Mfw this is what biblical literalists actually believe

>chemicals boiled over millions of years until the right compounds for life were combined in the right way for life to occur
>made up bs with no scientific evidence and can't be replicated in any lab tests and has no basis to even be considered a plausible theory
>abiogenesis

pick 3

>can't be replicated in any lab tests
Miller experiment

>Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsistencies in a number of areas: By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules. Their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia. There was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed.

Wait.

>oxygen in the atmosphere
>3 billion years ago

pick one

think that's the point. there was enough oxygen 3 billion~ years ago in the atmosphere to have destroyed the amino acids

anyways, the miller experiment is a dud. it doesn't prove abiogenesis at all

>There was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere
but the first life was underwater

also what is the source for this greentext?

But atmospheric oxygen was basically non-existent on earth prior to organic life.

That's why there was a billion plus year gap in between the first single celled organisms and the first multicellular ones. The little single celled photosynthetic organisms had to transform all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into oxygen, and all of the iron in the earth's crust into Iron oxide.

there's been oxidized iron found in rocks where the oxidized iron is estimated to be 3.5 billion~ years old

scientists agree that the primordial atmosphere didn't consist of methane and ammonia like in the experiment. since the earth was still forming and was extremely hot, the atmosphere had mostly nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapor and those same conditions should've been used in the experiment

If I recall correctly, the primordial atmosphere was about a third hydrogen, a third nitrogen, and a third CO2 when life began.

If I'm not talking out of my ass, the water would have fallen out and formed oceans by this point.

neither one of these posts respond to the post they're replying to

and if there wasn't enough a significant enough threshold of oxygen in the atmosphere then there'd have been no ozone which means the amino acids would've been exposed to extreme amounts radiation. they would've been destroyed either way

but again, amino acids and protein compounds by themselves don't become animated and form life all of a sudden

>no ozone which means the amino acids would've been exposed to extreme amounts radiation
yes, which is why early life was underwater

I'm 90% sure that's only for life on land or in the photic zone of the ocean.

Anyway, you've been doing the classic gish gallop.

>oxygen destroys life, so how'd it evolve
>life is what created the oxygen
>oh, well what about methane vapor and ammonia

This is why debates only allow a limited number of points to be brought up.

you asked what the proof was that there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere to destroy amino acids outside the favorable conditions of the experiment and it's been proven by the fact that there's oxidized iron that's even older than the proposed time that the amino acids formed. the experiment didn't take a realistic approach

no i didn't. you either mixed up the posts you replied to or assumed that they were all the same poster and you could reply to a certain point in posts that those points weren't in. the miller experiment was flawed, but it is hardly the only experiment to produce organic material. also, atmospheric oxygen hardly matters when, once again, the first life forms were in the ocean, not on land where they would be exposed to oxygen.

you're not proving that synthesizing amino acids under lab conditions equates to life, or even single-celled organisms

we never claimed that it did. it is only one step in producing all the chemicals needed for life and properly putting them together. abiogenesis is still a work in progress and hasn't been fully worked out. however, pretty much all of the basic components of life have been produced in laboratory settings that properly mimic conditions on earth 4 billion years ago, unlike miller which was simply an early attempt

then why're you claiming that they don't respond to the posts when they clearly do you nuthead

you can't make points to an argument and reply to a random post in the thread and expect people to be able to follow it. i think this is actually just part of your gish galloping tactic which the other poster pointed out. your purposefully driving the conversation all over the place to lose coherence and make it harder to lose the argument

then why bring it up, especially when it's been unanimously disproven as a study on life formation

I'm not that poster. i came into the thread here

none of what you're saying happened even happened. i think you're just having a hard time following the chain of discussion on the subject matter or perhaps employing that same tactic you just described

and? you asked for source of there being enough oxygen in the atmosphere to destroy amino acids 3 billion~ years ago and the source is oxidized iron that was found to be 3.5 billion years~ old. why're you claiming that the replies to your posts don't respond to the posts they replied to

tell me the relation this post to this replyor this to this reply
the second is fairly obvious gish gallop, as he said nothing about the issue of whether methane and ammonia belonged in the atmosphere

What? no, reread my reply. for the thousandth time early life was in the oceans. oxygen in the atmosphere is not a danger to life deep underwater

and the claim that amino acids were formed deep underwater, deep enough to avoid intense radiation rays of up to 528MW per m^2 per steradian travelling 115 miles into the sea, is also flawed because considering the fact that methane and ammonia had to be involved in the formation of them, the reaction had to occur somewhat close to the surface where there's less pressure area in order to accomadate the same conditions as the experiment itself

>is also flawed because considering the fact that methane and ammonia had to be involved in the formation of them, the reaction had to occur somewhat close to the surface where there's less pressure area in order to accomadate the same conditions as the experiment itself
but this experiment isn't the current model for abiogenesis. according to the encyclopedia Britannica, deep sea or deep below the surface is where scientists currently place abiogenesis as occuring:

>The habitat for abiogenesis has also been debated. While some evidence suggests that life may have originated from nonlife in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, it is possible that abiogenesis occurred elsewhere, such as deep below Earth’s surface, where newly arisen protocells could have subsisted on methane or hydrogen, or even on ocean shores, where proteinoids may have emerged from the reaction of amino acids with heat and then entered the water as cell-like protein droplets.

do you have a source that says the specific conditions of the miller experiment are the only way to form amino acids?

>"what is the source for there being enough oxygen in the atmosphere 3 billion years ago to destroy amino acids that might've formed"
>there exists oxidized iron that's been found that's 3 billion years old
>oxidation occurs when there's highly measurable quantities of oxygen in the air
even you can't possibly be stupid enough to not be able to follow this breakdown of the argument

>what is the source for there being enough oxygen in the atmosphere 3 billion years ago to destroy amino acids that might've formed
what are you quoting here? I never said this. I think you're confused by me asking for "the source of this greentext", meaning the material that you quoted >>>

what "material". from the given set of circumstances of geologic evidence of there having been measurable quantities of oxygen in the atmosphere before the supposed formation of amino acids themselves, the answer that was given to you was entirely sufficient for anyone to simply draw the logical conclusion from it that whatever amino acids might've formed would've died either by oxygen or intense heat and radiation

>what "material".
the long quote that you replied to the miller experiment poster. it was unsourced so i was asking for a source. literally all you have to do is click on the reply before that post to see it.

need I repeat again that atmospheric oxygen is not an issue for life near vents on the ocean floor? your stuck on critiquing the model given by the miller experiment but the miller experiment is very outdated and does not reflect current abiogenesis theory. anywhere you here about the miller experiment it's only used as an example that proved amino acids can be formed from inorganic material, nothing more. it has little to do with current science on the subject

>life near vents on the ocean floor
there's no laboratory tests or basis for that assumption. the way that amino acids were created involved gaseous methane and gaseous ammonia. the only exptected way for ammonia to reach the seabed would be through seawater circulation from the surface which would carry along other contaminants such as oxygen. there's been no evidence or lab tests that demonstrates amino acids forming in such conditions

There's more evidence for abiogenesis than there is for the holocaust

furthermore, on the subject of abiogenesis. even if you took the basic molecular components of a single living cell, their building blocks, and put them in solution with the perfect conditions for the molecules to subsist in, the solution still wouldn't produce a single living cell. so the idea that a few amino acids could possibly form a living cell is completely unfounded

Isn't the former just a poetic way of stating the later?

All the versions I've heard of this story say that the atmosphere was full of oxygen which was incredibly toxic for the early forms of life.

Yeah and the latter isn't even unanimously agreed upon.

>Literally nobody but the most die hard fuckwit American Protestant thinks this is how it went down
I get it, you didn't like Sunday school, get over it

Stop trying to play this bullshit defense. Near half of americans are young earth creationists.

gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

>Americans
Opinion discarded

Nobody cares about what retarded americans, and more important, protestants think.

Source this?

The conventional wisdom is that the Earth has a hydrogen/nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere at the start.

This was the second result in Google:

astrobio.net/geology/earths-early-atmosphere/

However, now that I think about it, what I actually might have heard is that the atmosphere became toxic in part due to the huge amount of plants sucking up all the hydrogen and spewing too much oxygen. Which would in my little brain tie with the megafauna that arose later on.

Goddamn I swear I'm gonna choke you. Fucking cringe.

Diatomic oxygen is toxic to early forms of life.

The study you posted stated the oxygen existed as water, Carbon Dioxide or Sulfur Dioxide. CO2 and SO2.

Not really, because dirt isn't even remotely accurate. If it were allegory for abiogenisis, soup is a much better anologue.

C-Choke me daddy