Chemical evolution:

[paddoboy]

the origin of life can only have been a natural process.

That's about the size of it, not withstanding some of your other "seemingly forced agnostic type" philosophy.

 

[QuarkHead]

Oh dear, poor paddoboy. Yes he and I have had our differences - mainly about the virtues of good old English warm, flat brown beer versus girlie Ausie larger, but I support him here.

Yes, he overstates the case - there exists no substantiated theory of abiogenesis, but I agree with him in the following:

Scientists assume that the "as yet unknown" will eventually succumb to the scientific method of experimentation and reasoning.

Any one with a smattering of knowledge of chemistry can dream up scenarios in which, given the existence of, say, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen and a sufficient source of energy, ribonucleotides could form.

Then you are pretty much home and dry, since, again with energy, these could polymerize and you get a self-replicating molecule. That would be life (but not as we know it, Jim), because with RNA and DNA so formed all the rest can be encoded.

 

[Write4U]

I agree. Causality makes no difference in the chemical process, unless one proposes an original living organism that spawned life, which presents a contradiction, given our knowledge of the origin of the Universe itself.

If a priori Life is ruled out, all that is left is Abiogenesis, by any means or process......

 

[paddoboy]

Oh dear, poor paddoboy. Yes he and I have had our differences - mainly about the virtues of good old English warm, flat brown beer versus girlie Ausie larger, but I support him here.

The good old English warm flat stuff you call beer, we call piss [literally speaking! ]
And we call it Lager.
And Ausie is Aussie.
My only arguments re beer at this time is my Son drinks some Japanese stuff [Asahi] and I stick to VB.

 

[Q-reeus]

Then you are pretty much home and dry, since, again with energy, these could polymerize and you get a self-replicating molecule. That would be life (but not as we know it, Jim), because with RNA and DNA so formed all the rest can be encoded.

Pretty much home and dry? Not by a long shot. Here once again, is one of the first of very many show stoppers for naturalistic abiogenesis:
https://www.allaboutscience.org/chirality.htm
Your fantasy prebiotic world is also evidently miraculously free of reactive foreign molecules that would rather quickly poison your hopeful nascent RNA self-relicator, rendering it no longer self-replicating. And mere self-replication, even IF it could be miraculously sustained in a prebiotic environment, is so far from the marvel of self-replicating cellular life it's a joke. Where would the instruction sets that determine the exact length of your 'living' self-replicators come from? You would need at minimum perfect homochirality - which brings us back to above link. And a molecule that churns out copies of itself is just a primitive polymer factory, not remotely close to qualifying as living. But to repeat, in the real prebiotic world, it would never form in the first place, and even if it did, would quickly succumb to poisoning - even the 'right' ribonucleotide but of opposite chirality to that needed, will act as a poison. The chicken must be all there ab initio.

 

[Write4U]

Pretty much home and dry? Not by a long shot. Here once again, is one of the first of very many show stoppers for naturalistic abiogenesis:
https://www.allaboutscience.org/chirality.htm
Your fantasy prebiotic world is also evidently miraculously free of reactive foreign molecules that would rather quickly poison your hopeful nascent RNA self-relicator, rendering it no longer self-replicating. And mere self-replication, even IF it could be miraculously sustained in a prebiotic environment, is so far from the marvel of self-replicating cellular life it's a joke. Where would the instruction sets that determine the exact length of your 'living' self-replicators come from? You would need at minimum perfect homochirality - which brings us back to above link. And a molecule that churns out copies of itself is just a primitive polymer factory, not remotely close to qualifying as living. But to repeat, in the real prebiotic world, it would never form in the first place, and even if it did, would quickly succumb to poisoning - even the 'right' ribonucleotide but of opposite chirality to that needed, will act as a poison. The chicken must be all there ab initio.

Chirality

The problem of chirality is crucial to the concept of abiogenesis -- that is, that life can originate from non-living matter. Proponents of such a model must answer questions such as ‘Which came first, homochirality or life?’ If one holds that homochirality was first, it is an admission that without ‘left-handed’ amino acids and ‘right-handed’ sugars, life’s structures and processes would not have been possible. One then has to account for the origin of this homochirality.

And who says that there were no left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars prior to the formation of a proto-living thing?
Read Robert Hazen!

Chirality – Summary

The origin of homochirality is of fundamental importance in origin-of-life research, since non-homochiral mixtures of amino acids or sugars are not conducive to the composition of RNA, DNA and proteins -- the building blocks of all living organisms. There remains no naturalistic explanation that describes how homochirality could have arisen through entirely materialistic processes. Processes that can enhance the enantiomeric excess of appropriate amino acid or nucleic acid building blocks produce only modest increases in the percentage of those proteins, while requiring unrealistic, laboratory conditions.

https://www.allaboutscience.org/chirality.htm

And who claims that if humans cannot do it, requiring unrealistic laboratory conditions, the universe cannot do it, unless there is an intelligent agent who can somehow do it ???
The hubris of this assumption is simply astounding.

 

[Q-reeus]

Chirality And who says that there were no left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars prior to the formation of a proto-living thing?

No-one says there were NO left-handed amino acids. The problem is there needed to be ONLY left-handed amino acids. As for sugars, their natural formation in a prebiotic world is problematic though creative attempts at making it seem plausible do exist e.g.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201019125356.htm
But as for amino acids, such naturalistic processes, even if viable per se, would result in biologically useless racemic mixtures.

Read Robert Hazen!

Hazen is clueless as to how perfect homochirality of both amino acids and sugars could arise naturally. Which is merely a minimum starting requirement - with many other requirements needed and simultaneously no less.

And who claims that if humans cannot do it, requiring unrealistic laboratory conditions, the universe cannot do it, unless there is an intelligent agent who can somehow do it ???

Obviously not you. For you, the universe IS God. As I wrote earlier, you subscribe to a form of pantheism but without recognizing it. By virtue of being really big, the universe is evidently kind-of sort-of intelligent and hugely creative.

The hubris of this assumption is simply astounding.

The hubris is all yours - endlessly positing an omnipotent universe that can perform miracles via 'mathematical functional forms' or similar word-salad nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

Hazen is clueless as to how perfect homochirality of both amino acids and sugars could arise naturally. Which is merely a minimum starting requirement - with many other requirements needed and simultaneously no less.

Hazen knows that acids can form from subduction of the earths tectonic plates, clearly a process which cannot be duplicated in a human laboratory.
Moreover there is evidence that chiral molecules may have formed in deep space. NASA

Chiral Molecules may have Hitched Rides to Planets
WRITTEN BYJoelle Renstrom

The building blocks of life might have had a cosmic origin before hitching a ride to the early Earth on meteorites, according to a new study that connects the left-handed nature of those building blocks on Earth with star-forming regions.

Scientists continue to investigate where the building blocks of life came from and how common they might be throughout the Universe. For every building block we identify, from carbon and phosphorus to proteins and nucleic acids, we also have to ask, when did it get here? How? And from where?

A sample of the Murchison meteorite, which fell in Australia in 1969 and which contains various organic molecules that may hint at the origin of life.IMAGE CREDIT: ART BROMAGE/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS CC BY-SA 2.0.

A recent study published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters may have some of the answers. Sandra Pizzarello of the School of Molecular Sciences at Arizona State University, and Christopher Yarnes of the University of California-Davis’ Department of Planetary Sciences, studied extracts from the Murchison meteorite, which landed in Australia in 1969 and remains one of the most studied meteorites given its 200-pound (90 kilogram) heft and carbon-rich composition. Inside the extracts they found evidence for a chiral molecule also found in distant star-forming regions.

Chirality refers to the arrangement of atoms in a molecule. Think of the mirror image of a symmetrical object, such as a chair or a stapler. Its mirror image can be perfectly superimposed onto the original. However, the mirror image of a chiral object, such as your hand, cannot be superimposed onto the original.

That makes it impossible to form in the entire Universe? The laws of symmetry don't hold for atoms and molecules?

Homochirality, or one-handedness, plays a key role in cellular chemical reactions, and all living organisms (that we know of) contain the ‘left-handed’ molecules. Scientists aren’t sure why this is, but some believe the answer may have something to do with the molecules’ cosmic origin. In 2016, researchers found propylene oxide, a chiral molecule, in Sagittarius B2, which is a massive molecular gas cloud roughly 25,000 light years from Earth, near the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. The findings suggest that the chiral molecules necessary for life may have come from space, particularly from star-forming regions .....more

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/chiral-molecules-may-have-hitched-rides-to-planets/

The argument that some chemical process is impossible because we cannot duplicate it in a laboratory is ridiculous!

The rest is just deflection on your part, so I won't bother to respond.

 

[Write4U]

Hazen is clueless as to how perfect homochirality of both amino acids and sugars could arise naturally. Which is merely a minimum starting requirement - with many other requirements needed and simultaneously no less.

And how do you know Hazen is clueless in this area? Tell me by which authority you make this claim. If you can't, you owe this eminent scientist an apology.

It has become much too easy to dismiss scientists who have spent lifetimes of study in their area on interest. It's time to call out some of these unwarranted accusations.
"What are your qualifications to dismiss Hazen"?

 

[Q-reeus]

And how do you know Hazen is clueless in this area? Tell me by which authority you make this claim. If you can't, you owe this eminent scientist an apology.

It has become much too easy to dismiss scientists who have spent lifetimes of study in their area on interest. It's time to call out some of these unwarranted accusations.
"What are your qualifications to dismiss Hazen"?

The ability to analyze and reason carefully. You are a noisy fool enamored with a fantasy belief in an 'endlessly creative universe'. Give it a rest.

 

[Write4U]

The ability to analyze and reason carefully. You are a noisy fool enamored with a fantasy belief in an 'endlessly creative universe'. Give it a rest.

Why don't you give your inability to analyze your endless foolish fantasy of a Living God a rest. I'm sick of your condescending attitude caused by a wholly indefensible belief in a stupid fairy tale invented by ignorant hominids, long before humans even appeared.
You give it a rest and learn to respect Science! You are the fool!

 

[Q-reeus]

Why don't you give your inability to analyze your endless foolish fantasy of a Living God a rest. I'm sick of your condescending attitude caused by a wholly indefensible belief in a stupid fairy tale invented by ignorant hominids, long before humans even appeared.
You give it a rest and learn to respect Science! You are the fool!

Sigh.

 

[Write4U]

Sigh.

Nothing else to say? Perhaps going to try the scientific method for a change? Good for you......

 

[paddoboy]

The ability to analyze and reason carefully. You are a noisy fool enamored with a fantasy belief in an 'endlessly creative universe'. Give it a rest.

Hya q-reeus..been a while since you graced us with your presence. Interacting with Aliens? or the fifth dimension?
Only joking mate, just an observation though...you stand/sit there claiming Abiogenesis is impossible [is that right?] despite all the evidence for universal chemical evolution over the eons...you know from quarks and such to protons and electrons to H and He, to the first stars etc etc etc and then life, but instead want us all to imagine some omnipotent, eternal all powerful magical being, outside of science, waving his magic hand and creating everything...is that correct?
Don't you see that as a tiny bit illogical? No one has ever said or claimed Abiogenesis, natural Abiogenesis is not a rare process, but the universe has had 100's of millions of years do practice and arrive at the key solution.
Taking all that into account, isn't it obvious that you are only pushing shit up hill? along with your Tour idol.

Any I'll leave you to your dreams, and apologies if there are any typological errors, I've start festivities a bit early.
Merry mery Chrissy and looking forward to crossing swords with you in the New Year!!

 

[Q-reeus]

...you stand/sit there claiming Abiogenesis is impossible [is that right?]

How many times now have I tried yet it never sinks in - you never distinguish between the neutral term abiogenesis and unguided/naturalistic abiogenesis which you and ilk have faith in.

 

[paddoboy]

How many times now have I tried yet it never sinks in - you never distinguish between the neutral term abiogenesis and unguided/naturalistic abiogenesis which you and ilk have faith in.

Don't avoid the issue my old mate....you understand what I'm getting at....so explain your own discrepency? If you want to call it naturalistic Abiogenesis, be my guest.
Wanna try again?

Oh just noticed..you probably missed in matey.....

No one has ever said or claimed Abiogenesis, natural Abiogenesis is not a rare process, but the universe has had 100's of millions of years do practice and arrive at the key solution.

 

[Q-reeus]

Don't avoid the issue my old mate....you understand what I'm getting at....

Would that be a response to your irrelevant '5th dimensional aliens' that I have never believed in? And which like dragging in '9-11 conspiracy' is entirely off topic not that that has ever been a barrier for you.

so explain your own discrepency? If you want to call it naturalistic Abiogenesis, be my guest.
Wanna try again?

?????

Oh just noticed..you probably missed in matey.....

Q-reeus said: ↑
No one has ever said or claimed Abiogenesis, natural Abiogenesis is not a rare process, but the universe has had 100's of millions of years do practice and arrive at the key solution.

No - YOU wrote the above, not me. Try and at least attribute quotes correctly. Anyway, you used the correct term there once, but that's the exception to your rule of not distinguishing.

 

[Write4U]

How many times now have I tried yet it never sinks in - you never distinguish between the neutral term abiogenesis and unguided/naturalistic abiogenesis which you and ilk have faith in.

You maintain that abiogenesis must be a "guided" rather than an "unguided" process, right?

But you cannot provide a single example of a "guided" MIRACLE!, whereas there are numerous examples of "unguided" self-assembly all around you. Which then carries the weight of proof?

I challenge you to provide a single verifiable example of a non-mathematically "intentionally guided" chemical reaction of any kind that has not already occurred as an "unintentional mathematical" natural phenomenon, during the Universe's lifetime.

If you cannot provide it, please don't bother to post in a science forum.

 

[Q-reeus]

You maintain that abiogenesis must be a "guided" rather than an "unguided" process, right?

But you cannot provide a single example of a "guided" MIRACLE!, whereas there are numerous examples of "unguided" self-assembly all around you. Which then carries the weight of proof?

I challenge you to provide a single verifiable example of a non-mathematically "intentionally guided" chemical reaction of any kind that has not already occurred as an "unintentional mathematical" natural phenomenon, during the Universe's lifetime.

If you cannot provide it, please don't bother to post in a science forum.

You assert there are numerous examples of unguided self-assembly (in biological systems). The chances of what you see in the following accurate animations being the outcome of blind chemical interactions are to me obviously vanishingly small to the point of being impossible:

Earlier this thread the focus was on how a membrane enclosed cell could evolve via some chance process whereby a lipid bilayer somehow enclosed self-replicating genetic material.
The mitosis process within the linked to animations should make it clear a cell membrane could never be other than integral to the cell from the get go. Commitment to materialism doesn't allow one to draw the right conclusions. Too bad.

 

[paddoboy]

Would that be a response to your irrelevant '5th dimensional aliens' that I have never believed in? And which like dragging in '9-11 conspiracy' is entirely off topic not that that has ever been a barrier for you.

?????


No - YOU wrote the above, not me. Try and at least attribute quotes correctly. Anyway, you used the correct term there once, but that's the exception to your rule of not distinguishing.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, my excuse, I've had a few beers!

But again q-reeus, we all know that you are smart enough to understand what I'm telling you...
Let's try it again......
just an observation though...you stand/sit there claiming Abiogenesis is impossible [is that right?] despite all the evidence for universal chemical evolution over the eons...you know from quarks and such to protons and electrons to H and He, to the first stars etc etc etc and then life, but instead want us all to imagine some omnipotent, eternal all powerful magical being, outside of science, waving his magic hand and creating everything...is that correct?
Don't you see that as a tiny bit illogical? No one has ever said or claimed Abiogenesis, natural Abiogenesis is not a rare process, but the universe has had 100's of millions of years do practice and arrive at the key solution.
Taking all that into account, isn't it obvious that you are only pushing shit up hill? along with your Tour idol.

psst q-reeus.....NATURAL ABIOGENESIS!!!!!not the non scientific interpretation you accept.
Take it easy! and again bloody Merry Chrissy!!!