Creationism in Crisis - A Rainbow On Another Planet! Did God Flood That One Too?

WASP-76b showing its 'glory'

© ESA, work performed by ATG under contract for ESA.
CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO

Each glory is unique, depending on the composition of the planet’s atmosphere and the colours of the light from the star that illuminates it. WASP-76 (the «Sun» of WASP-76b) is a yellow and white main sequence star like our Sun, but different stars create glories with different colours and patterns.

© ESA, work performed by ATG under contract for ESA. CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO.

CHEOPS detects a "rainbow" on an exoplanet - Medias - UNIGE

Scientists working at the CHEOPS space telescope control centre in the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, working in collaboration with the European Space Agency (ESA) and the University of Bern (UNIBE), have discovered something which should ring alarm bells in the minds of Bible literalists.

It is the discovery of a rainbow in the atmosphere of an exoplanet known to science as WASP-76b.

WASP-76b is an exoplanet discovered in 2013 and confirmed in 2016 by a team of astronomers led by Neale P. Gibson using data from the Wide Angle Search for Planets (WASP) project. It belongs to the class of exoplanets known as "hot Jupiters," which are gas giants similar in size to Jupiter but with much higher temperatures due to their close proximity to their parent stars. Here are some key characteristics of WASP-76b:

1. Discovery: WASP-76b was discovered using the transit method, which involves observing the slight dimming of a star's light as an orbiting planet passes in front of it. This dimming effect is periodic and can be used to infer the presence and characteristics of the planet.
2. Physical Characteristics: WASP-76b is approximately 1.8 times the size of Jupiter but significantly more massive. It has a high surface temperature, estimated to be around 2,400 degrees Celsius (4,350 degrees Fahrenheit). This extreme heat is due to the planet's close orbit around its host star, WASP-76, which is located about 640 light-years away from Earth in the constellation Pisces.
3. Atmospheric Composition: One of the most intriguing features of WASP-76b is its atmospheric composition. Observations using the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile revealed the presence of iron and titanium vapor in the planet's atmosphere. This finding is significant because it provides insights into the atmospheric chemistry and physical processes occurring on hot Jupiter exoplanets.
4. Extreme Conditions: The extreme temperature and atmospheric conditions on WASP-76b make it an inhospitable world, unlikely to support life as we know it. Its atmosphere is thought to be dominated by high-speed winds and extreme atmospheric dynamics, which may lead to unusual weather patterns and atmospheric phenomena.
5. Importance for Exoplanet Research: WASP-76b is one of many exoplanets discovered in recent years that are helping astronomers better understand the diversity of planetary systems beyond our solar system. Its unique atmospheric composition and extreme conditions make it a valuable target for further study, particularly in the field of exoplanet atmospheres and planetary formation theories.

Overall, WASP-76b represents a fascinating example of the diverse range of exoplanets that exist in our galaxy and provides valuable insights into the atmospheric characteristics and physical processes occurring on these distant worlds.

The reason this should set alarm bells ringing in the minds of Bible literalists, is because they believe that 'the' rainbow was sent by the god of the Bible to show believers that he wouldn't ever inflict another genocide on the planet because, although being omniscient and perfect, he regretted the time he did it in a fit of temper and flooded the planet to a depth that covered the highest mountains.

Or so the tale goes.

Before about 4,000 years ago, obviously, sunlight wouldn't have been diffracted into its component colours by passing through raindrops, or so those who didn't understand how rainbows are formed wrote.

And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

Genesis 9: 8-17

Apparently, God is so forgetful that he needs the rainbow to remind him not to lose self-control and commit genocide again.

But the question for creationists is, did God commit genocide on another planet too and put a rainbow there to remind him not to do it again? If not, how do rainbows form on another planet if they only appear on Earth because God puts them there?

If he did commit genocide on another planet, this means there must have been life there too, yet WASP-76b is far too hot to sustain life as we know it, being a 'hot' Jupiter-like gas giant which orbits its sun (WASP-76) closer than mercury orbits ours.

How this discovery was made is the subject of a news release by the University of Geneva:

How Science Works - Discovering How Planets Are Really Made - And Why The Bible Myth Is Wrong

Planets emerge from the dense disk of gas and dust encircling young stars.

Credit: NASA

Accretion disc

Our survey of the sky is uncovering the secrets of how planets are born

Look in the Bible for a description of how planets are formed, and you can search all day in vain. It simply isn't there. In fact, the very concept of planets and planetary orbits isn't there.

What the Bible myth describes is a childlike guess at the formation of the universe by people who thought the entire universe was the small part of Earth they lived and herded their goats on. So, they described it as a small, flat place, floating in the sea, with a dome over it (because that's what the sky looked like to them).

Stuck to that dome were the sun and moon as lamps, and what we now know are planets, stars and far-off galaxies, they thought were lights stuck to the underside of the dome. They even guessed that there must be pillars holding up the ground and that the stars could be shaken loose from the dome by earthquakes, when they would fall to Earth and could be stamped on by a goat, albeit a big goat!

Don't believe me? Find a Bible and read Genesis 1: 1-18 and Daniel 8:10. Nowhere will you find the words planet, orbit or accretion disc.

What you get is exactly what you might expect if you brought up a child to believe in magic and magic spirits but kept them away from any sources of information about science, geography, geology or cosmology, then, at about the age of 10, asked them to describe the universe and make up a story about how it was made. What you would get is what you get if you use a creationist form of deductive logic - you just look at it and describe what you think you see.

You get the result of ignorant intuition, which is about as far removed from what is really there and how it came to be the way it is as its possible to be.

We know this because we can compare the results of that method in the Bible with the results of scientific investigation and the scientific method used to describe how planets are really formed as part of the process of forming suns and planetary systems within galaxies which are themselves a tiny part of a vast universe consisting of trillions of galaxies, each with trillions of suns and probably several trillion planets in orbits around those suns, almost none of which is visible to someone standing on the surface of Earth and 'just looking'.

The following article by Christian Ginski, a Lecturer of astronomy at the University of Galway, Ireland described what we now know of hos planets are formed and just how many there might well be in the cosmos. His article is reprinted under a Creative Commons license, reformatted for stylistic consistency:

How Science Works - And Why Religion Doesn't - Dark Matter - Building Testable Hypotheses

Map of the distribution of dark matter in the Universe.
The bright areas represent its highest concentrations - which is where galaxies form

N Jeffrey/Dark Energy Collaboration

Dark Matter

‘Dark stars’: dark matter may form exploding stars – and observing the damage could help reveal what it’s made of

Dark matter is known to exists, and yet no-one knows what it is.

Creationists, in a desperate attempt to reduce science to the same status as their evidence-free superstition, will claim this shows that science is a religion really. But that childish claim soon disintegrates when we understand how scientists can know that dark matter exists when they don't know what it is.

Unlike religion's god(s), scientists can measure dark matter's effects on stuff they know more about, like the 'normal' matter that you and I are made of - atoms and molecules of which stars, galaxies and super-clusters are made of. They can see the gravitational effects of dark matter, so there must be something with enough mass to produce that gravitational effect.

Theists, on the other hand can never demonstrate any effects of the god(s) they believe in and are reduced to presuppositional claims and assertions, designating their god(s) as the cause of things they don't understand - the god of the gaps false dichotomy fallacy that passes for religious apologetics.

So, what are these effects that dark matter exerts?

The gravity produced by dark matter is what holds spinning galaxies together and prevents the detectable matter in them from flying outwards by the centrifugal force of rotation. It also produces gravitational 'lensing', which is the effect of light being bent by a large mass to act like a giant lens and make distant objects look closer.

So, we know dark matter is out there even though we don't know what it is, so scientists try to work out what it could be composed of and make predictions of what this stuff would do if it existed. This is the testable hypothesis. The trick is to construct experiments to test those hypotheses.

In the following article, Andreea Font, Reader in Theoretical Astrophysics, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK, outlines some of the current hypotheses that seek to explain dark matter. Her article is reprinted from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license, reformatted for stylistic consistency.

Creationism in Crisis - How The Milky Way Was Formed - 12-13 Billion Years Before 'Creation Week'

A visualisation of the Milky Way galaxy, with the stars that Khyati Malhan and Hans-Walter Rix identified in the Gaia DR3 data set as belonging to Shiva and Shakti shown as colored dots. Shiva stars are shown in green and Shakti stars in pink.

© S. Payne-Wardenaar / K. Malhan / MPIA

Researchers identify two of the Milky Way's earliest building blocks | Max Planck Institute for Astronomy

Between 12 and 13 billion years before creationism's little god decided to create a small flat planet with a dome over it in the Middle east, where the only people to notice were simple goat-herders from the Bronze Age, natural forces were creating the Milky Way galaxy out of two smaller galaxies that astronomers have named Shiva and Shaki:

Who are Shiva and Shaki? Shiva and Shakti are two fundamental concepts in Hinduism, representing aspects of the divine.

1. Shiva: Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism. He is often referred to as the destroyer within the Trimurti, the Hindu trinity that includes Brahma (the creator) and Vishnu (the preserver). Shiva is also known as the god of meditation, yoga, and arts. He is usually depicted as a yogi, adorned with snakes and a crescent moon on his head, with a third eye on his forehead representing wisdom and insight. Shiva is often associated with asceticism, but he's also a family man, as he's married to the goddess Parvati and has two sons, Ganesha and Kartikeya.
2. Shakti: Shakti is the divine feminine energy and the primordial cosmic power in Hinduism. She is the personification of the creative energy of the universe. Shakti is often depicted as a goddess, sometimes alongside Shiva, and sometimes as an independent deity. She represents the dynamic forces that move through the entire cosmos. Shakti is considered the mother goddess, the source of all, and is revered in various forms such as Durga, Kali, Parvati, and others.

In some philosophical interpretations, Shiva represents the male principle (Purusha) while Shakti represents the female principle (Prakriti), and their union is seen as the basis of creation and existence. This union is often symbolized as Ardhanarishvara, a composite androgynous form of Shiva and Shakti, depicting the inseparable nature of masculine and feminine energies.

The discovery was made by two scientists working at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany who have identified the components of two proto-galaxies that merged to form the Milky Way, by combining data from ESA’s astrometry satellite Gaia with data from the SDSS survey. The astronomers have published their findings in a highly technical paper in The Astrophysical Journal and explain it in a Max Planck Institute for Astronomy news release:

Astronomers have identified what could be two of the Milky Way’s earliest building blocks: Named “Shakti” and “Shiva”, these appear to be the remnants of two galaxies that merged between 12 and 13 billion years ago with an early version of the Milky Way, contributing to our home galaxy’s initial growth. The new find is the astronomical equivalent of archeologists identifying traces of an initial settlement that grew into a large present-day city. It required combining data for nearly 6 million stars from ESA’s Gaia mission with measurements from the SDSS survey. The results have been published in the Astrophysical Journal.

The early history of our home galaxy, the Milky Way, is one of joining smaller galaxies, which makes for fairly large building blocks. Now, Khyati Malhan and Hans-Walter Rix of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy have succeeded in identifying what could be two of the earliest building blocks that can still be recognized as such today: proto-galactic fragments that merged with an early version of our Milky Way between 12 and 13 billion years ago, at the very beginning of the era of galaxy formation in the Universe. The components, which the astronomers have named Shakti and Shiva, were identified by combining data from ESA’s astrometry satellite Gaia with data from the SDSS survey. For astronomers, the result is the equivalent of finding traces of an initial settlement that grew into a large present-day city.

Creationism in Crisis - Order From Chaos in The Namibian Desert

Fairy circles from Iona National Park in Angola

Image: © Michael Fay,
National Geographic Creative.

A typical fairy circle on the Kamberg on the edge of the Namibian Desert

Photo: Stephan Getzin.

Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Scientists are hotly debating how the 'fairy circles' which arise in the vegetation on the edge of the Namib desert actually form. Whatever the process, they are examples of order emerging from chaos by the operation of natural forces. The debate is over what exactly those forces are.

Typical of the mindless parroting that constitutes creationism in the social media, is the claim that 'you can't get order from chaos', which of course is nonsense, since any chaotic system will tend to order if a directional force is applied to it.

Suns and galaxies condense out of the chaos of dust and gas clouds under the directional force of gravity; raindrops form in clouds under the directional forces of gravity and electrostatic attraction; and 'fairy rings' form in grassland under the influence of fungal hyphae and nutrient depletion, and rings form in ell grass because of a build-up of toxic sulphides in the marine sediment, just to cite a few examples

Here's a little bit of fun which you can use to show any creationist acquaintance what nonsense they've been fed. Next time you're playing Scrabble, place all the tiles in the upturned box lid and make sure no tile is on top of another. Ask them to swirl it round to show you're not cheating. Observe that the tiles are in a chaotic arrangement. Now apply a directional force in the form of gravity by tipping the box lid about 15 degrees to produce a slope and tapping it or shaking the lid gently to provide a little energy to the system. Observe now that the tiles have formed themselves into neat rows and columns at one end of the lid. If not, give it a little more shaking or tapping.

Order has emerged out of chaos under nothing more magical than the directional force of gravity.

More examples of emergence of order out of chaos are:

Creationism in Crisis - Closing The Last God-Shaped Gap - How The Simplest Cells Could Have Evolved, Naturally

Last Chance Lake in British Columbia

Credit: Zachary R. Cohen

Last Chance Lake in September 2022. At the end of the summer, the water has almost all evaporated, leaving a salty crust on the surface.

Credit: Zachary R. Cohen/Washington University

Did the first cells evolve in soda lakes?

According to a new study by Zachary R Cohen of the Chemistry Department of Washington University, Seatle, WA, USA and colleagues, soda lakes which are rich in sodium and carbonates could have provided the right conditions for the simplest, RNA-based cells to have arisen.

It is widely assumed that the earliest simple cells were based on RNA enclosed in a lipid membrane but there is a problem in that RNA requires divalent ions such as Magnesium (Mg²⁺ to function, but Mg²⁺ damages lipid membranes, so it isn't easy to explain how they could have co-existed within the same cell structure.

So the question is whether the low levels of (Mg²⁺ found in soda lakes, such as the Last Chance Lake in British Columbia, Canada, could have provided the right conditions of enough (Mg²⁺ for RNA to function but not so much as to prevent the formation of an enclosing membrane.

To explore this possibility, Zachary Cohen and his colleagues collected water from Last Chance Lake and the similar but subtly different Goodenough Lake after seasonal evaporation. According to information from Washington University published in phys.org:

These soda lakes each contained ~1 M Na⁺ and ~1 mM Mg²⁺ at pH 10. The authors found that spontaneous extension of short RNA primers occurred in lake water at a rate comparable to the rates in standard laboratory conditions.

The authors added fatty acids, which could have been available on the early Earth, to the lake water to see if the molecules would assemble into membranes. The membranes formed in dilute water that simulates a rainfall event, and the membranes persisted even when surrounded by concentrated lake water from the dry season.

According to the authors, soda lakes on the early Earth could have supported key features of protocell development, with RNA copying and ribozyme activity taking place in the dry season and vesicle formation occurring during the wet season.

The scientists give more technical details in their open access paper in PNAS Nexus:

How Science Works - Checking, Rechecking and Questioning What We Think We Know. The Only Certainty Is That There Are No Certainties

New research suggests that our universe has no dark matter | About us

A leading theoretical physicist has questioned whether dark matter really exists.

Dark Matter is a placeholder for what appears to be mass without substance which suffuses the universe, observable only by the gravity it exerts and thought by mainstream cosmologists to account for 27% of the matter in the universe with 'ordinary' matter making up just 5%. The rest - 68% - being composed of dark energy, another placeholder for something theory says should be there to account for the expansion of the universe, but which we don't have a model for in the standard model of particles and related fields.

I don't pretend to understand this stuff, but I'll post it here by way of a rebuttal of creationist claims that scientists devise experiments to try to prove preconceptions and that peer-review is just to ensure conformity to scientific orthodoxy.

Besides, the HTML coding is the sort of challenge I enjoy.

In fact, science is about continued reassessment and revision with names made not by confirming preconceptions but by overthrowing established consensus or exposing flaws in it which require further investigation. The leading theoretical physicist is Professor Rajendra Gupta of the Faculty of Science, University of Ottawa, Canada, who has just published a paper in The Astrophysical Journal. He has also authored an earlier paper which he believes shows the Universe to be about twice as old as the mainstream consensus believes it to be, so he can hardly be described as subscribing to some establishment orthodoxy. His work is explained in a University of Ottawa News release:

Abiogenesis News - New Evidence For The 'RNA World' Hypothesis

Hammerhead sequences copied by the lower-fidelity polymerase drift away from their original RNA sequence (top) and lose their function over time. Hammerheads catalyzed by the higher-fidelity polymerase retain function and evolve fitter sequences (bottom).

Credit: Salk Institute

Stylized rendering of the full-length hammerhead ribozyme RNA molecule

Source: Wikipedia

Modeling the origins of life: New evidence for an “RNA World” - Salk Institute for Biological Studies

On way of looking at cellular life is that it is based on RNA, not DNA. In that model, DNA is RNA's data store. All the functional processes that DNA codes for are first transcribed into RNA and short lengths of RNA still regulate some of the cell processes. RNA can even act as a catalyst playing the role normally performed by protein enzymes - proteins that are themselves transcriptions of RNA triplet codes for amino acid sequences.

On that model, early self-replicating systems were based on RNA, and DNA was late to the game.

Now three researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, USA, have shown how such a system could have bootstrapped from simple, self-catalysing lengths of RNA which not only self-replicate but can continue to do so even when there are variations stemming from faulty replications. This system would have created the variation needed for Darwinian evolution by natural selection as some variant performed better in terms of competing for resources and ultimately making more copies, so coming to predominate in the pool of RNA-based organisms.

How the scientists discovered this is the subject of a research paper in PNAS which sadly is behind a paywall with only the abstract and statement of significance freely available. It is also the subject of a news release from the Salk Institute.

Since the team refer to an RNA structure known as the 'hammerhead ribozyme', it might help to understand a little about it first:

Abiogenesis News - That God-Shaped Gap Just Keeps On Shrinking

Scripps Research scientists reveal how first cells could have formed on Earth | Scripps Research

It's been a bad week so far for creationists. Coming so soon after scientist announced they had solved the 'chirality problem, is news that another team have shown how simple cells could plausibly have formed in the pre-biotic conditions that pertained on early Earth.

Creationists are generally black & white thinkers who value certainty above truth, so, for them there is no such thing as a plausible explanation; either something is proven beyond doubt, even passing an especially impossible standard of evidence, or it is wrong (so God did it!).

And one of their 'certainties' is their absolute faith in the slogan, "You can't get life from non-life!", which is chanted like a protective mantra in any debate about evolution (conveniently switching the debate from evolution to what they think is safer ground, abiogenesis). But ask them to define 'life' in such a way that you can test for it to tell if something is alive or not, or to explain how the non-living food they eat gets converted into living tissues, if that's impossible, and you're likely to get an ad hominem or an indignant, condescending flounce and a swift termination of the conversation.

It is an essential ingredient of creationism that the belief that abiogenesis is 'impossible' be maintained as the last refuge for their ever-shrinking creator god to be located in, as all the other gaps are closed to it.

So, having committed themselves to the certainty that abiogenesis is 'impossible', they have unwittingly committed themselves to accepting that any plausible process which can be shown to be viable, refutes the notion of impossibility and everything they conclude from it. So, their next step is the intellectually bankrupt technique of moving the goal-posts or demanding scientist provide an impossible standard of evidence such as showing it happening - billions of years ago. Never will they concede that evidence of plausibility refutes the claim of impossibility because, to a black & white thinker, plausibility doesn't give enough certainty, so can be dismissed until proven.

So, we can expect that predictable display of intellectual bankruptcy in response to the news that scientists at the Scripps Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA have discovered a plausible mechanism for the formation of simple self-replicating cells in the prebiotic conditions that pertained on early Earth.

Their findings are published in the Cell Press journal Chem and are the subject of a Cripps Institute press release:

Abiogenesis News - Closing Creationism's Favourite Gap On Their Ever-Shrinking Little God

Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park

Credit: iStock / tomolson54

Hot Spring in Yellowstone National Park.

Credit: iStock / tomolson54

Compound vital for all life likely played a role in life’s origin | UCL News - UCL – University College London

Abiogenesis is the gap creationists prefer to shoehorn their ever-shrinking little god into because they feel safer placing it there, believing that they have an unarguable claim that 'you can't get life from non-life'. Hilariously, you can sow confusion in their smug certainty in two simple ways:

1. Ask them to define 'life' and state whether it is a substance, a process or something else, because it only takes a moment's thought to realise 'life' is what we call the metabolic processes that organic molecules perform, so is simply the laws of chemistry and physics in operation. There is no magic ingredient needed.
2. Ask them what happens when the non-living food they eat becomes living tissues during the processes of digestion and assimilation if it is 'impossible'?

Their claim is nonsense of course; it's simply slogan delivered in response to trigger words which creationists no more understand than a parrot understands the meaning of the words it squawks.

There is nothing in the laws of chemistry or physics that makes abiogenesis impossible; given the right conditions there is no reason the inorganic chemicals present on the early Earth couldn't build more complex molecules or why those molecules couldn't perform the necessary processes to grow, repair and replicate. And once replication is possible, then selection would have been inevitable, and with selection, the processes which performed best would inevitably produce more copies.

Of course this can't be replicated easily in a laboratory because what no laboratory process can replicate is the long period of time, possibly millions of years, the process had on the early Earth, but what scientists can do is show that essential molecules to kick-start the processes could have arisen on the early Earth in the conditions that pertained then.

This is exactly what a team from University College London have shown in respect of a molecule which is the functional unit of one of the basic enzymes involved - Coenzyme A. The molecule is pantetheine. In earlier studies, pantetheine failed to be produced leading some to think that it would not have formed on early Earth and would therefore be absent and unable to play its essential role in metabolism.

Molecular structure of pantetheine

Closing In On Abiogenesis - How Amino Acids Become Peptides in Water Droplets - No Magic Required

Professor R. Graham Cooks has studied the chemistry of water droplets for decades, discovering insights into cancer detection, drug discovery and early Earth chemistry.

Purdue University file photo/Andrew Hancock

A tripeptide (example Val-Gly-Ala) with green marked amino end (L-valine) and blue marked carboxyl end (L-alanine)

Chemistry professor R. Graham Cooks expands research of water droplet interfaces that offer the secret ingredient for building life - Purdue University Department of Chemistry

One of the puzzles of how the earliest proteins were built from amino acids was that the reaction of joining two amino acids together is a condensation reaction in which a molecule of water is eliminated when the -C-OH of one amino acid binds to the H₂N-C- of the other amino acid in what is known as a peptide bond:

-C-OH + H₂N-C- → -C-NH-C + H₂O;
but how could this happen in an aqueous solution?

In 2022, Professor R. Graham Cooks' team at Purdue University found the answer: It is due to the peculiar properties at the surface of droplets of water. Because of the way electrostatic forces align the water molecules at the surface, it behaves as though it is extremely dry, and highly acidic. These conditions provide the perfect conditions for a condensation reaction to occur, resulting in a peptides.

Droplets of water are everywhere in nature, from the spray of breaking waves, the splash of raindrops, waterfalls, trickling streams to aerosols of water in clouds and fog.

And Professor Cooks's team at Purdue have now shown that these conditions also occur at the macro, centimeter scale as water evaporates on, for example rocks or the margins of hydrothermal pools. They have also shown that these reactions, in the presence of oxazolones (produced by the dehydration of amino acids) preserve the chirality of the peptides so the resulting peptides are 'L' enantiomers, as found in all living organisms.

As the Purdue University press release says:

The study adds to the body of evidence that the surface of water drops represents a uniquely active physical and chemical system. Present are very high electric fields and extreme acidity that drives dehydration of amino acids to form peptides. Studies of the chemistry at water droplet interfaces offer new insights into the early stages of life's chemical evolution.

Significance

This study provides experimental evidence identifying oxazolones as the key intermediates in prebiotic peptide synthesis. These compounds yield the dipeptides upon reaction with water and generate tripeptides in the presence of other amino acids. These key steps in protein formation occur in pure water droplets. Amino acid chirality is preserved in forming the oxazolone and the addition of amino acids during peptide chain extension shows a strong chiral preference, viz. the aqueous droplet chemistry represents a simple route to chirally pure polypeptides. A direct connection between this intermediate and the dipeptide isomer, oxazolidinone, is demonstrated by simple hydration/dehydration. The oxazolone/oxazolidinone-mediated mechanism also occurs in macroscopic wet–dry cycling, establishing a strong connection between macroscopic and microscopic peptide synthesis.

Abstract

Peptide formation from amino acids is thermodynamically unfavorable but a recent study provided evidence that the reaction occurs at the air/solution interfaces of aqueous microdroplets. Here, we show that i) the suggested amino acid complex in microdroplets undergoes dehydration to form oxazolone; ii) addition of water to oxazolone forms the dipeptide; and iii) reaction of oxazolone with other amino acids forms tripeptides. Furthermore, the chirality of the reacting amino acids is preserved in the oxazolone product, and strong chiral selectivity is observed when converting the oxazolone to tripeptide. This last fact ensures that optically impure amino acids will undergo chain extension to generate pure homochiral peptides. Peptide formation in bulk by wet-dry cycling shares a common pathway with the microdroplet reaction, both involving the oxazolone intermediate.

Qiu, Lingqi; Cooks, R. Graham
Oxazolone mediated peptide chain extension and homochirality in aqueous microdroplets
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 121(2). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2309360120

© 2024 PNAS.
Reprinted under the terms of s60 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

And so that day that creationist frauds must be dreading, when science finally closes their favourite gap in which to force-fit their ever-shrinking little god finally slams as shut as all the other gaps it used to occupy in the minds of scientifically illiterate believers, gets a little closer. Only yesterday we learned how simple metabolic biochemical cycles can be produced from simple precursors, all of which were present on the pre-biotic Earth and without protein enzymes, and here we see how the proteins that could catalyse and improve those processes could also arise from simple precursors that were also present.

I wonder what disinformation the frauds who feed pseudo-science to the creation cult are preparing for that eventuality.

---

Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle

What Makes You So Special? From The Big Bang To You

How did you come to be here, now? This books takes you from the Big Bang to the evolution of modern humans and the history of human cultures, showing that science is an adventure of discovery and a source of limitless wonder, giving us richer and more rewarding appreciation of the phenomenal privilege of merely being alive and able to begin to understand it all.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link

Abiogenesis News - Scientists Harness The Massive Computing Power of Blockchain Technology To Show How Metabolic Processes Arose

[left caption]

[Right caption/credit]

Chemists use the blockchain to simulate over 4 billion chemical reactions essential to the origins of life | ScienceDaily


As though to give a two-fingered salute to those creationist frauds who tell their dupes that scientists are turning their back on materialism and accepting that magic creation is a better explanation for abiogenesis and evolution than the operation of the laws of chemistry and physics, scientists from the Institute of Organic Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland with colleagues in IBS Center for Algorithmic and Robotized Synthesis, Ulsan, South Korea, have used the massive computing power of blockchain technology to simulate all possible reactions between pre-biotic chemicals such as water, methane and ammonia and their products, and shown that simple metabolic processes such as the citric acid cycle can arise without enzymes.

A few of these metabolic cycles were found to be capable of self-replication (believed to be a prerequisite for evolution) but these were comparatively few in number, so the scientists believe they may not have played a significant part on early abiogenesis.

These primitive metabolic processes could have provided the necessary energy for more complex processes to evolve including enzymes, each of which, if it catalyzed the reactions in the metabolic cycles, would have given it additional advantage and been quickly incorporated into the process.

the The scientists have published their findings in the Cell Press journal Chem and explain their research in a Cell Press news release.

First, a brief AI explanation of blockchain technology and its use in cryptocurrencies:

Abiogenesis News - Going! Going! Gone! - How Creationism Favourite Gap Just Got Smaller

Geothermal hot spring in Haukadalur Valley, Iceland

ancient hot springs - Press Office - Newcastle University

Hardly any debate about evolution with a creationist will go more than a few exchanges before the creationist gives up trying the traditional fallacies and avoidance tactics and falls back onto ground he or she feels safer on - abiogenesis - with the demand that you explain how the first cell arose fully developed, with the parrot squawk assertion that 'you can't get life from non-life'.

But ask them to define 'life' and they'll break off the debate because it's a term creationists think involves something that science can't explain, but they've no idea what it is or why it should present science with a problem. Ask them to explain how dead food becomes living tissue through the process of digestion and metabolism, if it's impossible, and you probably won't hear from them again.

The gap creationists are trying to shoehorn their favourite creator god into is what they've been programmed to believe is unclosable by science, so it must have been done by the locally popular god. They will of course be unaware of the fallacy of the false dichotomy because it's probably what someone fooled them with, so they just assume it'll work on everyone else.

Creationism in Crisis - How Wrong The Bible's Authors Were! Why Would Anyone Believe Anything Else They Wrote?

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope’s new view of Cassiopeia A (Cas A) in near-infrared light

NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI,
D. Milisavljevic (Purdue University),
T. Temim (Princeton University),
I. De Looze (University of Gent)

The Universe as described in Genesis 1: 6-10

NASA’s Webb Stuns With New High-Definition Look at Exploded Star - NASA

The description of the Universe in the Bible is so naïve and radically different to the real universe, it beggars belief that there are grown adults who think the Bible is the inerrant word of a creator god.

There is nothing about the authors' description of it which can be described as allegorical or metaphorical, without the most contorted of mental gymnastics. It is not metaphorical or allegorical; it is quite simply wrong; spectacularly and conspicuously, with no shadow of a doubt, wrong!

What we now know are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with maybe half a trillion stars, many with planetary systems, the authors of the Bible thought were little lights stuck to the underside of a dome over a flat Earth, that can be shaken loose and will fall down to Earth where they can be trampled on by a goat! (Daniel 8:10).

They described this flat Earth with a dome over it as standing on pillars and the fixed and immobile center of the Universe, round which a small sun orbits. They described the sky above the dome as being made of water. Their universe ran on magic.

Creationism in Crisis - Biochemists are Homing In On Abiogenesis

Deep-sea hydrothermal vent chimney from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Many new microbial genomes have been described from these environments.

Credit: Anna-Louise Reysenbach and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Did this chemical reaction create the building blocks of life on Earth?

Scheme 2 Some pathways for the proposed reaction network of formose intermediates and cyanamide based on the autocatalytic cycle proposed by Breslow³² and experiments herein. It is hypothesised that the formation of tetrose and pentose aminooxazolines via the addition of 2-NH2Ox with glycolaldehyde and glyceraldehyde (gray dashed arrows), respectively, is likely not the dominant pathway as originally hypothesised in Scheme 1. See ESI Table S3† for more proposed structures. Note, that although the Breslow autocatalytic cycle is shown for simplicity, the full reaction network is much more complex; see ref. 30, 41 and 42.

Tran, Quoc Phuong; Yi, Ruiqin; Fahrenbach, Albert C.(2023)

Stand by for another bout of petulant histrionics from creationists when biochemists and biophysicists finally work out how a self-replicating molecule could have arisen on Earth, then, through a process of evolution by natural selection, gradually improved its efficiency until free-living, self-replicating organisms emerged. The traditional anti-science rhetoric normally includes abusing the scientists, misrepresenting their findings, and claiming it proves intelligence was needed.

It is generally assumed that this process took place in deep ocean hydrothermal vents, or 'black smokers' where the right chemicals and catalysts were present with sources of energy in the form of geothermal heat, and a rich chemical soup of the basic ingredients needed. It is also assumed that the earliest forms of self-replicating organisms were RNA- based, and only became DNA-based later on. In fact, there is a school of thought that says living things are still essentially RNA-based, using DNA as a data store, since DNA is always transcribed into its RNA counterpart to be useful to a cell in transporting amino acids and producing proteins.

Whatever the final pathway turns out to have been, we can be sure it all started with a relatively simple, self-catalyzing molecule, that just needs a supply of the right raw materials to proceed, and there is a simple chemical reaction, known as the formose reaction, that we have known about since 1861 which fits that requirement. Basically, the formose reaction is where the molecule glycolaldehyde, given a supply of formaldehyde, will keep producing copies of itself and will only stop when the supply of formaldehyde runs out.

The following article by Quoc Phuong Tran a PhD Candidate in Prebiotic Chemistry at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, is reprinted from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license, reformatted for stylistic consistency. In it, he discusses this reaction and the role it could have played in abiogenesis:

Creationism in Crisis - The Universe is Much Bigger Than Our Prophets Said, Grander, More Subtle, More Elegant..

The Crab Nebula seen by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope’s NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera) and MIRI (Mid-Infrared Instrument)

Image: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, T. Temim (Princeton University).

The Crab Nebula Seen in New Light by NASA’s Webb - NASA

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope has gazed at the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant located 6,500 light-years away in the constellation Taurus. Since the recording of this energetic event in 1054 CE by 11th-century astronomers, the Crab Nebula has continued to draw attention and additional study as scientists seek to understand the conditions, behavior, and after-effects of supernovae through thorough study of the Crab, a relatively nearby example.

The Crab Nebula seen by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

The Universe as described in Genesis 1: 6-10

The Crab Nebula - a tiny fragment of the universe as seen by science:

Creationism in Crisis - Colliding Planets Falsify Creationism

Image shows a visualisation of the huge, glowing planetary body produced by a planetary collision. As the resulting debris moves between the host star and Earth it causes the star to appear to dim. The host star is seen in the background of the image.

Credit: Mark Garlick

October: Exoplanet collision | News and features | University of Bristol

The reason creationism is so easy to refute is that its claims are simplistic, designed as they are to appeal to those who think like children and who know little or no science.

This means we can construct simple hypotheses and predictions and test them against the real world. When we do that, we invariably find the hypotheses are easily falsifiable and the predictions fail to be fulfilled.

Science readily accepts, for example, that much of the observable universe emerged from chaos under the directional force of gravity, which turns a chaotic system into a progressively ordered system, so galaxies, superclusters, black holes, suns and planetary systems all emerged from the background chaos of the Big Bang and quantum fluctuations. This view of the universe predicts that there is still a degree of chaos and unpredictability about the universe.

M1: The Crab Nebula from Hubble.
The chaotic remnants of an exploding supernova.

Credit: NASA, ESA, J. Hester, A. Loll (ASU)

Creationists however, insist that the universe, and everything in it was created in a few days by a perfect, omniscient, god, casting magic spells and commanding everything to appear from nowhere, made out of nothing, in a perfectly ordered and designed universe. It then either micromanages it or sits back and watches while it runs on a prepared a set of rules that govern it (depending on the flavour of creationism and how much the superstition has tried to accommodate science while still believing in magic and the fairy tales they were told in childhood).

So, our simple hypothesis then is that a universe created according to creationist superstitions would be perfectly ordered and free from chaos, and of course had the ultimate purpose of providing humans with somewhere nice to live, like America. Such a well-ordered universe would never have planets colliding, or comets being knocked out of stable orbit in the outer reaches of the solar system and moving into elliptical orbits around the sun, for example. Nor would it have had a minor planet colliding with a young Earth as is believed to account for the Moon and the axis tilt that causes the seasons.

Creationism in Crisis - How We Can Tell The Bible Is Not The Work Of The God Described in It

A creator god would not have got so much wrong when it tried to describe the world it had created and described is as though it knew no more than a parochial Bronze Age pastoralist who knew almost nothing and had to rely on guess-work and folkloric superstitions from the fearful infancy of our species.

A picture is worth a thousand words:

The universe from descriptions of it in the Bible.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1: 6-10.

How the Universe really is, as revealed by science:

Creationism in Crisis - Now it's Tree Rings Recording Solar Storms 4,300 Years Before The Universe Existed! Oops!

Artist illustration of events on the sun changing the conditions in Near-Earth space

Credit: NASA

The Miyake Event is the biggest yet discovered.

Alamy/PA

Researchers identify largest ever solar storm in tree rings | University of Leeds

It's probably unkind to laugh at creationists, who probably genuinely don't know any better and are too dim to learn any science. But they leave us little choice when they wave aside all the evidence of a 14 billion-year-old Universe and a 3.8 billion-year-old Earth as 'wrong' or 'scientists lying' or 'planted by Satan to mislead us', or even 'faked by God the liar almighty as a test of faith', in favour of an evidence free-superstition they were taught by their parents and which they are too terrified to let go off in case they get a zap from an invisible, magic mind-reading sky thug, stories about which they were terrorized by as children, or worst of all, they don't feel important enough?

Their infantile superstition is, of course, that Earth is 8-10,000 years old and was created by magic pretty much as we find it today, just because a bunch of Bronze Age pastoralists thought so.

And then along comes an international team of those pesky scientists who only go and produce evidence that a tree was alive on Earth 4,300 years before the Universe supposedly existed and recorded in its annual tree rings a massive solar storm from a sun that supposedly hadn't yet been magicked into existence, and which is allegedly hanging like a lamp from a dome over Earth so we can tell it's not night! (Remember! It's unkind to laugh! LOL!)

Creationism in Crisis - Signs of Life on an Exoplanet 120 Million Lightyears Away.

This illustration shows what exoplanet K2-18 b could look like based on science data. K2-18 b, an exoplanet 8.6 times as massive as Earth, orbits the cool dwarf star K2-18 in the habitable zone and lies 120 light years from Earth.
In this illustration, the exoplanet K2-18 c is shown between K2-18 b and its star.

Nikku Madhusudhan (IoA)/NASA, ESA, CSA, Joseph Olmsted (STScI)

Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18 b | NASA

Abiogenesis, like the conditions that produced the Big Bang, is one of creationism's favourite gaps in which they try to fit their ever-shrinking little god and play their false dichotomy fallacy - if science can't explain it, "God did it!".

That ploy depends for its success of a couple of things, not the least of which are scientific illiteracy and cultural chauvinism of their target dupes. Creationists, while telling their targets that science can't explain how abiogenesis occurred, then pretend they know anyway and have calculated the probability of it. Of course, without knowing the precise conditions and chain of events, it is impossible to do that calculation, but nevertheless, creationist frauds will confidently proclaim it to be infinitesimally small.

However, if the precise mechanism were known, and the conditions could be replicated (temperature, pressure, catalysts, chemicals and time) the mechanism would not be impossible, it would be inevitable (i.e., certainty) since it is a basic principle of chemistry that if the conditions are right, a reaction will occur. No ifs or buts, it will occur since chemical reactions are not governed by laws of probability but by laws of physics. No chemist has ever needed to set up ten thousand test tubes to ensure at least one will produce the expected result. He/she would get ten thousand identical results.

But now, as scientists improve their ability to detect and examine the atmosphere of distant exoplanets orbiting other suns in the galaxy, so they are improving their ability to detect the inevitable signs of life on those planets and many people think it is only a matter of time before we have strong evidence of life elsewhere in the universe.