rumitoid

SYFY
Elizabeth Rayne
Sun, January 30, 2022, 8:00 AM

How life crawled out of primordial ooze is a mystery literally as old as Earth itself. There must have been something that switched on the t***sition from inanimate to alive — but what?

What life even is might be the better question. There could be extraterrestrial life-forms out there which could change our entire idea of what it means to be a living thing (and we might not even recognize them). Before anything lived on Earth, it was a mess of proteins and other potential ingredients for life, some of which ended up creating the first microorganisms which kept evolving and diversifying and re-evolving into everything from single-celled algae to dinosaurs.

For us Earthlings, being alive means the ability to capture energy and put it to use, at least if you ask researcher Yana Bromberg of Rutgers University, who recently led a study published in Science Advances. She and her team were trying to figure out what might have turned life on billions of years ago when they realized that there was a real possibility in proteins that could bind metals. Something that used those proteins might have been the first forms of life.

“All biotic activities, like the cellular functions that are necessary for life, require acquiring, using, and storing energy,” she told SYFY WIRE. “For this, electrons need to be moved around. Thus, any first ‘life’ would need to be able to handle electron t***sfer.”

Metal-binding proteins can bind metal ions for different purposes. Some of these proteins are stabilized by these ions, while others use them to regulate cell processes in different ways. Then there are proteins which bind to metals which are able to catalyze. Catalysis is the process that accelerates chemical reactions and is important for life. Remember that. Bromberg and her team went through all the existing metal-binding proteins to see what they had in common, because that could lead to their ancestors which might have been around on nascent Earth.

The researchers found that most of the proteins they compared have similar cores that bind metal, no matter what metal it is that they bind themselves to, even if the actual proteins were nothing alike. Substructures in these cores tend to keep repeating themselves and were curiously observed in other parts of the proteins and proteins that do not bind metal. This may not sound like much, but what it revealed was that the vast range of proteins and protein functions which now exist must have emerged from no more than a few common ancestors.

T***slation: the ancestral proteins had the potential to bring about what we know as life.

“There was a small number of ways (or even just a single one) of using peptides for metal binding for electron t***sfer,” said Bromberg. “This original peptide may have been then reproduced and diversified to provide for the set of metal binding functions we currently observe.”

Proteins are made of peptides, which are made of amino acids. Amino acids are necessary for life but can exist outside of living organisms. Whenever these organic compounds are found somewhere else besides Earth, it goes v***l, because aliens, but organics do not necessarily mean life is there, though the inverse is true: the presence of life means organics. We still have no idea how life spawned out of nowhere. What went into creating living things out of abiotic substances is unknown, but this can give us further insight into what might have happened.

Another thing Bromberg’s study could help with is what to search for as we keep scouring the universe for signs of life. There are plenty of organics out there, which may or may not be indicators that something is creeping around on a faraway exoplanet. Alien life-forms continue to elude us. If we can go way back and get some idea of how life may have emerged on early Earth, and what that might have looked like, it can at least help astrobiologists identify a planet on which life is just starting to open its eyes, whether or not it actually has them.

“If we can identify similar peptides elsewhere, this would indicate that life may appear (or previously existed) where we see them,” Bromberg said. “Our findings also provide a new direction for understanding the appearance of life on Earth, which may apply to other planets.”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/life-emerged-stuff-anything-alive-150006049.html

Jlw Loc: Wisconsin

I think that you are still primordial ooze

skyrider

If the "primordial goo" was left to itself without the help of intelligent design to sequence the necessary mutant sequencing of DNA, assuming it was there, to develop even one live cell, it would not have happened.
It is believed that there are so many sequences possible, that to randomly fall upon the right one by the trial and error method , there has not been enough time in the whole existence of the planet to accomplish the task.
And that would be for only one cell. What then of the time required to develop an intelligent being?

Jlw Loc: Wisconsin

Exactly

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Interesting....

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

What is "the right one"???

For all we know, there may be millions, or even billlions, of viable combinations...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

The reason it is a mystery is because life did not crawl out of the primordial ooze.

The notion that complex life forms and consciousness and self-awareness "evolved" out of inanimate matter is utter foolishness.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Of course it is...

That's why no one has ever made such an absurd claim...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Are you familiar with the Atheist creation story?

The General Theory of Evolution (GTE) is the atheists’ creation story. As with the Bible, it begins with creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)—and in the atheists’ view there really was nothing (and certainly no God) to act as first cause. The big bang, they say, produced the universe all by itself. Then, billions of years later we’re told, the first life formed spontaneously in some chemical soup and, without any help, evolved into all the plants and animals found on Earth today—including us.

Contrary to impressions given by the media, never before has there been so much evidence challenging this story. Such are the problems secular cosmologists have in trying to make their big bang models work, they end up making desperate appeals to the most unscientific notions imaginable. For example, in December 2014, top cosmologist Lee Smolin published a book suggesting that the only way to solve the big bang’s many scientific problems is to argue that the laws of physics were different in the past. So, when the facts don’t fit their creation story, secular scientists must turn to alternative ‘scientific laws’ drawn from their imaginations.

Similarly, leading origin of life researchers, such as Paul Davies and Stuart Kauffman, readily admit that no observed natural processes can produce life from non-life. Unperturbed, however, they do the same as the secular cosmologists—they take a gigantic leap of blind faith and believe that the required natural processes existed anyway and, for some reason, we just haven’t yet discovered them. Richards Dawkins is adamant that, once first life formed, Darwin’s theory can explain how this could have evolved into people. But why then are leading biologists such as James Shapiro and Stuart Newman quietly looking for alternative theories?

Faith masquerading as science

All this demonstrates a commitment not to science, but to a worldview that excludes God from one’s thinking, i.e. to philosophical naturalism—the doctrine that everything, including the origins of the universe and life, can be explained entirely by natural processes. It’s an ideology which is neither scientific (arising from blind faith rather than observations) nor necessary for scientific progress, as CMI has pointed out many times before. For example, Philip Skell, formerly Professor of Chemistry at Pennsylvania State University, commented:

When the facts don’t fit their creation story, secular scientists must turn to alternative ‘scientific laws’ drawn from their imaginations.

I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

The magnitude of the problems with the GTE are hidden from the general public, with popular science programmes almost always peddling the secular view as fact. At the same time, creation scientists are never given a realistic opportunity to present an alternative view. In universities, even non-creationists who dare to inform students of problems with Darwin’s theory can find themselves out of a job. In UK state-funded schools, Government regulations now prohibit the presentation of Intelligent Design or Creation as views which are supported by evidence.

The antidote—promoting true science

All this makes our youngsters very vulnerable. ‘Scientific’ explanations for the GTE can appear very convincing when only the evidence supporting this view is presented. In Proverbs 18:17, we read, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” How much more so when nobody with contrary evidence is allowed to speak? Evolutionary beliefs are maintained by censorship—and with great effect.

Christians, however, are not without resources to counter this secular onslaught. Our website (creation.com) has over 9,000 articles demonstrating the clear superiority of the biblical worldview over and against that of the secularists. Moreover, month by month more evidence challenging evolutionary beliefs is uncovered and Creation magazine puts this directly into subscribers’ hands, enabling us to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).
by Dominic Statham

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Are you aware that the Theory of Evolution doesn't involve Origin of Life and only ignorant creationists think it does????

Equally, it doesn't concern itself with Origins of Existence...

It's like Creationists can't find a single piece of evidence to support their theory, so instead spend all of their time trying to discredit theories they can't even comprehend...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

"Creationists can't find a single piece of evidence to support their theory"?
WTF are you talking about?
Have you finally become an atheist?

Personally, I spend very little time discrediting evolution theories,
for the most part they aren't worth the time and effort.

5 Proofs for the Existence of God
Are there reasonable proofs for God? In December 2004 it was announced that long time British Professor and Philosopher, Anthony Flew, regarded by many as “the world’s most acclaimed atheist”, had renounced his atheism in favour of theism.

This dramatic conversion has been likened by Astrophysicist and now one of the world’s leading Cosmologists, Dr Hugh Ross, as having the same impact on the academic world as an announcement that Billy Graham had renounced Christianity would have on the Church!

One of the reasons cited by Prof. Flew was ‘the evidence.’ He admitted that for a long time the growing problem of Evolution’s inability to explain how life began, or for that matter, how anything began, led him to the inevitable conclusion that it was an inadequate answer in the face of the evidence. Then when the DNA Genome code was unraveled the evidence for Design became “undeniable.” These two pieces of evidence (1. the existence of life demanding a Life-Source, and 2. the scientific evidence of an extremely complex code in the make-up of that life- DNA) were enough for Professor Flew to renounce atheism.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Would you like me to point out the glaring fallacy??? Or can you find it for yourself???

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Go for it, professor, we know you are a genius in spiritual matters.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

That's another fallacy...

Presuming that because something doesn't fit the current theory of evolution in no way supports the theory of creationism...

The fact that you seem to feel that creationism and evolution are at odds is another fallacy...

The creation of life and the evolution of life are two separate theories...

Your final fallacy is assuming that if something doesn't support current evolutionary theory, that it somehow supports the Christian God... It could just as easily support any other religious creation mythos ..

Cheers...

skyrider

Actually, for many, the claim that a bolt of lightening caused the "ooze particles" to assemble and replicate
for establishing the beginning of evolving life forms is their belief and their claim. My belief is that even if we were to assume that the particles were there, that there has not been enough time in the existence of the planet for that
to mathematically happen.