12 Replies to “Video: The entire history of life on earth compressed into a single 24-hour day

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Though the video is somewhat interesting for pointing out some of the ‘sudden appearances’ of life on earth, does this video come with any type of disclaimer from you for any of the gigantic assumptions of unsubstantiated Darwinian evolution that is woven throughout?

  2. 2
    djockovic says:

    Ah the myth of simple life! For “simple” read mindbogglingly complex.

  3. 3
    UrbanMysticDee says:

    They don’t know bigger cells took in smaller cells to form eukaryotic cells. There are no fossils that show this transition. They should put a disclaimer on the video.

  4. 4
    sagebrush gardener says:

    Oh, it’s so simple! We just “emerged”.

    Well I guess that explains it. We can close up this silly web site and stop our kvetching now.

  5. 5
  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    A few disclaimers to melvinvines abiogenesis video:

    The atmosphere, contrary to the claim in the video, is found not to be ‘reducing’ on the early earth;

    Miller-Urey Experiment “Icon of Evolution” Alive and Well in Proposed Texas Instructional Materials – 2011
    Excerpt: However, it has been known for decades that the Earth’s early atmosphere probably was not composed of methane or ammonia, and thus would not have been conducive to Miller-Urey type chemistry. As origin of life theorist David Deamer explains, “This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers…”1 Theorist Jeffrey Bada and other experts have likewise observed that “Geoscientists today doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition Miller used…
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47271.html

    As well, there is no evidence of a primordial soup of precursor molecules:

    The Primordial Soup Myth:
    Excerpt: “Accordingly, Abelson(1966), Hull(1960), Sillen(1965), and many others have criticized the hypothesis that the primitive ocean, unlike the contemporary ocean, was a “thick soup” containing all of the micromolecules required for the next stage of molecular evolution. The concept of a primitive “thick soup” or “primordial broth” is one of the most persistent ideas at the same time that is most strongly contraindicated by thermodynamic reasoning and by lack of experimental support.” – Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose on page 37 in Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life.
    http://theory-of-evolution.net.....p-myth.php

    Even if there were found to be evidence of a prebiotic soup, nucleotides (and proteins) certainly do not ‘assemble themselves’, especially in aquatic environments:

    Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis – Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean.
    http://origins.swau.edu/papers.....fault.html

    To further suggest that the polypeptides ‘assembled themselves’ in a boiling ocean is to further take a flight of fancy away from what is known from experimentation:

    The origin of life–did it occur at high temperatures?
    Excerpt: Prebiotic chemistry points to a low-temperature origin because most biochemicals decompose rather rapidly at temperatures of 100 degrees C (e.g., half-lives are 73 min for ribose, 21 days for cytosine, and 204 days for adenine).
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539558

    Is the Origin of Life in Hot Water? – December 2010
    Excerpt: Heating a reaction does nothing for product stability. Cooling a reaction makes the reaction rate problems worse.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....41311.html

    Clay templates for membrane formation present their own problems:

    Chemist explores the membranous origins of the first living cell:
    Excerpt: Conditions in geothermal springs and similar extreme environments just do not favor membrane formation, which is inhibited or disrupted by acidity, dissolved salts, high temperatures, and calcium, iron, and magnesium ions. Furthermore, mineral surfaces in these clay-lined pools tend to remove phosphates and organic chemicals from the solution. “We have to face up to the biophysical facts of life,” Deamer said. “Hot, acidic hydrothermal systems are not conducive to self-assembly processes.”
    http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/04-03/deamer.asp

    Scientists, using all the ingenuity at their disposal, have not even created all 4 ‘letters’ of RNA by ‘natural’, chemical, means much less have the letters of DNA ever been observed to spontaneously ‘arrive on the scene’ as was claimed in the video:

    Scientists Say Intelligent Designer Needed for Origin of Life Chemistry
    Excerpt: Organic chemist Dr. Charles Garner recently noted in private correspondence that “while this work helps one imagine how RNA might form, it does nothing to address the information content of RNA. So, yes, there was a lot of guidance by an intelligent chemist.” Sutherland’s research produced only 2 of the 4 RNA nucleobases, and Dr. Garner also explained why, as is often the case, “the basic chemistry itself also required the hand of an intelligent chemist.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....t_des.html

    A few more details that are ‘overlooked’ in the video are mentioned here

    Chemistry by Chance: A Formula for Non-Life by Charles McCombs, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: The following eight obstacles in chemistry ensure that life by chance is untenable.
    1. The Problem of Unreactivity
    2. The Problem of Ionization
    3. The Problem of Mass Action
    4. The Problem of Reactivity
    5. The Problem of Selectivity
    6. The Problem of Solubility
    7. The Problem of Sugar
    8. The Problem of Chirality
    The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible through random chance. The synthesis of proteins and DNA/RNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size.
    http://www.icr.org/article/che.....-non-life/

    And that was just a few of the problems in the first 1:22 of the video that were overlooked by whomever made the video!

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    As well, the insurmountable problem of homchirality was simply glossed over

    Homochirality and Darwin – Robert Sheldon – April 2010
    Excerpt: there is no abiotic path from a racemic solution to a stereo-active solution of amino acid(s) that doesn’t involve a biotic chiral agent, be it chiral beads or Louis Pasteur himself. Like many critiques of ID, the problem with these “Darwinist” solutions is that they always smuggle in some information, in this case, chiral agents.
    http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/page3

    Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 – Robert Sheldon – May 2010
    Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn’t imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos?
    http://procrustes.blogtownhall.....rt_2.thtml

    Left-Handed Amino Acids Explained Naturally? Not by a long shot! – January 2010
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20110110a

    as to lipid world, here are a few problems that go unmentioned in the video

    Pop Goes the Fatbubble Theory for the Origin of Life
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....genesis130

    Darwinists Award New Inductee
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20061211a

    Moreover they claim the ‘lipid world’ took about 1 billion years to form a living cell, yet we now have evidence for photosynthetic life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth.

    The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth 3.8 bya – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918

    Team Claims It Has Found Oldest Fossils By NICHOLAS WADE – August 2011
    Excerpt: Rocks older than 3.5 billion years have been so thoroughly cooked as to destroy all cellular structures, but chemical traces of life can still be detected. Chemicals indicative of life have been reported in rocks 3.5 billion years old in the Dresser Formation of Western Australia and, with less certainty, in rocks 3.8 billion years old in Greenland.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08......html?_r=1

    U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R

    Life – Its Sudden Origin and Extreme Complexity – Dr. Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4287513

    Moreover, evidence for ‘sulfate reducing’ bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria:

    When Did Life First Appear on Earth? – Fazale Rana – December 2010
    Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    at 3:49 he claims ‘they formed a code which became more and more complex’, yet:

    the first DNA code of life on earth had to be at least as complex as the current DNA code found in life:

    Shannon Information – Channel Capacity – Perry Marshall – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/

    “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible”
    Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life

    And the code, despite its lack of ‘evolvability’ is found to be optimal:

    Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell’s Design – 2008 – page 177)

    Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code – Fazale Rana
    Excerpt: Sixty-four codons make up the genetic code. Because the genetic code only needs to encode 20 amino acids, some of the codons are redundant. That is, different codons code for the same amino acid. In fact, up to six different codons specify some amino acids. Others are specified by only one codon.,,,
    Genetic code rules incorporate a design that allows the cell to avoid the harmful effects of substitution mutations. For example, six codons encode the amino acid leucine (Leu). If at a particular amino acid position in a polypeptide, Leu is encoded by 5? (pronounced five prime, a marker indicating the beginning of the codon). CUU, substitution mutations in the 3? position from U to C, A, or G produce three new codons, 5? CUC, 5? CUA, and 5? CUG, all of which code for Leu. The net effect produces no change in the amino acid sequence of the polypeptide. For this scenario, the cell successfully avoids the negative effects of a substitution mutation.
    Likewise, a change of C in the 5? position to a U generates a new codon, 5?UUU, that specifies phenylalanine, an amino acid with similar physical and chemical properties to Leu. A change of C to an A or to a G produces codons that code for isoleucine and valine, respectively. These two amino acids also possess chemical and physical properties similar to leucine. Qualitatively, the genetic code appears constructed to minimize errors that result from substitution mutations.,,,
    The genetic code’s error-minimization properties are actually more dramatic than these results indicate. When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code’s capacity occurred outside the distribution.18 Researchers estimate the existence of 10^18 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of 10^18 possible genetic codes, few, if any, have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature.
    http://www.reasons.org/biology.....netic-code

    At least the video was a bit more subdued in its claim for knowing how replication evolved,: This humbleness on their part, however meager, was wise for replication is anything but simple:

    DNA – Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis – video
    https://vimeo.com/33882804

    The Digital Code of DNA and the Unimagined Complexity of a ‘Simple’ Bacteria – Rabbi Moshe Averick – video (notes in description)
    https://vimeo.com/35730736

    To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)

    “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” – Dr. Lynn Margulis

    “The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!”
    (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

    “Shut up,” Coyne Explained – January 2012
    Excerpt: Coyne writes that Kuhn’s criticisms of current origin-of-life research are “absurdly funny” — even though such research (into the origin of life) has not led to the abiotic formation of a single functional protein, much less a living cell.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55421.html

    Moreover, if people want to know where life really comes from, I suggest looking to one who defeated death on the cross:

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

  9. 9
    Axel says:

    ‘Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell’s Design – 2008 – page 177)’

    and…

    “The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!”
    (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)’

    Maths…schmaths. Where’s the hard evidence that the Neo-Darwinists adduce as the unassailable core of their beliefs? Eh? Men among boys, that’s what! Isn’t that right, Mr Coyne? You can’t get harder empirical evidence than corporate fiats. ‘Fiat science’, coming to a theatre near you, soon!

  10. 10
    Axel says:

    If you wish upon a star… Walt Disney knew a thing or two.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    The Mystery of Life’s Origin: An Interview with Dr. Charles Thaxton, Part One – podcast
    http://www.idthefuture.com/201....._an_2.html

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    They left out my birthday.

Leave a Reply