Chemical evolution:

[Traverse]

Yep. And we don't have near enough information to list even the major possibilities - let alone try them out in a lab.
Of course. It happened somewhere on the planet earth, sometime in a span of several hundred million years, so long ago even the rocks have largely vanished. It may have happened only once.
The surprise is not that we don't know what happened, but that we have made any progress at all in investigating the matter. That's an amazing accomplishment, in such a short time and with so little hard research (compared with the need) devoted to the matter.

That we don't have enough information yet, would be lesson one. That there are a lot of possibilities we haven't even thought of yet, would be another likely implication. That a lot of solid and exhaustive research remains to be done, is pretty obvious.
When you're guessing you're guessing. No reason to be coy about it.

My point is simply that what we do know matches the predictions of some kind of assumed general or abstract Darwinian evolutionary process perfectly, and other theoretical approaches not very well at all.

It's also possible, I think, that we already have enough information to solve the problem highly satisfactorily, but that it's difficult of access owing to the need to multi-disciplinarise one's self as a scientist, when we're all trained to be so specialised.

That Life's so adaptable and robustly survivable (e.g., stunning variety, evolvability, extremophiles) tells us that it's clearly not a fragile 'one-off' kind of a phenomenon, and therefore that there's likely to be nothing hard or extraordinarily rare & difficult about its origin. I suspect that it'll seem all too obvious once a solution's been accomplished.

 

[iceaura]

And if you can't see any challenges to unguided abiogenesis in that article, what more is there to be said?

You could post one of them. Help a guy out here.

Funnily enough I agree with the part in #809 that shot down your trust in niche chiral surfaces as 'solving' the homochirality dilemma.

There is no homochirality "dilemma". It's a theoretical mistake - and a pretty elementary one, beginning with its misleading confusion of Darwinian and Creationist assumptions.

There are dozens of ways to bias the chirality of a replicating assembly of chemicals, as we can see in the numerous examples of homochiral replication, both biotic and abiotic and some of both, that surround us now and almost certainly existed then (presumably far more, in a world without the enormous competition and predation and disassembly operations of living beings everywhere).
You were wrong, is all - you don't understand Darwinian theory, and so you are easily misled by the more intuitive or lifetime inculcated creationist assumptions. There is no shame in that - people talk about Darwinian theory as if it were easily comprehended, for some reason. It isn't.

No problem. Rome wasn't built in a day. Fix your more obvious mistakes (beginning with the obvious error of starting in the middle, after the replicating assemblies of biological molecules had appeared and been refined to the point of self-replication from basic nutrients) and read up a bit on basic Darwinian theory, and get back to the science forums with a bit of comprehension of the science involved.

Put another way: If you are trying to talk about abiogenesis, you have to talk about the events and circumstances of the time before the bio was generated - that's kind of basic.

Check: Nothing about replicating RNA, replicating DNA, cellular self-replication, "integral" cell walls, etc etc etc, should appear in your posts unless it supports some explicit assumption about what happened millions of years before any of that stuff existed.

In particular: If you find yourself posting about some lifeless and essentially immortal chemical assembly "starving to death", catch yourself, delete the confusion, and have a think about how you came to be typing creationist bs on this forum.

 

[Q-reeus]

You could post one of them. Help a guy out here.
There is no homochirality "dilemma". It's a theoretical mistake - and a pretty elementary one, beginning with its misleading confusion of Darwinian and Creationist assumptions.

There are dozens of ways to bias the chirality of a replicating assembly of chemicals, as we can see in the numerous examples of homochiral replication, both biotic and abiotic and some of both, that surround us now and almost certainly existed then (presumably far more, in a world without the enormous competition and predation and disassembly operations of living beings everywhere).
You were wrong, is all - you don't understand Darwinian theory, and so you are easily misled by the more intuitive or lifetime inculcated creationist assumptions. There is no shame in that - people talk about Darwinian theory as if it were easily comprehended, for some reason. It isn't.

No problem. Rome wasn't built in a day. Fix your more obvious mistakes (beginning with the obvious error of starting in the middle, after the replicating assemblies of biological molecules had appeared and been refined to the point of self-replication from basic nutrients) and read up a bit on basic Darwinian theory, and get back to the science forums with a bit of comprehension of the science involved.

Put another way: If you are trying to talk about abiogenesis, you have to talk about the events and circumstances of the time before the bio was generated - that's kind of basic.

Check: Nothing about replicating RNA, replicating DNA, cellular self-replication, "integral" cell walls, etc etc etc, should appear in your posts unless it supports some explicit assumption about what happened millions of years before any of that stuff existed.

In particular: If you find yourself posting about some lifeless and essentially immortal chemical assembly "starving to death", catch yourself, delete the confusion, and have a think about how you came to be typing creationist bs on this forum.

Conversing with some straw man? Never mind. As before, no point in further exchanges. We talk different 'languages'.

 

[iceaura]

It's also possible, I think, that we already have enough information to solve the problem highly satisfactorily

It isn't the way to bet. We live in truly vast ignorance here - 1950s DNA, 1960s plate tectonics, 1970s this shocker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea <- First stable classification of these things was 1977. First solid description of how they evolved or might have evolved is nowhere in sight. And they are highly evolved beings - nowhere near the early products of abiogenesis, vast evolutionary distances from the ancestral products of abiogenesis;
and that stuff - less than 75 years old - is the early basic stuff. We are living during the beginnings of the investigation into abiogenesis - the baby steps.

I would bet, personally, that even our current statement of "the problem" is confused and misleading somehow. We don't know what we don't know. If the early quasi-living "beings" were not organized into anything resembling cells, for example, but were instead products of much larger and more loosely associated cycles and feedback loops involving lots of different and temporally or spatially disconnected assemblies of stuff (which would be a routine Darwinian possibility, being ignored for some reason that may prove embarrassing in the near future) we're going to have to practically start from scratch merely describing the possibilities. We haven't even got started on something like that.

 

[iceaura]

Conversing with some straw man? Never mind. As before, no point in further exchanges. We talk different 'languages'.

You can't even post, much less discuss, one of those "challenges" you insist your link describes, and you keep repeating confused irrelevancies about homochirality. You posted about the early products of nascent abiogenesis "starving to death". That's pretty confused stuff, for a science forum.

The language you post in, with references to "cells" and "starving to death" and replicating homochirality of nucleic acids and so forth, is not the source of your difficulties. It is a consequence of them.

All I can do is suggest a way out: Like every other creationist I have ever encountered on one of these forums, your central difficulty is that you don't understand Darwinian evolutionary theory. Until you do, you will be unable to discuss abiogenesis on a science forum. Why not study up, read a bit, have a think?

 

[Q-reeus]

...and you keep repeating confused irrelevancies about homochirality. Penny drop yet?

This is what I mean by different languages. Practically every worker in the field of OOL research acknowledges that emergence of homochiral biologically useful macro molecules is a huge and very much unsolved issue. Yet you pretend it's somehow irrelevant or even entirely resolved. BS.
As for the rest of your post, it's what schmelzer righty dubs in another forum where you two engage - 'you are stupid' barbs. Save your mind games psychology tactics for susceptible folk.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Put up or shut up.

That I feel is a reasonable request...one that I am surprisedk has not been made of you.

As I understand your position it requires god in the mix.

Is that the case?
If not post your answer and ignore all that follows.


If so does that not mean the onus is upon you to establish there is in existence this god.

Same for intelligent design...if you want to claim ID it would seem necessary to be able to show a designer....now I notice IDers will say they don't know who the designer is but it seems clear they believe it is god...not science is it?


In any event these notions of god come from rather poor sources and seem nothing more than what various imaginations think a god may be...

In any event now that you bring in a god I can not understand why the thread is not moved to religion.

James stopped Paddo from posting because he could not grasp the meaning of "theory" and so argued for a non existent thing..it seems to me you argue for a non existent thing..certainly a thing that only exists as an imaginary construct in some folks minds.

Is not your arguement entirely religious given the key part requires a god.

I don't see much point in arguing about RNA for example when the main ingredient for you is to present an unestablished god as established.


Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

That I feel is a reasonable request...one that I am surprisedk has not been made of you.

As I understand your position it requires god in the mix.

Is that the case?
If not post your answer and ignore all that follows.


If so does that not mean the onus is upon you to establish there is in existence this god.

Same for intelligent design...if you want to claim ID it would seem necessary to be able to show a designer....now I notice IDers will say they don't know who the designer is but it seems clear they believe it is god...not science is it?


In any event these notions of god come from rather poor sources and seem nothing more than what various imaginations think a god may be...

In any event now that you bring in a god I can not understand why the thread is not moved to religion.

James stopped Paddo from posting because he could not grasp the meaning of "theory" and so argued for a non existent thing..it seems to me you argue for a non existent thing..certainly a thing that only exists as an imaginary construct in some folks minds.

Is not your arguement entirely religious given the key part requires a god.

I don't see much point in arguing about RNA for example when the main ingredient for you is to present an unestablished god as established.


Alex

Alex you are entitled to your viewpoint but to argue bringing up God is somehow illegitimate is silly. It's too bad you either can't grasp serious ID arguments (as per linked to article), or you take the cheap and easy way out by declaring God can't exist. I will humbly suggest that is an argument from incredulity. You are in no position to make such an absolute pronouncement, which basically and ironically makes you out to be omniscient Cheers.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex you are entitled to your viewpoint but to argue bringing up God is somehow illegitimate is silly. It's too bad you either can't grasp serious ID arguments (as per linked to article), or you take the cheap and easy way out by declaring God can't exist. I will humbly suggest that is an argument from incredulity. You are in no position to make such an absolute pronouncement, which basically and ironically makes you out to be omniscient Cheers.

I expect some one out there could agree with me..just maybe.

However the fact remains god is in your mix and I can not see it is at all silly to require that is established...why folk argue the dinner points and simply just dontvinsist you prove the god bit or stop saying this is impossible or that can never work..You expect them to prove this or that works why is it unreasonable to have you prove god in your version of life appearance...

Let's say I believe a god exists that does not relieve you of anything...you need to show there is a god first then explain the mechanism used ... I can't see guessing can be part of science in any way..although I think inflation in big bang is about as big a guess one could make...so maybe given the casual approach there you can make up anything you like.

Am I correct in saying there is no evidence for inflation and it's acceptance seems to be because..."Well it explains things rather well"...mmmm maybe but we need proof I say..in the same way that I say to you that you need proof...but let's have yours.

I think chemistry and life is a giant jigsaw puzzle we are trying to put together..we have a lot of pieces..we have a great number that fit and show a nice part of the picture...we are probably missing some parts...but I dont think we are missing some mythical entity that puts all the pieces together.

What creationists seem to forget is that the God believe in was invented by humans ... by humans who can be identified..they made it up.. they did not see this god ask questions and take notes...they made it up ..end of story..from there we get folk adding I gained experiences in much the same way as your poltghiest story..you should sit in a court for a couple of days and see how evidence is accepted or not and how folk will corrupt evidence or just make it up.

Humans invented god..that is one the record as we say..the evidence is recorded..strangely on clay...do you know to whom I refer as the inventors?..and this Western god came from a three god arrangement originally...and now we are back to that..how curious..must be some god preference for grouping into three...anyways you need to prove god in your mix...also all these things on sites like your god one..they knock evolution, chemistry, big bang whatever as if proving any of the science wrong proves that their god is real.... news flash proving all science wrong does not prove god existist....prove evolution wrong..that does not prove god or intelligent design...however proving god was made up and by whom I think takes us a long way to establishing it is all just a myth...


Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

I expect some one out there could agree with me..just maybe.

However the fact remains god is in your mix and I can not see it is at all silly to require that is established...why folk argue the dinner points and simply just dontvinsist you prove the god bit or stop saying this is impossible or that can never work..You expect them to prove this or that works why is it unreasonable to have you prove god in your version of life appearance...

Let's say I believe a god exists that does not relieve you of anything...you need to show there is a god first then explain the mechanism used ... I can't see guessing can be part of science in any way..although I think inflation in big bang is about as big a guess one could make...so maybe given the casual approach there you can make up anything you like.

Am I correct in saying there is no evidence for inflation and it's acceptance seems to be because..."Well it explains things rather well"...mmmm maybe but we need proof I say..in the same way that I say to you that you need proof...but let's have yours.

I think chemistry and life is a giant jigsaw puzzle we are trying to put together..we have a lot of pieces..we have a great number that fit and show a nice part of the picture...we are probably missing some parts...but I dont think we are missing some mythical entity that puts all the pieces together.

What creationists seem to forget is that the God believe in was invented by humans ... by humans who can be identified..they made it up.. they did not see this god ask questions and take notes...they made it up ..end of story..from there we get folk adding I gained experiences in much the same way as your poltghiest story..you should sit in a court for a couple of days and see how evidence is accepted or not and how folk will corrupt evidence or just make it up.

Humans invented god..that is one the record as we say..the evidence is recorded..strangely on clay...do you know to whom I refer as the inventors?..and this Western god came from a three god arrangement originally...and now we are back to that..how curious..must be some god preference for grouping into three...anyways you need to prove god in your mix...also all these things on sites like your god one..they knock evolution, chemistry, big bang whatever as if proving any of the science wrong proves that their god is real.... news flash proving all science wrong does not prove god existist....prove evolution wrong..that does not prove god or intelligent design...however proving god was made up and by whom I think takes us a long way to establishing it is all just a myth...


Alex

Sorry Alex but you are rambling and misspelling quite a bit there. It's clear to me we will never see eye to eye, so let's just agree to disagree. OK?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Sorry Alex but you are rambling and misspelling quite a bit there. It's clear to me we will never see eye to eye, so let's just agree to disagree. OK?

I type on my phone so it is not at all easy...one letter at a time and my spell checker is totally useless...most of my posts are the opinions of the spell checker...
Once I said I was looking thru my binos and it typed that I was looking thru my bible.

I know we will never see eye to eye however the message I make is simple...in the discussion here god is in your mix you can't not call on others to back up their claims if you can not back up yours.

It may appear to be rambling but that can only come because you don't agree with what I say and rather than taking on board any valid point you just skip thru impatiently...can we agree on that

Anyways with your input the thread should be moved to religion..you cause it not to be science.

Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

Anyways with your input the thread should be moved to religion..you cause it not to be science.

I caused? Mia culpa! Well just try and ignore all my posts and perhaps all the replies to them. With that strategy in place this thread can be saved to 'stay scientific'.

PS: It's probably unwise but I feel the need to answer the rest of your post:

I know we will never see eye to eye however the message I make is simple...in the discussion here god is in your mix you can't not call on others to back up their claims if you can not back up yours.

It may appear to be rambling but that can only come because you don't agree with what I say and rather than taking on board any valid point you just skip thru impatiently...can we agree on that

No. You are profoundly ignorant, repeat; profoundly ignorant, of the force behind the itemized list of severe issues facing unguided abiogenesis listed in, for the third time:
https://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

The idea that one must 'call God down to parade before us in person', and require His/Her/Whoever's exact methods of creation be divulged, is obviously childish. The reality is God evidently chooses to be revealed indirectly through the intricacies of God's handiwork. Well that is the usual ID argument I accept as reasonable and if that offends you too bad and so be it.

 

[exchemist]

I caused? Mia culpa! Well just try and ignore all my posts and perhaps all the replies to them. With that strategy in place this thread can be saved to 'stay scientific'.

PS: It's probably unwise but I feel the need to answer the rest of your post:

No. You are profoundly ignorant, repeat; profoundly ignorant, of the force behind the itemized list of severe issues facing unguided abiogenesis listed in, for the third time:
https://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

The idea that one must 'call God down to parade before us in person', and require His/Her/Whoever's exact methods of creation be divulged, is obviously childish. The reality is God evidently chooses to be revealed indirectly through the intricacies of God's handiwork. Well that is the usual ID argument I accept as reasonable and if that offends you too bad and so be it.

Mea culpa. Get it right!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

No. You are profoundly ignorant, repeat; profoundly ignorant,

You really dont know and I dont care what you think..

I have been studying micro biology for some little time ..and I like playing with microscopes ..I have three..two very flash ones and a small digital for larger objects.. both have dedicated cameras... the really good one was a gift from a micro biologist I help work thru a problem...who would have thought..little old me...you have no idea what I know or what I don't know for that matter..you are ignorant of what my knowledge is, we could say, if we use the word correctly.. as you don't know..I avoid any discussions on an in depth approach simply because I do not rely upon my memory when I make a statement but line up all the text book notes or authorities or papers..it is a lot of work that I am not interested in doing if I am not getting paid rather large sums of money..I am used to being paid for an opinion ..fancy on old idiot like me being paid for advice..who would thunk.....if I do something right it is a major performance.

I read the notes on the god site and if you think I will waste my time to work thru each proposition and check the latest research read the papers and assemble a written arguement you underestimate me.... and the subject is rather complex requiring just a little bit of knowlegde..I suspect..maybe more than the god site...you can think I an ignorant I don't care...you have no idea ...same with religion if I wanted to present as how I actually am on the subject it would require a lot of cash for me to invest the time required to present what I know...be like preparing a couple of books for publication rather than casual comments thrown around here...because I would read it all again not to have a single mistake and to have every point backed up with all evidence available...I cant remember whole books any more you see..I forget the page number and what is on that page...There would not be one single thing incorrect if I gave you the drum and any claim would have mountains of evidence... I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone ...

And I know my chemistry ... I don't talk about it cause I can be a bit over the top..like astronomy I don't rave on and on about all I know, optics for example you may be surprised to know I know as much as an optometrist..oh that's wrong..I know more....I could be boring you see...at 11 yrs old I could do chemistry up the first year university..in my final high school exam I got 98.5% ..missed 100% cause 2 days earlier broke my nose in a terrible weight lifting accident which left me out of sorts such that I misread my slide rule and lost 1.5 marks..I still topped the school...


All I would suggest is not to underestimate folk ... one day you may run into someone who knows stuff and is not a blow hard.

If you are unable to tell that gods are guess work and vague interpretation that is up to you..again I don't care what nonsense you choose...

You seem like a nice chap but you should not assume you are talking to a fool just because that is the way he acts..I am not like some folk here who go to some effort to come over so very clever..all my working life I have had to play it down so as not to alienate folk...people dont like it when they realise you are much smarter than they are...so I hide it ..but get over yourself.
Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

Mea culpa. Get it right!

I got the message with your string of recent likes. And so it has see-sawed from ally to foe to ally again to foe again. Are you actually comfortable singing Christian hymns to God in that Catholic choir you belong to? The devout Catholic avowed atheist. He he he. Definition of oxymoronic. Wonders never cease here at SF. Such a menagerie of odd folk.

 

[Q-reeus]

You really dont know and I dont care what you think..

I have been studying micro biology for some little time ..and I like playing with microscopes ..I have three..two very flash ones and a small digital for larger objects.. both have dedicated cameras... the really good one was a gift from a micro biologist I help work thru a problem...who would have thought..little old me...you have no idea what I know or what I don't know for that matter..you are ignorant of what my knowledge is, we could say, if we use the word correctly.. as you don't know..I avoid any discussions on an in depth approach simply because I do not rely upon my memory when I make a statement but line up all the text book notes or authorities or papers..it is a lot of work that I am not interested in doing if I am not getting paid rather large sums of money..I am used to being paid for an opinion ..fancy on old idiot like me being paid for advice..who would thunk.....if I do something right it is a major performance.

I read the notes on the god site and if you think I will waste my time to work thru each proposition and check the latest research read the papers and assemble a written arguement you underestimate me.... and the subject is rather complex requiring just a little bit of knowlegde..I suspect..maybe more than the god site...you can think I an ignorant I don't care...you have no idea ...same with religion if I wanted to present as how I actually am on the subject it would require a lot of cash for me to invest the time required to present what I know...be like preparing a couple of books for publication rather than casual comments thrown around here...because I would read it all again not to have a single mistake and to have every point backed up with all evidence available...I cant remember whole books any more you see..I forget the page number and what is on that page...There would not be one single thing incorrect if I gave you the drum and any claim would have mountains of evidence... I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone ...

And I know my chemistry ... I don't talk about it cause I can be a bit over the top..like astronomy I don't rave on and on about all I know, optics for example you may be surprised to know I know as much as an optometrist..oh that's wrong..I know more....I could be boring you see...at 11 yrs old I could do chemistry up the first year university..in my final high school exam I got 98.5% ..missed 100% cause 2 days earlier broke my nose in a terrible weight lifting accident which left me out of sorts such that I misread my slide rule and lost 1.5 marks..I still topped the school...


All I would suggest is not to underestimate folk ... one day you may run into someone who knows stuff and is not a blow hard.

If you are unable to tell that gods are guess work and vague interpretation that is up to you..again I don't care what nonsense you choose...

You seem like a nice chap but you should not assume you are talking to a fool just because that is the way he acts..I am not like some folk here who go to some effort to come over so very clever..all my working life I have had to play it down so as not to alienate folk...people dont like it when they realise you are much smarter than they are...so I hide it ..but get over yourself.
Alex

Nice semi bio Alex. But too long a read. So you know an awfully lot more than you make out. It just doesn't gel with your regular run of rambling commentary. So strange.
I make a belated new year's resolution - avoid posting in any such future thread again. Not worth the angst.

 

[Traverse]

It would be very nice, Messieurs, if we could just stick to Science & to purely scientific (esp. chemical) discussion on this thread, as originally intended. ID etc simply isn't Science, and adherents of such childishly-hopeful & eternity-fearing mythical neurotic nonsense should stick to using the available expertises here for clarifying their understanding of scientific matters, rather than be continually distracting discussion by bleating-out their petulant cries of desperation for enough rational doubt that they can continue to cling to their most cherished fantasies.

 

[Q-reeus]

Bombast and polemic in chic combo. Ya don't see that every day.

 

[exchemist]

I got the message with your string of recent likes. And so it has see-sawed from ally to foe to ally again to foe again. Are you actually comfortable singing Christian hymns to God in that Catholic choir you belong to? The devout Catholic avowed atheist. He he he. Definition of oxymoronic. Wonders never cease here at SF. Such a menagerie of odd folk.

Oh I just thought it was time to put 50p in the slot and watch you light up like a pinball machine: TING, TING, TING, CHUGGA, CHUGGA CHUGGA.......

 

[Q-reeus]

Oh I just thought it was time to put 50p in the slot and watch you light up like a pinball machine: TING, TING, TING, CHUGGA, CHUGGA CHUGGA.......

I do like to give folks, odd as they may or may not be, value for money. But enough of this friendly banter. I'll leave it to you intellectual heavyweights to get back to the serious stuff of teasing out the details of Nature's incredible capacity to bring forth life with zero intelligent input. Good luck.