We only need shoes to get to Rome from Milan in Italy, but we will need more than shoes to get to Rome from Sicily.
We only need shoes to get to Rome from Milan in Italy, but we will need more than shoes to get to Rome from Sicily.
Making an AMP molecule from the materials used by the cell also requires high-tech tools: enzymes that catalyze reactions in the way of synthesis within the cell, and in the absence of enzymes, simply the reactions we illustrated in Figure 7.1 will not occur.
The point is that even if we can make adenine or AMP by simple methods, these simple methods are not a precursor to the biological path used to manufacture AMP unless the shoes are a precursor to spaceships!
ABCD
Consider the metabolic pathway where the B-complex is converted to a D-complex by two transition molecules B and C. Can this pathway develop slowly? If A, B, and C are useful molecules to the cell, and B, C, and even D are not necessary to the cell from the beginning, slow development may be possible, and based on this view we can visualize a cell spontaneously producing the A-complex and then begin to accumulate mutations.
Assuming that D was necessary from the start, the AMP compound is necessary for life on Earth: it is used to make nucleic acids (DNA) and a number of very necessary molecules. There may be some way to create a living system that does not need AMP, but no one has a clue as to how to create a living system without AMP. Or what is the use of making (A) to make (B)? If what the cell really needs is AMP, what does it do to make only intermediates such as III, IV and V? On the other hand, useless intermediate molecules pose great challenges to the Darwinian narrative of evolution and this is highly certain for a compound like AMP because the cell has no options, AMP is necessary for life, either the cell gets it directly through production or it dies from the external medium.
Some textbooks mention this dilemma, and express the traditional interpretation (Thomas Creighton) in short:
In the case of biomanufacturing methods that produce building blocks of amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and others, it is possible that these components were present in the initial soup, and were used directly, and as the number of organisms increased these compounds became few, and any organism that could produce them from compounds not used in the initial soup through a newly developed enzyme would have a selective advantage.
What Craigton is simply saying is that if we find a way to interact with a modern organism that's going to run (A B C D) then (D) was available in the initial soup – that is, made through simple chemical precursors without the benefit of enzymes, and as the amount of D decreases some organisms will learn to make D out of C, and as the amount of C is depleted, they start to learn to make C, from B, and when another famine occurs they will learn to make B from B, which is a biological book and so on. In a footnote to one of the illustrations of the primitive cell, the book tells us that the primary soup: "It is provided with a supply of related substances (A,B,C,D) that were produced by prebiotic manufacture, and one of the compounds D has a metabolic benefit and after the cell consumption of what is available D occurs a selective feature resulting from the cell development of a new enzyme capable of producing D from a nearby compound, which is C"(10)
Yes, everyone agrees that if you run out of D, you should make it from C, and of course it's easy to convert B to C, so it's adjacent in alphabetical order (B-C), and where do we get A and B and the rest?
And the fact that no one has ever put real chemical names next to these mythical letters in the ABCD story. In the transition textbooks we mentioned above, we haven't seen an expansion of interpretations on the cartoon beyond the alphabet, although these books are meant to teach PhD students, they can understand deeper explanations, it's certainly not difficult to imagine some C-complex swimming in a primitive soup and can easily be converted into a D-complex. 5-aminoimidazole-4-,N-succinylocarboxamide ribotide or transition compound IX). This is hard to believe because when we put real names for chemical compounds we have to describe real chemical reactions that can make these compounds and nobody has done it.
The problems around ABCD theory are enormous and we will consider the most important of them. First, no intermediate compounds have been given by pre-biosynthesis experiments to synthesize AMP, except for the tenth intermediate. Although ammonium adenine can be made with hydrogen cyanide, biochemical precursors cannot be made. Second, there are strong chemical reasons to believe that transition compounds cannot be made in the path of biochemical synthesis without careful supervision of enzymes. For example, if the appropriate enzymes are not present to direct the reaction to the fifth and eleventh transition compounds, formates are likely to react unhelpfully. Note that these enzymes must be present before the next step enzymes develop, otherwise these enzymes will not find what they are working on; Another thing is related to the steps consumed by the power granules, as it must be directed accurately so as not to waste energy in useless work, for example, gasoline energy can move the car, because it is moving in channels correctly through a complex machine, but burning gasoline under the car does not make it move at all. Unless there is an enzyme that directs the use of energy granules (ATP), energy is dissipated. Again, these enzymes must be needed to guide the use of energy granules before the organism has the chemical that will be synthesized in the next step of synthesis.
The third problem with the ABCD story is that some transition compounds in the synthetic pathway are chemically unstable, so if we assume that they are made with an unguided pre-biotic reaction, they will either disintegrate quickly or react wrongly quickly, and again they won't be available to complete the synthetic pathway.
There are other reasons to reject ABCD, but we’ve said enough.
Dr. Michael Behe, Darwin Black Box, Brahin Center 2018, 213
—
Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page
https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid0eo1sufaWbP9y1jh3TCUj37qUuXGiZyH7Bu4eQi32wZmS4K3VUctxM5R58xmAW9ZEl