Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

James R said:
paddoboy:
We don't have an answer. There is no scientific consensus on how life came from non-life.
Which is another way of saying that there is no scientific consensus on how life came from non-life.
There is no generally accepted process that explains Abiogenesis. There are some hypotheses, but no consensus theory.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating this point, so I think I'll stop here.
Click to expand...
That's OK with me...I'll keep accepting what the vast majority of scientists actually accept, semantics and pedant aside.
But in answer to your repeated claims once again.....
The number of competing hypothesis all come under the banner of DM. As is the case with Abiogenesis, the many scientific "hypothetical" pathways, all come under the banner of Abiogenesis.

Let's hope that exchemist stays in control of himself and ceases making gutless insults directed my way before running away.
 
Write4U said:
The earth itself has performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical experiments during its lifetime. And you suggest that if we cannot do it in a laboratory, it cannot be done? That is naive......o_O

The earth did it, all by itself. That is an undisputable fact (well perhaps some help from panspermia).
Click to expand...

Life is about trillions of chemical interactions perfectly knit together. Given that the age of earth is only 4 billions, you need several additional "miracles" daily, without losing the previous milestones. So either experiments conducted for a month might have shown some hints or the help of panspermia is needed.

All i am saying is that there is so much hype and vague superficial speculative analysis everywhere. But there should be a natural explanation for the origin of life.
I totally agree with the first answer:

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-cur...til-one-chain-just-happened-to-self-replicate
 
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-cur...til-one-chain-just-happened-to-self-replicate

What is thecurrent going theory for how life started? Was it an amino acid soup until one chain just happened to self-replicate?

The above the question is from the link

globali said:
I totally agree with the first answer:
Click to expand...

I don't see that the first answer answers the question

globali said:
But there should be a natural explanation for the origin of life
Click to expand...

At least you appear to agree there should be a natural explaination

I was thinking if you were going to question a natural explaination on the numbers game
how unlikely even with billions of reactions?
I was going to counter with
how unlikely a smart guy in sky did it?

Sooo seems need a natural process which is not
  • trillions of chemical interactions or
  • panspermia with a name which is not
  • Abiogenesis
OK will see what turns up

:)
 
globali said:
Life is about trillions of chemical interactions perfectly knit together. Given that the age of earth is only 4 billions, you need several additional "miracles" daily, without losing the previous milestones. So either experiments conducted for a month might have shown some hints or the help of panspermia is needed.
Click to expand...
Write4U said:
The earth itself has performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical experiments during its lifetime. And you suggest that if we cannot do it in a laboratory, it cannot be done? That is naive......
Click to expand...
Do you know how big that number above is? It is truly an astronomical number.

Then the Urey-Miller experiment shows that you need only 24 hrs to create millions of chemical reactions.

The Hazen lecture clearly explains the probability and potential pathways of abiogemesis on earth. It is not complicated. Especially in a dynamic environment, where the laws of chaos make almost anything possible at any given time.
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. "Chaos" is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Don't forget that abiogenesis already starts in cosmic clouds where bombardment of cosmic radiation produces bigger organic molecules, chemical compounds, and possible polymerizations.

IMO, it is a demonstrated certainty that extrasolar chemicals have arrived on earth. Gold is one such element which can only form under extreme pressures such as super-novae to which earth was never subjected, except perhaps when Theia struck earth.
The
giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact suggests that the Moon formed out of the debris left over from a collision between Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 billion years ago, in the Hadean eon; about 20 to 100 million years after the Solar System coalesced.
Click to expand...
The colliding body is sometimes called Theia, from the name of the mythical Greek Titan who was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the Moon.[2] Analysis of lunar rocks, published in a 2016 report, suggests that the impact may have been a direct hit, causing a thorough mixing of both parent bodies
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
 
Last edited:
James R said:
I just skimmed through the entire 1.5 hour video from Peltzer.

It seems that Peltzer is a creationist and evolution denier. Among other things, he testified on behalf of the board in Kansas that was seeking to mandate the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in schools, unconstitutionally as the court ruled at the time.

Peltzer's talk in the video is sprinkled liberally with oblique references to an unnamed Intelligent Designer (read God). His argument is mostly based on the low probability of cells being able to form through chemical processes. It is misleading in a number of respects, especially where he does calculations of chemical reaction probabilities and the like, as if the combinations of chemicals take place entirely at random, rather than being determined by the principles of chemistry.

In general, Peltzer strikes me as an educated man who is willing to bend the truth where it conflicts with his religious beliefs. Clearly, he is very far from being an unbiased source that we can trust when talking about the topic of abiogenesis.


I didn't sit through the entire 1.5 hours, but I didn't see any mention of poisoning in what I watched


According to your preferred Creationist "experts".
Click to expand...
Not surprised you are not impressed. Being after all a committed atheist. I strongly disagree with 'misleading' and 'bends the truth' aspersions. He and Tour actually show it's the mainstream workers and journalist promoters who do that all too regularly. Otherwise, the enterprise would collapse through lack of funding. Keep hyping up meager advances as 'significant milestones'.
Re poisoning matter, I may have confused between him and Tour as to exact wording. As Peltzer explained, in particular Maillard reactions (there are other ones) accomplish just that, very effectively. The probability of useless stopper reactions grows exponentially as any hopeful peptide chain grows larger. Worse again with carbohydrates. And so on. And they are just rudimentary steps toward a self-replicating cell. That cartoon - 'Step 2; and then a miracle happens'.

Anyway, as usual in such matters, no-one budges from their set position. Just another round of more of the same. Have a good day to you too.
 
The whole point is that theoretically there is no reason why a purely chemical mitotic function cannot be achieved.

As Hazen demonstrates there are several known chemical self-replicating cycles (such as the citric acid cycle) and that self-assembly is a property of chemical potentials.
The oldest lifeforms, bacteria, employ chemical "quorum sensing" to perform many "shared" functions.

Note, that Life only involves some 500 chemicals from the 6000 known chemicals. Moreover life does not require an irreducibly complex physical pattern. Single celled organisms consist of a few purely bio-chemical polymers encased in a single membrane and do not require trillions of perfectly knit chemical reactions to function quite efficiently.

That's where it starts. The rest is purely evolutionary in character.

Self-duplication is mathematically permitted when certain conditions are met. Therefore self-assembly and self-replication are not rare events, but covers a whole range of probabilities from between 99% determinstic to 10% pure chance. Everything in between is the range of probability and any talk of odds against is more than counteracted by the near infinite number of chemical reactions taking place every second throughout the universe.

Lets ask this;
Is a planet like earth a simpler biome than a human? How did the earth manage to acquire the extraordinary variety of evolved species we see today and the other 95% that have since gone extinct. If all this is so incredibly difficult, why is there such an abundance of evidence to the contrary. I don't understand the logic that rejects physical evidence and invents metaphysical causalities, which are described by impossible miraculous phenomena to account for the odds against abiogenesis.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Single celled organisms consist of a few purely bio-chemical polymers encased in a single membrane and do not require trillions of perfectly knit chemical reactions to function quite efficiently.
Click to expand...
Ok try to make one. How much time would you need?

I wanna have my kicks before the whole sh...house goes up in flames!!!
Jim Morrison
 
Write4U said:
The whole point is that theoretically there is no reason why a purely chemical mitotic function cannot be achieved.

As Hazen demonstrates there are several known chemical self-replicating cycles (such as the citric acid cycle) and that self-assembly is a property of chemical potentials.
The oldest lifeforms, bacteria, employ chemical "quorum sensing" to perform many "shared" functions.

Note, that Life only involves some 500 chemicals from the 6000 known chemicals. Moreover life does not require an irreducibly complex physical pattern. Single celled organisms consist of a few purely bio-chemical polymers encased in a single membrane and do not require trillions of perfectly knit chemical reactions to function quite efficiently.

That's where it starts. The rest is purely evolutionary in character.

Self-duplication is mathematically permitted when certain conditions are met. Therefore self-assembly and self-replication are not rare events, but covers a whole range of probabilities from between 99% determinstic to 10% pure chance. Everything in between is the range of probability and any talk of odds against is more than counteracted by the near infinite number of chemical reactions taking place every second throughout the universe.

Lets ask this;
Is a planet like earth a simpler biome than a human? How did the earth manage to acquire the extraordinary variety of evolved species we see today and the other 95% that have since gone extinct. If all this is so incredibly difficult, why is there such an abundance of evidence to the contrary. I don't understand the logic that rejects physical evidence and invents metaphysical causalities, which are described by impossible miraculous phenomena to account for the odds against abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
The reason practically everything you write is discordant junk stems imo from an overactive imagination. You live in an imagination land where your easy and inevitable path to life freely ignores all the real show stoppers that intervene at every stage. Well you're far from alone in that. In fact, getting past the rudimentary initial stages is overwhelmingly improbable. Never allowing serious contemplation of that harsh reality is not smart. But it is I guess comforting. You would retort belief in a god is also comforting. My conviction stems from a close look at the issues, not some hoped for afterlife ticket.
 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said:
Sooo seems need a natural process which is not
  • trillions of chemical interactions or
  • panspermia with a name which is not
  • Abiogenesis
OK will see what turns up

:)
Click to expand...
There is only one option left: George Soros did it.
(I hope he doesn't read this and sue me for falsely accusing him)
 
paddoboy said:
Of course the problem is not solved in both cases. I have said that many times.
Click to expand...

Then what is left of the idea that 'abiogenesis' is the 'answer' to the 'question of life's origins'?

If an answer to a question is needed, then simply repeating the question in different words isn't the answer that we seek. That's the semantic shell-game that you seem to be playing in this thread.

As is the case with Abiogenesis, the many scientific "hypothetical" pathways, all come under the banner of Abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't ID fall under the same 'abiogenesis' banner? It certainly seems consistent with your assertion that once there was no life and now there is. So what justifies excluding it?

I think that this is really the point of your thread, isn't it? You think that you can somehow spin your observation that there once was no life and now there is, into some kind of argument against ID.

Obviously life emerged from non life. Ignoring the unscientific concepts of the supernatural and paranormal, the only scientific "answer" we have is Abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

If 'abiogenesis' is made to mean 'some unknown "scientific" answer', then calling 'abiogenesis' the "answer" tells us nothing about what actually happened. That's still unknown.

But I sense that your main interest in this thread isn't explaining the origin of life. It's making an argument that whatever the details of 'abiogenesis' turn out to be, the result will be a "scientific" answer, not "the unscientific concepts of the supernatural and paranormal" which can in your view be safely ignored.

And that point seems to depend upon a pre-existing adherence to some form of atheism and/or metaphysical naturalism. (I don't disagree necessarily, though my own naturalism is more methodological. Ontologically, I'm inclined to favor agnosticism. We just don't know the ultimate nature of reality.) I'm just saying that this hidden atheistic/naturalistic premise still needs to be acknowledged, clarified and argued for, since the whole point of the thread seems to revolve around it.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
The reason practically everything you write is discordant junk stems imo from an overactive imagination. You live in an imagination land where your easy and inevitable path to life freely ignores all the real show stoppers that intervene at every stage.
Click to expand...
Show stoppers? What show stoppers? I see a dynamic universe creating stuff as we speak.

Your problem is that you think subjectively. People get sick and that proves the universe is out to get us. Religions deal with that kind of personal guilt.

I look at the universe objectively and see only wonderous creativity in accordance to natural universal physical potentials and dynamic functions. Time and obstacles are inconsequential as far as the universe is concerned.
Well you're far from alone in that. In fact, getting past the rudimentary initial stages is overwhelmingly improbable. Never allowing serious contemplation of that harsh reality is not smart. But it is I guess comforting. You would retort belief in a god is also comforting. My conviction stems from a close look at the issues, not some hoped for afterlife ticket.
Click to expand...
Is it my imagination that sees the living results of abiogenesis, in spite of your skepticism? What close look at the issues would suggest anything other than abiogenesis or panspermia. There is no third option that makes ANY sense whatever. The unbridled imagination of believing in an infinite, omnipresent intelligent, motivated supernatural state or being is so much more implausible than you rejection of physics and the constructive powers of mathematical functions.

We're all here, undeniably produced by the interaction of chemicals the raw materials which are abundant in the universe. God is not here, hard as I look. He is not ANYWHERE, hard as we all look. You why? God does not exist and life came from abiogensis. There you have it, warts and all.

You accuse me of unbridled optimism, well I accuse you of donning blinders to what is abundantly obvious.

Unless you want to claim god did it all, you cannot be pessimistic about the abiogenesis model. Then you are just admitting you don't have a clue and if you don't have clue you do not have standing to make any claim to supernatural intervention.

Physical obstacles are of no consequence to the universe. It only uses what's there and obviously that was enough to spawn everything we see. No second guesses.

You just want to see things as more complicated than it is. May I remind you that the universe did not need humans to present us with what we see today. Humans are totally inconsequential late-comers and human pessimism about the complexity of the universe is no more than pissing in the wind.

32 values and a handfull of equations is all that is needed for explaining the universe. All else is fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
Why doesn't ID fall under the same 'abiogenesis' banner? It certainly seems consistent with your assertion that once there was no life and now there is. So what justifies excluding it?
Click to expand...
Everyone believes that ID requires a supernatural designer. That's just stupid.

It is missing the qualifier quasi-intelligent design (QID) which is the inherent potential of relative mathematical physical values and dynamical mathematical functions.
 
DaveC426913 said:
What?
Click to expand...
God's punishment, remember? What is causing all the show stoppers in the universe that we should consider as important to our understanding of how the universe deals with mathematical problems?

"What" is the right response, getting sick is not an obstacle to abiogenesis. It's a natural part of physical genetic behaviors. There are no show stoppers in the universe. All that stuff is a lack of mathematical imagination and getting stuck in the mud of avoiding "guilt" and seeking "reward" in the afterlife.

Even in heaven you got fill out forms, didn't you know?

 
Write4U said:
Everyone believes that ID requires a supernatural designer. That's just stupid.

It is missing the qualifier quasi-intelligent design (QID) which is the inherent potential of relative mathematical physical values and dynamical mathematical functions.
Click to expand...
By definition, "Intelligent" design requires an intelligence.

Your "quasi" qualifier is a waffle. Either the designer is intelligent or it is not.

I'm going assume your idea of quasi is synonymous with "seems like - but isn't".

In which case, you agree that the universe is not, in fact, intelligently designed, even if, to the uninitiated eye, it might seem that way.

The thing is: who cares what it seems like? It seemed like the sun was a chariot flying across the sky - until we knew better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top