For the alternative theorists:

[dumbest man on earth]

While you blokes are getting lost in details,the objective post by Write W4 is as plain as day.

paddoboy, one minor, little tiny "detail" that you would seem to need to clarify : which Post by this "Write W4 " are you referring to?

You are able to check yourself.....Try it...its actually quite obvious.

paddoboy, there is no Post in this Thread by anyone posting under the name "Write W4"!
You Posted your Post #1558 at 08:25pm(EDT) , still failing to realize that the "one minor, little tiny "detail" that you would seem to need to clarify :" was that you had Posted, in your Post #1553, "Write W4" instead of "Write4U"!
paddoboy, you edited your Post #1553 at 09::22pm(EDT), at which time you changed "Write W4" to "Write4U"!

Universally speaking, Abiogenesis is obvious.....

paddoboy, other than Earth, where else in the Universe have you personally witnessed this obvious "Abiogenesis"?

OK, recognising you know little about science and its methodology

Another puerile "ad hominem", paddoboy?
paddoboy, you actually know for a Fact that I am quite knowledgeable about Real Science and Real Science Methodology.
That is one of your "Beefs" with me.
paddoboy, there is every possibility that it is one of your prime motivations for your incessant, unrelenting attacks on me.
paddoboy, you are simply using a "Cop Out", as you have termed it before, to evade answering the question relating to your statement :
"Universally speaking, Abiogenesis is obvious.....".

Abiogenesis is the obvious natural progress by which life arose from non life.

paddoboy, "Abiogenesis" is a Theory.
Proselytize any inane subjective views of any puerile misunderstanding of Science, but it does not make the Theory of "Abiogenesis" a Fact.
Not a Fact on Earth.
And since Real Science has yet to physically observe Life anywhere else in the Universe(outside the confines of our Solar System!), "Abiogenesis" cannot possibly be "Universally...obvious"!

Keeping that in mind, even you should realise that although we are objectively aware of the Evolution of life on Earth, we do not really know whether that life did start on Earth, or was seeded via a process called Panspermia, having begun elsewhere.

paddoboy, I have no need for, nor any use for any "kindergarten" attempt to lecture me on anything.
Again, you fully realize that my comprehension and understanding of Real Science is more than you even aspire to.
And again, paddoboy, there is every possibility that it is one of your prime motivations for your incessant, unrelenting attacks on me.

"Must have", paddoboy? Most everyone else on this Forum is certain that it has "taken" and still continues to take "place".

Not everyone.

paddoboy, I clearly stated "Most everyone".
Simply another childish ploy utilized to afford more Proselytizing?

You havn't been taking notice.

On the contrary, paddoboy, I always take "notice".
You know that I take "notice" paddoboy.
That is another "Beef" that you have with me, that you have stated many times in various Threads on SciForums.

Some claim doubt re Evolution, mainly our mythical God botherers and Creationists.

More evasion and Proselytizing?
Possibly more venting of whatever issues you appear to harbor towards any Belief or Religion other than an Unreasoned Fanatic Faith in the GOD of Science and other Scientific Deities?

Evolution is a near certain scientific fact

paddoboy, near certainty is not certainty, you have to know that.
Depending on exactly what "Evolution" you are referring to, it may or may not be a Scientific Fact.
Since you are prefacing the word "fact" with the phrase "near certain", it is more than likely that you know that whatever "Evolution" you are referring is NOT a Real Scientific Fact.
Ergo, a possible example of "Intellectual Dishonesty"?

Details...Meh!!!

Yes, paddoboy, Details.
Details that somehow seem to mean nothing to Tro...err, some people.
Details, paddoboy.
It is the Details that separate Real Science from the Quasi-Science and Pseudo-Science that Trol...err, some people opt to adhere to.

 

[humbleteleskop]

Well nobody is talking of "aliens" here, not even primitive alien life of any kind, just of chirally biased alien biochemicals. And the problem I am talking about is the origin of that chiral bias, if it proves to be extraterrestrial. See also Trippy's remarks about chirality in quartz. I have not looked at this yet, but I do recall a hypothesis that silicate mineral substrates may have played a role in (I think) stabilising complex molecules by adsorption. Need to read further on this.

I'm talking about real and actual extraterrestrial alien beings from outer space. Don't tell me we believe abiogenesis only happened on Earth by some miraculous chance.

Regarding what you say about clues such as cutoffs in DNA and where it "jumped", I am not familiar with anything like this. Can you provide any references for me to read on this, or are you speculating as to what might be found if we were to look?

It was at least five years ago when I was reading about it. Anyway, I googled a little and I think this refers to it:

How sure are the scientists that such important and complex genes, such an immense human advantage, was obtained by us --“rather recently”-- through the courtesy of infecting bacteria?

“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.

“We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes,” states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) “are widespread among bacteria” – though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans.

“It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria,” Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as saying.

But if Man gave those genes to bacteria, where did Man acquire those genes to begin with?

http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm

 

[leopold]

But surely the problem about alien infection or seeding is that it explains nothing? Doesn't it merely kick the can down the road, so that then we would have to find a scientific explanation for how the alien life came to be, instead of the life on Earth?

yes, if life "came to be" at all.
but what really concerns me, and my participation in this thread, is about the article i found in "science".
it wasn't about abiogenesis.

It may turn out to be true, if this meteorite evidence is supplemented in the future, but that would just frustrate everybody because it would mean life first arose somewhere else, rendering the chance of finding evidence of how even more intractable for us Earthlings.

the universe is teeming with it.
life is a direct product of the universe itself.

 

[humbleteleskop]

yes, if life "came to be" at all.
but what really concerns me, and my participation in this thread, is about the article i found in "science".
it wasn't about abiogenesis.

Why in the world are you being cryptic? Link? What was that article about and what theory do think is more plausible than abiogenesis?

 

[humbleteleskop]

life is a direct product of the universe itself.

That's very general statement and holds no any new information we didn't know before. It's true for abiogenesis too, and anything else science considers to be "natural".

 

[krash661]

paddoboy, there is no Post in this Thread by anyone posting under the name "Write W4"!
You Posted your Post #1558 at 08:25pm(EDT) , still failing to realize that the "one minor, little tiny "detail" that you would seem to need to clarify :" was that you had Posted, in your Post #1553, "Write W4" instead of "Write4U"!
paddoboy, you edited your Post #1553 at 09::22pm(EDT), at which time you changed "Write W4" to "Write4U"!




Another puerile "ad hominem", paddoboy?
paddoboy, you actually know for a Fact that I am quite knowledgeable about Real Science and Real Science Methodology.
That is one of your "Beefs" with me.
paddoboy, there is every possibility that it is one of your prime motivations for your incessant, unrelenting attacks on me.
paddoboy, you are simply using a "Cop Out", as you have termed it before, to evade answering the question relating to your statement :
"Universally speaking, Abiogenesis is obvious.....".


paddoboy, "Abiogenesis" is a Theory.
Proselytize any inane subjective views of any puerile misunderstanding of Science, but it does not make the Theory of "Abiogenesis" a Fact.
Not a Fact on Earth.
And since Real Science has yet to physically observe Life anywhere else in the Universe(outside the confines of our Solar System!), "Abiogenesis" cannot possibly be "Universally...obvious"!



paddoboy, I have no need for, nor any use for any "kindergarten" attempt to lecture me on anything.
Again, you fully realize that my comprehension and understanding of Real Science is more than you even aspire to.
And again, paddoboy, there is every possibility that it is one of your prime motivations for your incessant, unrelenting attacks on me.



paddoboy, I clearly stated "Most everyone".
Simply another childish ploy utilized to afford more Proselytizing?


On the contrary, paddoboy, I always take "notice".
You know that I take "notice" paddoboy.
That is another "Beef" that you have with me, that you have stated many times in various Threads on SciForums.


More evasion and Proselytizing?
Possibly more venting of whatever issues you appear to harbor towards any Belief or Religion other than an Unreasoned Fanatic Faith in the GOD of Science and other Scientific Deities?


paddoboy, near certainty is not certainty, you have to know that.
Depending on exactly what "Evolution" you are referring to, it may or may not be a Scientific Fact.
Since you are prefacing the word "fact" with the phrase "near certain", it is more than likely that you know that whatever "Evolution" you are referring is NOT a Real Scientific Fact.
Ergo, a possible example of "Intellectual Dishonesty"?



Yes, paddoboy, Details.
Details that somehow seem to mean nothing to Tro...err, some people.
Details, paddoboy.
It is the Details that separate Real Science from the Quasi-Science and Pseudo-Science that Trol...err, some people opt to adhere to.

i continuously wish that for once you would shut your argumentative mouth.

 

[leopold]

- "Many biologically active molecules are chiral, including the naturally occurring amino acids and sugars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)


The problem of chirality can not be explained with meteorites, it is innate to naturally occurring molecules. Why life tends to "choose" one chirailty over the other has nothing to do with their quantity ratio, it's a consequence of embedded properties within those molecules in themselves.

i think the complexities of biochemistry forbids us overlooking ANYTHING.
miller-urey came up with a racemic blend, this is either wrong or some method must separate the 2.

but yeah, the info on the site you presented seems plausible enough.

i'm going to get beat to death for this but i honestly feel creation scientists should be on evolution peer review boards.
if you can get it by a creationist, you can be GUARANTEED it will fly.
so go ahead, beat me.

 

[humbleteleskop]

i think the complexities of biochemistry forbids us overlooking ANYTHING.
miller-urey came up with a racemic blend, this is either wrong or some method must separate the 2.

There is a method that separates the two.

i'm going to get beat to death for this but i honestly feel creation scientists should be on evolution peer review boards.
if you can get it by a creationist, you can be GUARANTEED it will fly.
so go ahead, beat me.

This is not one of them, but we agree about many things, just tell me what theory do you find more plausible than abiogenesis?

 

[leopold]

This is not one of them, but we agree about many things, just tell me what theory do you find more plausible than abiogenesis?

the only other plausible answer would be that life is infinite, in my mind.
life could also be some kind of outside force that a particular molecular structure brings into play.

 

[krash661]

it might be interesting to look at the human brain structure its self in the double helix.
i could of swore it began with HR something, something, something.
but i forget.
if anyone does find it,
please post it.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, there is no Post in this Thread by anyone posting under the name "Write W4"!
You Posted your Post #1558 at 08:25pm(EDT) , still failing to realize that the "one minor, little tiny "detail" that you would seem to need to clarify :" was that you had Posted, in your Post #1553, "Write W4" instead of "Write4U"!
paddoboy, you edited your Post #1553 at 09::22pm(EDT), at which time you changed "Write W4" to "Write4U"!

Pedantic details: Meh!

Another puerile "ad hominem", paddoboy?
paddoboy, you actually know for a Fact that I am quite knowledgeable about Real Science and Real Science Methodology.
That is one of your "Beefs" with me.

I have no beef with anyone, particularly someone that has no knowledge of science, the scientific method, and peer review, and as is evidenced by your many posts. Meh!!

paddoboy, there is every possibility that it is one of your prime motivations for your incessant, unrelenting attacks on me.

I'll let out peers [the mods decide that.

paddoboy, you are simply using a "Cop Out", as you have termed it before, to evade answering the question relating to your statement :
"Universally speaking, Abiogenesis is obvious.....".

Again, as most reputable people here agree, [other then you and leopold] Abiogenesis is obvious and near 100% certain.

paddoboy, "Abiogenesis" is a Theory.
Proselytize any inane subjective views of any puerile misunderstanding of Science, but it does not make the Theory of "Abiogenesis" a Fact.

Again, Abiogenesis is the only objective answer to life in the Universe.
Abiogenesis is as near fact as anyone would want.

And since Real Science has yet to physically observe Life anywhere else in the Universe(outside the confines of our Solar System!), "Abiogenesis" cannot possibly be "Universally...obvious"!

It certainly is Universally obvious...100% so.
You see, as most of us know, the Earth is part of the Universe.
Details, Meh!

paddoboy, I have no need for, nor any use for any "kindergarten" attempt to lecture me on anything.
Again, you fully realize that my comprehension and understanding of Real Science is more than you even aspire to.
And again, paddoboy, there is every possibility that it is one of your prime motivations for your incessant, unrelenting attacks on me.

My attacks??? . I seem to remember James calling you "precious" in regards to your same accusation against his person.

paddoboy, near certainty is not certainty, you have to know that.
Depending on exactly what "Evolution" you are referring to, it may or may not be a Scientific Fact.
Since you are prefacing the word "fact" with the phrase "near certain", it is more than likely that you know that whatever "Evolution" you are referring is NOT a Real Scientific Fact.

The intellectual dishonesty is from you.
Again, Evolution and Abiogenesis are as near fact as science would want...So much so that it is beyond any reasonable doubt, and as most scientists seem to agree, and as has also been stated here by others smarter then me or you, to refer to them as fact, is only giving it the credit that it deserves.
Just to make it clear, Abiogenesis and Evolution are as near factual as one could imagine.
Just as we know the Heliocentric solar system, is as near fact that we can ever imagine.

What shows your lack of scientific knowledge is the objective fact, that you fail to realise, or just fail to admit, that scientific theories do grow in certainty with time.
Digest that and you'll be half way home.

Yes, paddoboy, Details.
Details that somehow seem to mean nothing to Tro...err, some people.
Details, paddoboy.
It is the Details that separate Real Science from the Quasi-Science and Pseudo-Science that Trol...err, some people opt to adhere to.

And it is the unneccessary pedant and grudges you obviously hold [and as referenced by others] that sees so many of your threads either deleted or confined to the cesspool.

 

[krash661]

your threads either deleted or confined to the cesspool.

to bad that he is not only allowed to post in the cesspool section along with others

 

[exchemist]

yes, if life "came to be" at all.
but what really concerns me, and my participation in this thread, is about the article i found in "science".
it wasn't about abiogenesis.

the universe is teeming with it.
life is a direct product of the universe itself.

You may be right, but you would need evidence for such a sweeping statement. If you are right, as scientists we would need to find out how it came to be so, if our theory of cosmic origin is right, since clearly molecular-based life would not be compatible with a high temperature plasma in which no atoms, let alone molecules, could exist.

 

[paddoboy]

yes, if life "came to be" at all.
but what really concerns me, and my participation in this thread, is about the article i found in "science".
it wasn't about abiogenesis.

We all wait for your link.

the universe is teeming with it.
life is a direct product of the universe itself.

Hmmmm, we agree!!!!that could make some sense. In fact my speculative assumptions based on three facts, are that life is everywhere.
But as yet, we have no direct evidence of it.

 

[paddoboy]

the only other plausible answer would be that life is infinite, in my mind.
life could also be some kind of outside force that a particular molecular structure brings into play.

Don't be silly.
You know for a fact that you are just speculating.
Evidence points to far more then just a "plausible answer" to explain life and Evolution.
That is Universally speaking, life did arise from non life, and then Evolution took hold.
Whether that Abiogenesis occurred on Earth first, or Earth was seeded from a meteorite or comet, we do not know.

The near facts, no the FACTS are, that Abiogenesis did happen, and so did Evolution.
The rest are details.

 

[paddoboy]

to bad that he is not only allowed to post in the cesspool section along with others

Hi krash661.
Probably half a dozen should be given that honour!

 

[Trippy]

- "In biology, homochirality is a common property of amino acids and sugars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality

Wikipedia says it's a pretty common thing for amino acids and sugars, to occur all in the same chiral form. Just as I foretold.

No, it states that homochirality is comon in biology, a point which I have already acknowledged. It's the fact that life on earth is largely homochiral but all we can make is racemic mixtures that is the problem in the first place.

Once again. Unless you use a homochiral substrate or a homochiral solvent, reaction products are racemic mixtures. Left handed DNA produces left handed enzymes and proteins, hence life is homochiral. In spite of what you may think that link supports my assertions, it does not contradict them.

 

[paddoboy]

Hi krash661.
Probably half a dozen should be given that honour!

Seriously krash661, What we as scientists, and interested layman such as myself can take from all the present alternative mumbo jumbo infesting these forums, is that these sorts of places [science forums] are the only outlet they have.
They obviously avoid scientific methodology, and abhore the governing peer review systems, and as such will never really get anywhere or see the light of day.
The worst that can come about is for some young kid being indoctrinated with such crap, and which alone should give imputus to the real scientist [and interested lay people] to refute the nonsense for exactly what it is.

 

[leopold]

DNA is not a part of the definition.

correct.
the life on this planet is DNA based, not RNA.
i think your model may be invalid.
and i've said this before, "creating life" may not be enough.
in my opinion there are 4 evolutionary milestones:
1. the arrival of cellular life.
2. the first "organized life", probably plant.
3. arrival of "animals".
4. humanoid intelligence appears.
the first 3 might not be related to the fourth.

The question is whether it is a "living" thing or not. And I say that it is because it fits the description given by the definition you pointed to yourself:

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to stimuli
7. Reproduction

Does it not fit the description?

there are some strange things that can be considered "alive".
fire for example.
regardless of that, the life here is DNA based.

hmmm . . .
i wonder what kind of life RNA would produce.
and more importantly, why switch if it worked?
think about this:
not only is the sequencing important to DNA but the orientation of the individual molecules is also used as a "programming tool"
if the above is true then the model becomes "software running on software" instead of software running on hardware.
-my opinion.

 

[Trippy]

Impossible. If A is equal to B, then both A and B have 50-50% of survival. What is it, what difference do you believe there can be to selectively favor one over the other if they are equal? It does not compute. What is the same can not be different.

But A is not exactly equal to B If A is dependent on Left handed amino acids and B is dependent on right handed amino acids, then in a heterochiral world where left handed amino acids dominate then A will have access to more resources than B

But Trippy's scenario wasn't equal: there was an important difference in the amount of resources available to each organism.

Exactly. I was beginning to think I was going insane or something.

So they are different organisms, but why would they be different and not just mirrored?

They have different biochemistries. One uses left handed amino acids, the other uses right handed amino acids. An organism dependent on right handed amino acids can not survive using left handed amino acids (and vice versa). This is one of the concerns with extra solar exploration, should such a thing ever become possible - what if we encounter a world that uses right handed amino acids as the basis for life?