Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

[paddoboy]

Abiogenesis - it's impossibility via unguided naturalistic processes is the show-stopper to all subsequent biological developments. And I know your entrenched viewpoint there so don't keep engaging me on it.

And yet here we are! Life many billions of years after the universe evolved at t+10-43 seconds. So again, tell me another viable scientific answer? You can't!!
Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer for the emergence of life, not withstanding the fanaticism of Tour, and your own questionable position on this and other matters.

 

[Write4U]

I linked to Tour on that on-topic topic

If you are going to call witnesses in support of a case, I have the right to question the witnesses' qualifications and authority.
If that leads us temporarily away from the main subject, that is perfectly permissible in a case of "argument from authority"......

 

[James R]

I probably wouldn't have posted in this thread, because I think that exchemist elegantly made all the same points I would have made. But then I noticed that Q-reeus tried to drag me in. So, having now taken a closer look at the thread, I may as well reply. Let's start with:

Q-reeus:

BS from the premier devout scientism adherent at SF. My only uncertainty re motives is whether you alone or jointly with James R have sought to bait me on a supposed 'vulnerability', while simultaneously driving a wedge between myself and a few others who have common ground in the UFO arena. No matter.

Another conspiracy theory, Q-reeus? I guess that if I tell you that I have nothing to do with anything that paddoboy posts then the conspiracy theorist in you might assume I'm lying to you anyway. But there it is: I have nothing to do with anything that paddoboy posts. Believe it or not, we're not private messaging each other and talking about you behind your back. You paranoia is just that.

I don't much care if you're a Creationist. Lots of people believe that nonsense, and if you're one of those then we can just add you to a very long list.

As for the "wedge" you mention, I suppose you're worried that religious Creationists might not, in general, agree with you that little green men are visiting Earth, because that idea tends to clash with the idea that human beings were created specially by God to have dominion over the rest of the Creation. If you find yourself in dispute with some of your co-Creationists, I'm afraid you'll need to fight it out with them, not with me - or with paddoboy for that matter. From my point of view, you're just definitely wrong about one thing and more likely than not wrong about both things, so not much skin off my nose.

And, again, note I have NO adherence to any organized or otherwise known to me religion.

Helps explain why UFOs are acceptable in your Creationist belief system, I suppose - if that's what you have.

It's not necessary to have some label for whatever or whoever higher power(s) exists to recognize a crying need for such to explain organic life's origins.

Isn't it okay not to know the answer, for now? I mean, scientists are working on the problem. Why do you want to assume you know the answer before the data is in?

The prevailing ideological position has it that science automatically excludes any entertaining possible causes outside the strictly material.

As Yazata explained, it's called methodological naturalism, which is fundamental in science. If you're not looking for natural causes, you're not doing science, exactly.

Widen the field a bit, though, and we arrive at a more basic kind of healthy skepticism. That skepticism will entertain possible causes outside the material, but step one is to establish that there is something that needs explaining which can't be explained by natural causes alone.

In other words, if you want to say a god created life, great, but you really ought to be able to point to some facts about the world that we can all agree on and which tend to support your conclusion. If there's nothing to point to a specifically supernatural creator, then why would we want to introduce one into what is already a difficult problem?

Which, applied to abiogenesis theorizing, constricts the available horizon to the point of necessarily embracing secular miracles of stupendous indeed absurd proportions.

It sounds like your argument is "I can't think how it could have happened naturally. Therefore, it must have happened supernaturally." Can you see the flaw in that reasoning? Or the related "Scientists can't (yet) explain how it could have happened naturally. Therefore, it must have happened supernaturally"?

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

My contention based on mainstream science is that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life first started in the universe.

Abiogenesis is just a label for the process of going from "lifeless" chemistry to biological life. Clearly that is a process that occurred at some time (maybe more than once). Science has some conjectures about pieces of the puzzle to explain how it might have happened, but there's nothing that scientists would call a Theory of Abiogenesis yet. There's not a complete "answer". That's not to say we won't find one (or more), sooner or later.

While we certainly are still rather ignorant as to the exact process of Abiogenesis, we are just as certain that it is the only scientific answer.

Nobody disputes that there was no life, then there was life. All the argument is how we went from state 1 to state 2.

Read the wikipedia page:

"Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred".

No single, generally accepted model means no "answer". Understand?

 

[Write4U]

No single, generally accepted model means no "answer"

But, as you already suggested, there may be more than a single answer to get to the same result. Hazen specifically mentioned that chemically there may be several "realistic" (probabilistic) answers to the general question.

Example; Mammals use iron as the oxygen carrier in blood. That's why its red.
................Octopi use copper as the oxygen carrier in their blood. That's why it's blue.

 

[James R]

Philosophical nonsense in actual fact...Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.

Your belief that life came from non-life by entirely natural processes is not "actual fact", as in not established by conclusive evidence beyond doubt. It is just an assumption that you are making that it could happen in no other way. And that assumption of yours is based on a philosophical stance that you adhere to, even if you don't want to recognise it.

This isn't the first time you have pooh-poohed philosophy while simultaneously adopting what is fundamentally a philosophical stance. You really ought to stop doing that.

Now getting back to the nitty gritty and the point both of you have ignored or somehow misrepresented, at one time the universe was devoid of life...in fact it was devoid of elements and even devoid of atomic nucleus. Then there was life!!!!

That's the observation. Then comes the speculation. God did it. Or the laws of chemistry did it. Or whatever. The mere observation that there was no life then there was life is not a theory, in the scientific sense. You haven't explained anything by sticking the label "abiogenesis" on it.

Just because we are ignorant of the exact process, does not detract from that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer...We have overwhelming evidence for the existence of unseen matter.

And in contrast, we don't have overwhelming evidence that life can start from non-life by natural processes. On the other hand, we have even less evidence that life can start from non-life through supernatural intervention, primarily because it has not even been established that the required supernatural entities exist to do the necessary work. So, either way, people have got some work to do to solve this particular problem. I think the religionists have the bigger hurdle to overcome, with a poor track record of getting to first base with the proof of their claims, but you never know.

Science does not give a hoot that such a process sounds shockingly sacrilegious to the mythical beliefs of some...Science does not give a hoot that mythical and unsupported supernatural and/or paranormal supposed answers are not considered, simply because science does not entertain such unsupported beliefs that are figments of people's imagination and cannot be falsified.

Sure, but even if all religion is false, that doesn't mean that science has an explanation of the origin of life by default.

 

[Q-reeus]

I probably wouldn't have posted in this thread, because I think that exchemist elegantly made all the same points I would have made. But then I noticed that Q-reeus tried to drag me in. So, having now taken a closer look at the thread, I may as well reply. Let's start with:

Q-reeus:


Another conspiracy theory, Q-reeus? I guess that if I tell you that I have nothing to do with anything that paddoboy posts then the conspiracy theorist in you might assume I'm lying to you anyway. But there it is: I have nothing to do with anything that paddoboy posts. Believe it or not, we're not private messaging each other and talking about you behind your back. You paranoia is just that....

I never outright accused you of collusion. Drawing out that response clears the air. I'll take your word there, but note you have lied in the past. And 'paranoia' is a pejorative deliberately intended to inflame. I see that tactic often used against esp MR in those other sub-forum threads, e.g. 'the UFO nuts'.

I don't much care if you're a Creationist. Lots of people believe that nonsense, and if you're one of those then we can just add you to a very long list...

Define - precisely. Actually, define the spectrum precisely.

As for the "wedge" you mention, I suppose you're worried that religious Creationists might not, in general, agree with you that little green men are visiting Earth, because that idea tends to clash with the idea that human beings were created specially by God to have dominion over the rest of the Creation. If you find yourself in dispute with some of your co-Creationists, I'm afraid you'll need to fight it out with them, not with me - or with paddoboy for that matter. From my point of view, you're just definitely wrong about one thing and more likely than not wrong about both things, so not much skin off my nose.

You have grievously misrepresented me there e.g. 'little green men'. You must know better. Hence my earlier remark about you having lied in the past. Shame.

Helps explain why UFOs are acceptable in your Creationist belief system, I suppose - if that's what you have.

Really? Do elaborate. But strive to be accurate - something missing so far.

Isn't it okay not to know the answer, for now? I mean, scientists are working on the problem. Why do you want to assume you know the answer before the data is in?

Umm...how about because the arguments presented by not just James Tour but other competent individuals e.g. Edward Peltzer, are far too robust. But please cite any mainstream researchers in the abiogenesis field who can effectively undermine either of those gents comprehensive critiques of naturalistic abiogenesis. I expect none from you. And am confident you are incapable of personally offering anything resembling a sound critique dealing with specifics.

As Yazata explained, it's called methodological naturalism, which is fundamental in science. If you're not looking for natural causes, you're not doing science, exactly.

Widen the field a bit, though, and we arrive at a more basic kind of healthy skepticism. That skepticism will entertain possible causes outside the material, but step one is to establish that there is something that needs explaining which can't be explained by natural causes alone.

In other words, if you want to say a god created life, great, but you really ought to be able to point to some facts about the world that we can all agree on and which tend to support your conclusion. If there's nothing to point to a specifically supernatural creator, then why would we want to introduce one into what is already a difficult problem?

See above.

It sounds like your argument is "I can't think how it could have happened naturally. Therefore, it must have happened supernaturally." Can you see the flaw in that reasoning? Or the related "Scientists can't (yet) explain how it could have happened naturally. Therefore, it must have happened supernaturally"?

Ditto.

 

[James R]

Q-reeus:

I never outright accused you of collusion. Drawing out that response clears the air. I'll take your word there, but note you have lied in the past.

We've all lied in the past. I hope I haven't lied about something important. I suppose you're thinking about something specific. Maybe you'll bring that up if you want to make a specific accusation rather than just throw a vague ad hominem at me.

And 'paranoia' is a pejorative deliberately intended to inflame. I see that tactic often used against esp MR in those other sub-forum threads, e.g. 'the UFO nuts'.

If you think that somebody is out to get you, then you're paranoid, by definition. There is, of course, justified paranoia and unjustified paranoia...

Define - precisely. Actually, define the spectrum precisely.

I don't see why it is up to me to define your belief for you. If you want to explain what it is, exactly, that you believe about the origins of life or the process of evolution, there's a discussion forum right here, available for your use.

You have grievously misrepresented me there e.g. 'little green men'. You must know better. Hence my earlier remark about you having lied in the past. Shame.

Not little green men? Sorry, but I've forgotten which kind of aliens you, personally, think are visiting. Sorry if I lump you in with the other alien enthusiasts, but you must admit these are all relatively unimportant variations on the same basic theme.

Really? Do elaborate. But strive to be accurate - something missing so far.

Didn't I already explain enough? Read the bit after where I wrote "little green men". Happy to answer questions, if you have more.

Umm...how about because the arguments presented by not just James Tour but other competent individuals e.g. Edward Peltzer, are far too robust. But please cite any mainstream researchers in the abiogenesis field who can effectively undermine either of those gents comprehensive critiques of naturalistic abiogenesis. I expect none from you. And am confident you are incapable of personally offering anything resembling a sound critique dealing with specifics.

Well, like I said, I wasn't really planning on engaging in this thread in the first place. If I have some free time and nothing better to do, I might take a look at what Tour and Peltzer have to say. It would make my life easier if you could summarise the main points that convince you, but of course you're not obliged to put your argument in a more complete way than you have chosen to do.

Your estimates of my capabilities are yours to make, of course, and your expectations are also your own.

Have a good day!

 

[paddoboy]

Sure, but even if all religion is false, that doesn't mean that science has an explanation of the origin of life by default.

You have it all back to front in my opinion. I'm saying that Abiogenesis [Abiogenesis meaning life from non life,] is the only scientific answer to how life emerged. Certainly we may not know the exact process, or pathway, but that doesn't detract from the "fact" that once there was no life, then there was life. And the scientific answer is Abiogenesis. Religion/god/magic spaghetti monster,ID etc are not scientific reasons. They are mythical speculations.

It is just an assumption that you are making that it could happen in no other way.

No, it is the only scientific answer. Unless you have been holding another answer from the world.

Your belief that life came from non-life by entirely natural processes is not "actual fact", as in not established by conclusive evidence beyond doubt.

Are you claiming life emerged via one of the many unscientific mythical means that plague the world?

This isn't the first time you have pooh-poohed philosophy while simultaneously adopting what is fundamentally a philosophical stance. You really ought to stop doing that.

My reply re philosophy was in answer to another apparent philosopher who was avoiding answering honestly with silly philosophical semantics. My opinion about Philosophy when taken to such ridicus levels align with Lawrence Krauss and the late Stephen Hawking. If that offends philosophers here then gee, I;m really sorry for offending their sensitivities.

That's the observation. Then comes the speculation. God did it. Or the laws of chemistry did it. Or whatever. The mere observation that there was no life then there was life is not a theory, in the scientific sense. You haven't explained anything by sticking the label "abiogenesis" on it.

God is unscientific explanation, sorry James. The only scientific explanation is the label/process/theory/model of Abiogenesis.

And in contrast, we don't have overwhelming evidence that life can start from non-life by natural processes. On the other hand, we have even less evidence that life can start from non-life through supernatural intervention,

You miss the point...one is a scientific assumption, the only scientific assumption, the other is an unscientific idea, as is any ID.

Science has some conjectures about pieces of the puzzle to explain how it might have happened, but there's nothing that scientists would call a Theory of Abiogenesis yet. There's not a complete "answer". That's not to say we won't find one (or more), sooner or later.

I have never denied that science does not know the exact methodology or pathway of Abiogenesis, but that does not detract from the fact that the scenario of life from non life is termed Abiogenesis. Creationists often use the gaps of knowledge in various theories or scenarios to cunningly slip in their "god of the gaps"

Nobody disputes that there was no life, then there was life. All the argument is how we went from state 1 to state 2.

Wrong: q-reeus certainly disputes that. Secondly, what you say is correct about not disputing that life came from non life. Agree with you 100% Jimmy ol son. So what do you want to call it? I don't want the exact pathway or methodology, I just want you to tell me what you call the indisputable fact that life came from non life.
It's a shame I have pissed exchemist off, as I know he actually agrees with what I say, and that's a crying shame.
By the way James, this exact topic is being discussed and played out over at another forum, again started by me, and no actual dispute at all, other then for one old friend of mine who belongs here also.He has so far been reprimanded twice. The debate also involves another philosopher who despite the fact that I have also pissed him off after poo pooing philosophers on another matter, has also agreed entirely with my summation as follows.

"Once there was no life, then their was: We call that Abiogenesis and it is the only scientific theory we have to explain the emergence of life."

That's what I'm sticking to and that's what I believe that the general mainstream accept.

 

[Q-reeus]

Q-reeus:


We've all lied in the past. I hope I haven't lied about something important. I suppose you're thinking about something specific. Maybe you'll bring that up if you want to make a specific accusation rather than just throw a vague ad hominem at me.


If you think that somebody is out to get you, then you're paranoid, by definition. There is, of course, justified paranoia and unjustified paranoia...


I don't see why it is up to me to define your belief for you. If you want to explain what it is, exactly, that you believe about the origins of life or the process of evolution, there's a discussion forum right here, available for your use.


Not little green men? Sorry, but I've forgotten which kind of aliens you, personally, think are visiting. Sorry if I lump you in with the other alien enthusiasts, but you must admit these are all relatively unimportant variations on the same basic theme.


Didn't I already explain enough? Read the bit after where I wrote "little green men". Happy to answer questions, if you have more.


Well, like I said, I wasn't really planning on engaging in this thread in the first place. If I have some free time and nothing better to do, I might take a look at what Tour and Peltzer have to say. It would make my life easier if you could summarise the main points that convince you, but of course you're not obliged to put your argument in a more complete way than you have chosen to do.

Your estimates of my capabilities are yours to make, of course, and your expectations are also your own.

Have a good day!

Here's all I'd like to say in response:
There are many specific arguments raised by both Tour and Peltzer (

), but just one single word encapsulates probably the biggest single barrier to abiogenesis: poisoning. More specifically, inevitability of irreversible poisoning in any realistic prebiotic Earth setting. But like I said, various other factors present their own insuperable hurdles. Collectively, or even singly, it means no chance for naturalistic life from non-life. Best to just watch the vids listed p5 #82, and the one linked above here. One has to gain an overall feel for the pros and cons, the integrity of both sides etc.

 

[paddoboy]

Collectively, or even singly, it means no chance for naturalistic life from non-life.

And yet here we are!!! As I said q-reeus, the vast mainstream support the observation of life emerging from no life. That is the fact, not some baggage driven ideas from a religious fanatic named Tour.

 

[paddoboy]

And of course my at least half a dozen articles and papers I have presented, trump your zealot.

 

[paddoboy]

Umm...how about because the arguments presented by not just James Tour but other competent individuals e.g. Edward Peltzer, are far too robust. But please cite any mainstream researchers in the abiogenesis field who can effectively undermine either of those gents comprehensive critiques of naturalistic abiogenesis. I expect none from you. And am confident you are incapable of personally offering anything resembling a sound critique dealing with specifics..

And you don't believe that someone as involved in religion as Tour is could be somehow biased???
How about all the other papers supporting the concept of Abiogenesis...Are they just fools?or do you believe their is a conspiracy afoot?
How does your anti mainstream stance here, compare to other anti mainstream stances you have taken?
You don't accept that perhaps you could be biased or blinkered?

 

[iceaura]

Best to just watch the vids listed p5 #82, and the one linked above here. One has to gain an overall feel for the pros and cons, the integrity of both sides etc.

Transcript, or forget it.

It's a lot of work to dig through video for the structure of an argument, and lack of written explication casts doubt on the integrity of the argument in the first place - video avoids easy and direct accountability, a bad indicator.

Meanwhile, in the early going: No argument from "poisoning" is going to stand, obviously (the planet was too big and varied, the millions of diverse niches too small and isolated), but how it fails in any particular case would govern the critique. So let's see the argument, written down.

 

[Write4U]

And the scientific answer is Abiogenesis.

It certainly is not Tiddlywinks.....

 

[Q-reeus]

Transcript, or forget it.

It's a lot of work to dig through video for the structure of an argument, and lack of written explication casts doubt on the integrity of the argument in the first place - video avoids easy and direct accountability, a bad indicator.

Meanwhile, in the early going: No argument from "poisoning" is going to stand, obviously (the planet was too big and varied, the millions of diverse niches too small and isolated), but how it fails in any particular case would govern the critique. So let's see the argument, written down.

If you can't be bothered to spend some quality time evaluating the step by step introduction and justification of a suite of compelling arguments, presented by someone with real credentials, don't expect me to spoon feed you with a nice and easy one minute summary. And your contention the planet was too big and varied for poisoning to stand is laughable.

 

[Write4U]

And your contention the planet was too big and varied for poisoning to stand is laughable

It is your contention that the planet is too small and barren to give rise to life and evolution of species, no?
Let alone a small poisonous planet. How could life ever emerge other than by miracle.

Actually bacteria can adapt to almost any environment. Extremophiles and Tardigrades are examples of life having conquered poisons. Why are we so worried about virulent bacteria becoming immune to every poison we can think of. Because poison is only a temporary condition to living organisms. Some die, some adapt, the same way some emerged and evolved from purely bio-chemical reactions, under various conditions.

Actually the planet used to be too poisonous for evolution of anything other than prokaryotic species of bacteria.

During the Hadean eon (4.6–3.8 billion years ago), when life was non-existent, oxygen levels were nearly zero. As cyanobacteria are the earliest source of oxygen production, it was generally thought that the emergence of this life form predated any form of aerobic respiration.

The ‘great oxidation event’, which occurred in the early Proterozoic period (2500–2542 million years), caused the rise of oxygen to a maximum of 2% pO2. During the Cambrian (542–488 million years), the presence of plants is believed to have influenced oxygen levels increasing them substantially, possibly as high as 10%–20%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258841/

Amazing how that worked. The more oxygen, the greater the number and variety of new species emerging.
THE RISE OF OXYGEN

Animals need oxygen. “You cannot evolve animals like us without having a significant amount of oxygen,” says geochemist Dick Holland of Harvard University. “Without the Great Oxidation Event [a dramatic rise of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere some 2.3 billion years ago], we would not be here. No dinosaurs, no fish, no snakes – just a lot of microorganisms.”

Cyanobacteria (above) became the first microbes to produce oxygen by photosynthesis.
Credit: UC Berkeley
https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/the-rise-of-oxygen/

 

[Q-reeus]

It is your contention that the planet is too small and barren to give rise to life and evolution of species, no?
Let alone a small poisonous planet. How could life ever emerge other than by miracle.

Actually bacteria can adapt to almost any environment. Extremophiles and Tardigrades are examples of life having conquered poisons. Why are we so worried about virulent bacteria becoming immune to every poison we can think of. Because poison is only a temporary condition to living organisms. Some die, some adapt, the same way some emerged and evolved from purely bio-chemical reactions, under various conditions.

Actually the planet used to be too poisonous for evolution of anything other than prokaryotic species of bacteria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258841/

Amazing how that worked. The more oxygen, the greater the number and variety of new species emerging.
THE RISE OF OXYGEN

Cyanobacteria (above) became the first microbes to produce oxygen by photosynthesis.
Credit: UC Berkeley
https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/the-rise-of-oxygen/

Neither you nor iceaura seem to have a clue as to what poisoning entails in the context of prebiotic 'molecular experiments'. Peltzer will cure you of that deficiency - if you are prepared to study his excellent presentation. Nothing to do with heavy metal style poisoning which you are both almost certainly assuming. The remaining fluff I have no interest in answering.

 

[paddoboy]

If you can't be bothered to spend some quality time evaluating the step by step introduction and justification of a suite of compelling arguments, presented by someone with real credentials, don't expect me to spoon feed you with a nice and easy one minute summary. And your contention the planet was too big and varied for poisoning to stand is laughable.

Real credentials actualy questionable. What isn't questionable is his obvious religious bias that he admits to with evolution, and just as logical and obvious, by extension, Abiogenesis.
Still some questions back a bit you havn't answered q-reeus.

 

[paddoboy]

Neither you nor iceaura seem to have a clue as to what poisoning entails in the context of prebiotic 'molecular experiments'. Peltzer will cure you of that deficiency - if you are prepared to study his excellent presentation. Nothing to do with heavy metal style poisoning which you are both almost certainly assuming. The remaining fluff I have no interest in answering.

How about the remaining fluff in the questions I asked you? And what about the remaining fluff generally held by the mainstream. Quite a deft sidestep there q-reeus.