We see things rather more positive then your doubt shrouded effort to give it some tiny credibility. Try a dash of common sense, and logic, and then turn a blind eye to any agenda.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
We see things rather more positive then your doubt shrouded effort to give it some tiny credibility. Try a dash of common sense, and logic, and then turn a blind eye to any agenda.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What is primordial earth? An element?
Of course they are, given the small sampling (Natural Selection requires large samplings to function). But repeat our experiment with tiny modifications a few trillion times over a few billion years and I am willing to lay a bet that a viable RNA colony can be established.
Isn't it proof that something works in principle plausible enough, especially in the light of lacking any better explanation?
Innate variety of combinations. Does that increases or decreases the probability for abiogenesis?
There is a better way. Reverse-engineering. Take the simplest combination of molecules you are willing to call "alive". Then simply work it out backwards to find out possible physical and chemical conditions that would give rise to such combination of molecules. And then it is simply a matter of estimating the possibility of such physical and chemical conditions occurring naturally. Plausible enough?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I completely agree with that.
Leopold, I admire your insistence on maintaining scientific objectivity when science draws conclusions from its findings. It is a good thing!
But why are you picking on Evolution and Darwinism as dubious theories which should be re examined?
Moreover, you are trying to validate your worldview by trying to cast doubt on those functional and established scientific models? Why?
Pick something controversial, not Evolution!!
You are a fine debater and I enjoy reading your posits. But follow your own "critical thinking" standards when evaluating your own subjective experience of reality.
And I am still unclear on your position of what you "believe" to be a better World model than the one we currently use in science.
primordial earth in this context is the environment in which life allegedly arose.
no, and you know it isn't.
science can no doubt recreate every single structure in the cell.
getting it to fall together along a timeline is the problem.
the complexities of biochemistry adds further to the problem.
don't know.
the complexities of biochemistry are almost unimaginable.
that would be a living cell
we are talking biochemistry under unknown conditions, and you say simply?
exactly.
sure, i don't deny abiogenesis isn't possible.
That's like saying, ok I see how it is probable to roll a dice and get 10 sixes in a row after 5 million rolls, but I don't see how it is possible to roll 20 sixes in a row after 40 billion tries. Can you pin-point exactly and describe where do you see a problem begins to show up?
One combination or only one possible molecule would surely be less likely to produce complex interactions than two or more different molecules. Is there any reason to believe that by increasing this number of combinations in a given system of molecules, will not continue to increase the probability of more and more complex interactions and possible stable results?
Why not some virus or simple self-replicating polymer molecule? Define "living".
It's complex, but calculable. I say "simply" because a computer will do all the really hard work.
On the one hand, you have managed to completely miss the point I was making, on the other hand...
So what? Black smokers have pH's that can sit as low as 2, however, the pH of sewater can be between 7.5 and 8.4.
Also, even within the same basin, waters at Yellowstone National Park can vary in pH between 2.5 and 9.5
In support of the Blacksmokers point, it should be noted that phototrophic sulfur oxidizing archea have been found around black smokers capable of utilizing the low levels of light emitted by black smokers.
You and I have discussed this before - the evidence we have available suggests that the mixture of amino acids delivered to earth by metorites may not have been racemic to begin with because of the slight differences in solubility.
It wasn't created. As has been explained to you several times now the observation in nature is that lipids tend to self assemble into Micelles, Liposomes and Bilayer sheets. All it takes is trying to mix oil and water and is simply a function of hydrophilicity. IN fact, this is probably the most straightforward step - to the point where it can even be simulated on a computer using only random motion and hydrophilicity/hydrophobocity.
Here's what I actually said:
To the best if my understanding of linguistics, the bolded clause is intended to signify that the speaker is drawing an analogy.
An analogy is where the speaker draws a comparison between what is actually being said and something similar to what is actually being said to make it more readily understandable.
I was drawing a comparisson to illustrate how absurd your position is, your position is roughly comparable to an adherent of the phlogiston theory of fire claiming that because the proposed intermediates in the HACA mechanism have not been observed that the modern theory of combustion is flawed and incorrect.
I'm well aware of what you are actually saying as it is a pre-requisite to drawing a relevant analogy.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
a) Drop the "allegedly", we are here and alive, so Life is a Fact. The question is if Life always was a Universal condition. A Constant.
We have long term samples which show that Life started as a very simple biochemical structure long after the beginning, using known Elements (the fundamental building blocks of everything that exists) operating in primordial conditions, such as extreme temparatures, extreme pressures, a chaotic soup of pure Energy, with near infinite potential for complexity on earth and throughout the universe.
b) The term Primordial describes the physical condition prior to the appearance of Life. It does not mean there was Life, to the contrary it is the definition of the condition before the appearance of Life on earth or by extension, in the universe.
In context of the question: IMO, Matter came before Life, not the other way around. Without substance, there can be no intelligence.
Last edited:
What do you need meteorites for, isn't there enough crazy shit already going on within the Earth itself?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Finally, reason. As evidenced by the crazy creatures which have evolved on earth. The expressions of evolution of life on earth alone are truly awe-inspiring in its diversity and its clinical efiiciency.
Does anybody really care where or when exactly that one "special' hydrogen atom combined with something else?
Efficiency, indeed. Same old mother nature balancing energy equilibrium through the pathways of the least resistance. Life was not only probable, it was inevitable.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes, agree Sagan's approach is far more intelligent. I find Dawkins absurd - and as he gets older he's becoming a sort of self-parody. He's a fine biologist of course, but his problem is the mirror image of a creationist's: he hasn't bothered to understand the thing he attacks, in his case religion. So he persists in attacking a ludicrous caricature of it, making him look a fool to people with a more rounded education. There's no excuse: the theology faculty of his own university has plenty of people who could give him a more 3-dimensional understanding.
I also fully agree that it is creationists that should attract the ire of science, not religion, exactly for the reason you give, namely it is creationism, not religion as such, that sets out to undermine science, using dishonest means to fool people who know no better.
not quite.
i can easily picture a molecule of 2 carbons and a oxygen.
all the bonds are satisfied.
what about that?
just because "you can see it in your mind" is no sign you are going to see it any time soon, if at all.
this is what makes "mind experiments" worthless as evidence.
virii aren't alive, self replicating molecules aren't alive.
the simplest biological definition of life is the living cell.
yes, but computers need the info to work from.
they need to know the rules and laws of biochemistry, what the catalysts are.
they need to know what does and doesn't work.
on the other hand this very thing makes computer simulations almost as valuable as the actual evidence.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
My sentiments exactly. If I understand correctly, it would be a property of a Deterministic Universe. Something must inevitably happen..
Are you seriously asking this question?
There's two reasons:
1. If earths load of amino acids came from meteorites then the mixture would not have started off as a racemic one as Leopold asserted.
2. If earths load of amino acids were generated here on earth then the same aqeuous processes that gave rise to the excess on meteorites would operate here on earth also meaning that an initially racemic mixture is not neccessarily going to stay that way.
No, it's what makes your mind experiments worthless. What you've offered here is at best delusional. Anybody with even highschool chemistry would be able to understand why.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But that is a conditional statement and does nothing to forbid the formation of living cells from non-living matter.
Yes, the cell is the smallest functioning living organism, but it is by no means the smallest possible chemical structural part of a living cell. The very variety of life and living things argue for the relative ease in which living organisms can form from non-living matter.
Living cells are irreducibly complex only as living structures. But their componenets are certainly not chemically irreducibly complex.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Embryology, palaeontology, biochemistry and oncology, for a start, are all independent fields of study that corroborate aspects of evolutionary theory.
And evolution most certainly DOES prevail in science. Whatever gives you the idea that it doesn't? It strikes me as most extraordinary to claim that most High School teachers are reluctant to teach it. What evidence do you have evidence for such a bizarre claim? And have you ever heard of Project Steve?
I do not follow what you mean by "LAWS ARE NECESSARY" for evolution. Do you mean "laws" of science, or laws passed by the legislature of one or more countries? If so, which and where?
(As I say, I do not know what your cryptic references to "ayala" are about, so I can't comment on that.)
So I don't think anything is "up" with any of this, and I am afraid I do not understand why you have this feeling that something isn't right.
It's a possible method to explain how life arose on Earth and evolved.
We have evidence that makes Evolution, damn well near certain,
Common sense, and logic makes Abiogenesis also a logical certainty.
Evolution, like the BB theory of Universal evolution, although near set in concrete, still leaves the actual fundamental cause as unknown.
We are confident [as we should be] of the evolution of the Universe/spacetime from a hotter denser state we call the BB. As yet we don't know why or how.
Likewise we are sure of Evolution of life on Earth, but are still looking for the details in how and why.
Chemical reactions from the primordial soup on Early Earth, yep a possibility.
But an equal likely scenario [which I find attractive] is Panspermia.
The Universe is near Infinite in content and extent, and the stuff of life is everywhere we have looked.
So the possibility of the fundamentals of life being delivered to Earth is real, just as is the possibility of it having arose on Earth.
An equally likely scenario, is that life arose in many parts of the Universe, at different times, and is still doing so.