Evolutionists, Now that you have Pyrophosphites can you forget spontaneous generation?

My understanding of that says that pyrophosphates are common now, pyrophosphites are scarce because they are readily oxidised to pyrophosphates. Oxygen is common now, but in the early Earth it was not. This assertion is supported by independent geochemical evidence which indicates a nitrogen / carbon dioxide / methane / water vapor atmosphere, I do not know the proportions though. Such an atmosphere would be called "reducing" by chemists.

In reducing conditions, pyrophosphites would be more stable. However they could be induced to release energy by oxidation to the pyrophosphate form. The oxygen could come from any of a number of sources, CO2, H2O and doubtless other places. For it to be feasible, it depends on the energy balances. If addition of oxygen to pyrophosphite releases more energy than removing it from water or CO2, then the reaction is a feasible energy source if the reaction is also spontaneous enough depending on reaction kinetics, Gibbs free energy etc. Without consulting some pretty scarce information on pyrophosphites I could not say. However I'm sure Dr. Kee has done so.

I don't know whether this is relevant to abiogenesis and neither do you.

There is one thing I do know. From ancient times people were aware of many chemical facts with the amount of knowledge accumulating rapidly in the 1700s. Hydrogen, carbon dioxide etc were discovered in rapid succession followed in the mid 1770s by oxygen. Yet a theory of combustion and metal smelting eluded chemists. There was the phlogiston theory which made a kind of sense but required phlogiston to have negative weight, other peculiar and improbable properties and it had never been isolated. It took around five years of dedicated research by Lavoisier and his wife to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant and produce what is essentially a modern theory of combustion. Doubtless there were those on the sidelines saying it could not be done, some of them chemists and some not at all.

Nobody can fairly say that a viable theory of abiogenesis and a demonstration of it will emerge in the next ten or even hundred years. There is one thing for certain, those with little to no knowledge of the chemistry involved do not have the right to say it cannot happen.

Creationist, can you do anything other than try feebly to poke holes in abiogenesis (which isn't evolution, by the way) and then make an argument from ignorance and claim that, simply because you can't think of anything else, it must simply have been magic?

And seriously, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. That's like calling someone a "Civil Warist" or a "Renaissanceist" simply for acknowledging those events.

????? HUH?

Why are you under the delusion that people who accept the findings of science claimed to KNOW how life started?

And why are you under the delusion that, not knowing how life started means it had to have been created by an imaginary being?

That we don't know one part of how Earth came to be as we find it today doesn't mean that impossible beings for which there is no evidence must have done it. What people with a BRAIN say is "We haven't figured that out, yet."

That's why there are some scientists who are trying to figure it out.

There's nothing at all sensible in an always-existing, infinitely complex, complete-in-itself, unchanging being suddenly decided to make a universe, world, and living things. That's the OPPOSITE of sensible. It's complete NONSENSE.

You're referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. In any event, tholins, thought to be the precursors of life, exist in abundance in the universe. However, there is nothing that indicates that there is any "god."

Tholin

http://www.search.com/reference/Tholin

[Excerpt]

"The surfaces of comets, centaurs, and many icy moons in the outer solar system are rich in deposits of Triton, Titan and ice tholins. Some researchers have speculated that Earth may have been seeded by organic compounds early in its development by tholin-rich comets, providing the raw material necessary for life to develop; see Urey-Miller experiment for discussion related to this issue."

* * *

Precursor of Life Molecules Found Around Star

http://www.livescience.com/space/scienceastronomy/...

[Excerpt]

"Astronomers have found the first signature of complex organic molecules in the dust cloud around a distant star, suggesting that these building blocks of life may be a common feature of planetary systems.

"In our solar system, the large carbon molecules, called tholins, have been found in comets and on Saturn's moon, Titan, giving its atmosphere a red tinge.

"Tholins are thought to be precursors to the biomolecules that make up living organisms on Earth (though they are no longer found on our planet because the oxygen in our atmosphere would quickly destroy them)."

* * *

Abiogenesis FAQs

Articles on the Origin of Life

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/abioprob/

[Excerpt]

"Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth. Despite the enormous progress that has been made since the Miller-Urey experiment, abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists' arguments."

.

Spontaneous generation is an obsolete theory. No one believes in it since Louis Pasteur effectively debunked it ages ago. Is that how accurate your information is? I bet you feel stupid now.

It's not spontaneous, it is gradual development. If anything, intelligent creation is more spontaneous than evolution. You're talking about something different.

Pyrophosphate was the predecessor to the more complex yet more efficient ATP

What does the beginning of life have to do with evolution?

Oh, that's right: NOTHING!

Keep learning . . .

I have no clue how life begun.

this is not reason to start believing in magic.

why is creationism the only alternative? why cant we just be satisfied with we dont know yet?