phosphate in directing the synthesis of molecules required by life on Earth, “Experiments show it makes amazing things happen – chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules if there is a lot of phosphate in solution,” said Tosca, Professor of Mineralogy & Petrology at Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences.

However, there has been debate over the precise circumstances required to create phosphate. According to some research, phosphate should actually be even less accessible to life when iron is plentiful. However, this is disputed since the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.

They used geochemical modeling to simulate the early Earth’s conditions in order to understand how life came to rely on phosphate and the kind of environment that this element would have evolved in.

The article goes on in this vein, but one wonders if it got written just for the sake of the overstated title.

For example, “chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules…” – but how much intelligent intervention is required by the trained chemists to reach their desired goal?

Also, “the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.” – Does this make any sense at all?

Again, why do intelligent scientists fall into the assumption that finding a chemical ingredient in the environment that is necessary for life equates with the ability of natural processes to form all the biomolecules necessary for life, and without guidance to arrange these into coordinated functionality in a microscopic locality so that the outcome is a living cell? So many steps in this imagined process are mediated against by the known laws of physics, that to suggest it happened naturally is to depart from scientific credibility.

Full article at SciTech Daily.

Comments
JVL, I was laughing at the idea, but now I just don't know. You might be right. Here is a video of a meat robot singing to other meat robots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
:) https://www.memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4708647.jpgbornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
Relatd: All Junk DNA will be found to have function. Even the pseudogenes?JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
JVL at 81, All Junk DNA will be found to have function.relatd
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Querius: The skeletal remains of extinct animals called dinosaurs supposedly lived roughly 65-250 million years ago were ALL supposedly petrified artifacts without any possibility for organic matter to survive. This was PREDICTED by Darwinism. It’s also failed, but Darwinists are grimly hanging on to the unscientific possibility that 100+ million years of background radiation miraculously allowed organic bone, stretchy connective tissue, and even red blood cells to survive (in Chile, a recent find of Ichthyosaurus remains included preserved soft tissue in strata dated to 130-140 million years ago). What exactly are you annoyed with: that the prediction that no organic material would survive for so long? And who says it did survive because of background radiation? I find this whole paragraph confusing. Perhaps you'd like to read it over and make it a bit clearer.JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Relatd: So-called Junk DNA has function, and such function has been found. And more is being found as research continues. How much of what is called 'junk' DNA do you think will be found to have some function?JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Seversky @75, Welcome to the UD forum! Someone using your same forum name has posted on this forum for many years. The questions you posted are similar to the ones answered here innumerable times! The professors and others who founded ID in a joint conference did so as an alternative to Creationism. They specifically, stated that they took no scientific position on the source of the intelligent design. There are proponents of Intelligent Design of different faiths or no faith. Regarding Philip Johnson, would you then say that the well-known fact that Karl Marx was openly hostile to the Christian God discredits Marxism? Or how about Charles Darwin's hostility to God because of the loss of his daughter? Would you also say that this discredits Darwinism? As for examples of the pragmatism of ID over random events, you might look up the hundreds of posts to the previous "Seversky" with numerous examples. These examples include the detrimental effects to scientific progress due to the presumption of randomness resulting in - The presumption of over 100 supposedly useless "vestigial" organs such as the thyroid (an other ductless glands): useless vestiges of random, undirected evolution. - The presumption that 98.8% of our genome is "junk DNA," now called "non-coding DNA," as additional examples of vestiges of random, undirected evolution by Susumu Ohno, the originator of the term. - The skeletal remains of extinct animals called dinosaurs supposedly lived roughly 65-250 million years ago were ALL supposedly petrified artifacts without any possibility for organic matter to survive. This was PREDICTED by Darwinism. It’s also failed, but Darwinists are grimly hanging on to the unscientific possibility that 100+ million years of background radiation miraculously allowed organic bone, stretchy connective tissue, and even red blood cells to survive (in Chile, a recent find of Ichthyosaurus remains included preserved soft tissue in strata dated to 130-140 million years ago). These examples were ignored by the previous "Seversky," but I hope that you will remember them. -QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Querius at 77, Oh yes, on the planet Vega.relatd
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Seversky at 75, Oh my DARWIN !!! YOU revealed the Wedge Strategy? (Which anyone can find online.) "Not synonymous but ID has been shown to be a lineal descendent of Creationism via Creation Science." You apparently have no idea. Creationism. Creation science. Intelligent Design. Creationism only requires a literal interpretation of the Bible. Creation science looks for evidence of Biblical claims, and such evidence has been found. Intelligent Design, as science, has clearly identified actual design in living things. It has shown that unguided evolution does not describe reality; it's a worldview. So ID clearly indicates a mind, a Designer, designed life. ID, as science, does not identify the Designer. Here's an example: Secular Scientist: 'Junk DNA is just leftovers from our [allegedly, Ed.] long evolution. It's just useless junk.'' ID: So-called Junk DNA has function, and such function has been found. And more is being found as research continues.relatd
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
And imagine that as we write, a meatless forum on a galaxy far, far away there are sentient beings arguing about the silly notion of "thinking meat." ;-) -QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
JVL at 71, Good bye.relatd
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Querius/73
– ID is not synonymous with Creationism.
Not synonymous but ID has been shown to be a lineal descendent of Creationism via Creation Science.
– ID Takes no position on the source of the intelligent design.
That depends on which ID proponent you consult. For example, one of the founding fathers of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E Johnson , wrote about the "Wedge strategy" for promoting the belief
"We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."[51] "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[44]
As for
– ID recognizes that biological research based on the appearance of design advances scientific progress faster than the presumption of undirected random chance.
Examples?Seversky
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Q at 72, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha :)
“They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?” “Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat.” “I thought you just told me they used radio.” “They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat.” “Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?”
I got a tear in my eye from laughing so hard Q. LOL :)bornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
General Note - ID is not synonymous with Creationism. - ID Takes no position on the source of the intelligent design. - ID recognizes that biological research based on the appearance of design advances scientific progress faster than the presumption of undirected random chance. Kairosfocus, any chance of adding this or something similar to the "Put a Sock in It" resource? Or is it there already in some other form? Thanks, -QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Posted on mit.edu . . .
They're Made out of Meat Terry Bisson, 1991 Someone did a radio play of this... "They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "Meat. They're made out of meat." "Meat?" "There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars." "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines." "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact." "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines." "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat." "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in the sector and they're made out of meat." "Maybe they're like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage." "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take too long. Do you have any idea the life span of meat?" "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the Weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside." "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through." "No brain?" "Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat!" "So... what does the thinking?" "You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat." "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!" "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?" "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat." "Finally, Yes. They are indeed made out meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years." "So what does the meat have in mind." "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the universe, contact other sentients, swap ideas and information. The usual." "We're supposed to talk to meat?" "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there? Anyone home?' That sort of thing." "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?" "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat." "I thought you just told me they used radio." "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat." "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?" "Officially or unofficially?" "Both." "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in the quadrant, without prejudice, fear, or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing." "I was hoping you would say that." "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?" "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say?" `Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?" "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact." "So we just pretend there's no one home in the universe." "That's it." "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you have probed? You're sure they won't remember?" "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them." "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream." "And we can marked this sector unoccupied." "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?" "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotation ago, wants to be friendly again." "They always come around." "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the universe would be if one were all alone."
-QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Relatd: Thanks for that clear statement. The playground bullies have gotten together to make fun of someone. No ‘science’ involved with that. Bornagain77: . . . the meat robots of Dumb and Dumber . . . Bornagain77: . . . who knew meat robots could get so emotionally upset? Bornagain77: . . . you think I should actually care what neuronal illusions think about me and/or my posts? Bornagain77: no need to get upset. You are the one who said you wanted to talk about science. I just wanted to know why you did not want to talk about Darwinism anymore. So, Bornagain77 can make fun of people all he wants but when someone returns the favour they are wrong? You also attempt to trivialize ID for no reason aside from you don’t like it. And you NEVER to that regarding unguided evolutionary theory! Never ever.JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Relatd: Thanks for that clear statement. The playground bullies have gotten together to make fun of someone. No ‘science’ involved with that.
It doesn’t always have to be about science. Sometimes it just feels good to speak the truth.Sir Giles
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
JVL at 67, Thanks for that clear statement. The playground bullies have gotten together to make fun of someone. No 'science' involved with that.relatd
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
JVL at 51, So, only your version of science counts? I suspect I will no longer comment on any of your 'science' posts. You also attempt to trivialize ID for no reason aside from you don't like it.relatd
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: ? So cute, the meat robots of Dumb and Dumber are consoling each other. ? No, we're making fun of you; there's a difference.JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
:) So cute, the meat robots of Dumb and Dumber are consoling each other. :) https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOTk5ZjYyZTMtYzYwOC00NmJiLTk1OGQtZTMxY2I1YWQ3ZjJmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzU1NzE3NTg@._V1_QL75_UX500_CR0,47,500,281_.jpg https://media.tenor.com/wBn3ko3lZc8AAAAC/dumb-dumber.gifbornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
Sir Giles: Scroll, scroll, scroll. There is a season, scroll, scroll, scroll.JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Scroll, scroll, scroll.Sir Giles
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Wow, who knew meat robots could get so emotionally upset? :)
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” - Jerry Coyne – dogmatic Darwinian atheist No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20
bornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
JVL: I was trying to have a conversation with a real person, not a quote-mined database
BA77’s attempt at the Gish-gallop fails completely because it is only effective in its spoken form, where your only option to avoid the nonsense is to turn off the TV. In its written form all that is required is to scroll to the next comment worth reading.Sir Giles
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: But alas, If only I had a ‘real person’ to ‘personally’ talk about ‘science’ with JVL. ? Very droll but continuing to put words in other people's mouths is a bit infantile don't you think?JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Yet, there is no "I" within Darwinian materialism for anyone to think about me or to think about anybody else. :)
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That’s crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then — to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/
bornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
I don't really think about you at all, Phil.Alan Fox
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Alan Fox, you think I should actually care what neuronal illusions think about me and/or my posts? :)bornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Phil, I generally scroll over comments with your handle in the title. At most, if something else indicates a response to a particularly egregious misrepresentation, I might look at the bit you've written yourself. I never bother with the (largely quotemined) bits in blockquotes. I hope that is helpful feedback.Alan Fox
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
But alas, If only I had a 'real person' to 'personally' talk about 'science' with JVL. :)bornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply