The origin of life

Xmo1

Xmo1

Registered Senior Member
Found this:
"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds."-
planetary-science.org/astrobiology/thoery-of-abiogenesis/

Szostak, Harvard RNA World Part 1 The Origin of Cellular Life

just as a matter of interest
 
This may be of interest and possibly shed some light on our brain development

101917_TI_noncoding-DNA_main_FREE.jpg


Geneticists ID 80 duplicated regions, many of which may impact the brain

https://www.sciencenews.org/article...7&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Editors_Picks
 
While Szostak demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject, his conjectural thesis that RNA is the solution to origin of life creation is faith-based speculation derived from his apparent naturalistic ideological adherence on science of the gaps futuristic solutions. His lab experiments are precise intelligently designed and managed procedures to achieve desired results and biogeochemically irrelevant to primordial Earth conditions. His cellular membrane formation propositions are simplistic and unrealistic, and his contention that homopolymerization of back planes is not as absolute as expressed within the cell is not convincing. The issue of homochirality of amino acids is not addressed adequately and so is the information theory, naturalistically impossible, coding of the nucleotides.
 
Qedlin Saltum said:
While Szostak demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject, his conjectural thesis that RNA is the solution to origin of life creation is faith-based speculation derived from his apparent naturalistic ideological adherence on science of the gaps futuristic solutions. His lab experiments are precise intelligently designed and managed procedures to achieve desired results and biogeochemically irrelevant to primordial Earth conditions. His cellular membrane formation propositions are simplistic and unrealistic, and his contention that homopolymerization of back planes is not as absolute as expressed within the cell is not convincing. The issue of homochirality of amino acids is not addressed adequately and so is the information theory, naturalistically impossible, coding of the nucleotides.
Click to expand...
What rubbish.
 
Qedlin Saltum said:
His lab experiments are - - - - - biogeochemically irrelevant to primordial Earth conditions.
Click to expand...
That isn't so.
Qedlin Saltum said:
The issue of homochirality of amino acids is not addressed adequately and so is the information theory, naturalistically impossible, coding of the nucleotides.
Click to expand...
Homochirality issues, like all the others, are still matters of research, nobody can "adequately" address them.
There is nothing "naturalistically impossible" about the coding of the nucleotides, on any grounds whatsoever - much less those of information theory.
 
iceaura said:
That isn't so.

Homochirality issues, like all the others, are still matters of research, nobody can "adequately" address them.
There is nothing "naturalistically impossible" about the coding of the nucleotides, on any grounds whatsoever - much less those of information theory.
Click to expand...
There have been decades of highly concentrated research on homochirality and there is no naturalistic solution, whether fro amino acids or sugars. To say they "are still matters of research" is a faith-based science of the gaps proposition. Coding of nucleotides is much more complex, from the lack of naturalistic processes to produce all amino acids - A,C,G, T,U - to overcoming the protein-nucleotide chicken and egg dilemma. But, even more, who/what is the code generator?It is easy to say still matters of research to shut down discussion while ignoring the limitations of naturalistic processes to do the job.
 
Qedlin Saltum said:
There have been decades of highly concentrated research on homochirality and there is no naturalistic solution, whether fro amino acids or sugars. To say they "are still matters of research" is a faith-based science of the gaps proposition
Click to expand...
The pros tell me the major obstacle to determining which of the several known possibilities - or perhaps another not yet considered - is the correct or best explanation for the observed chirality is the uncertainty of the timeline - we don't know when the current chirality regime was fixed.
Qedlin Saltum said:
Coding of nucleotides is much more complex, from the lack of naturalistic processes to produce all amino acids - A,C,G, T,U - to overcoming the protein-nucleotide chicken and egg dilemma. But, even more, who/what is the code generator?
Click to expand...
Darwinian evolution can handle all of those circumstances, and is the current theoretical framework of continuing research - it would come down to which mechanism was the one actually involved. In Darwinian theory, of course, your questions don't quite make sense - proteins and nucleotides would have emerged together, not in sequence, and there probably was no "code generator" (very unlikely hypothesis).
Qedlin Saltum said:
It is easy to say still matters of research to shut down discussion while ignoring the limitations of naturalistic processes to do the job.
Click to expand...
That these things are matters of research is a simple fact - there is, currently, research into them. Exciting stuff, I hear.
 
iceaura said:
The pros tell me the major obstacle to determining which of the several known possibilities - or perhaps another not yet considered - is the correct or best explanation for the observed chirality is the uncertainty of the timeline - we don't know when the current chirality regime was fixed.

Of course, funding depends on an open-ended proposition of a solution. The evolutionary adaptive issues that would consider change over some timeline are highly implausible: amino acids within the DNA molecular assembly extend down to the simplest microbial organisms and there is no fossil evidence that any other ever existed. With the whole biota demonstrating homochiral amino construction over all recorded time, it is high speculation to suggest it did not start out that way and when it may have changed and most perceptively stated to posit some excuse to not face what the empirical evidence demonstrates.

Darwinian evolution can handle all of those circumstances, and is the current theoretical framework of continuing research - it would come down to which mechanism was the one actually involved. In Darwinian theory, of course, your questions don't quite make sense - proteins and nucleotides would have emerged together, not in sequence, and there probably was no "code generator" (very unlikely hypothesis).

Darwinian evolution has demonstrated nothing viable. It is logically absurd and physically impossible to posit that Darwinian mechanisms have the power to both create proteins as well as nucleotides before any living organism demonstrated replication, the necessary requirement for natural selection, which only works within the domain of a living organism, not before it existed.

That these things are matters of research is a simple fact - there is, currently, research into them. Exciting stuff, I hear.
Click to expand...

Scientific research is exciting, but inordinate and unjustifiable extension of basis biological processes into the realm of creative and design-based forces to overcome the intractable issues of naturalistic origin of life is not science, rather a faith-based philosophical naturalism ideology.
 
Qedlin Saltum said:
Scientific research is exciting, but inordinate and unjustifiable extension of basis biological processes into the realm of creative and design-based forces to overcome the intractable issues of naturalistic origin of life is not science, rather a faith-based philosophical naturalism ideology.
Click to expand...
Qedlin you can tone it down a syllable. Get all the big words together and toss them into a round file. Then rewrite until you have the idea as simple as you can get it. Try notepad++. People shouldn't have to translate your verbiage to understand what you are talking about. There are really enough words in the English language to keep it simple. Verbiage is hubris.
 
Xmo1 said:
Qedlin you can tone it down a syllable. Get all the big words together and toss them into a round file. Then rewrite until you have the idea as simple as you can get it. Try notepad++. People shouldn't have to translate your verbiage to understand what you are talking about. There are really enough words in the English language to keep it simple. Verbiage is hubris.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that should be "basic biological processes," not "basis." I can only then assume that you are not aware of the intent of some so-called scientists to use Darwinian processes to generate the first organisms through natural selection. Darwinian natural selection only applies to living organisms, not abiotic chemical compounds. Darwinism relies on natural selection. Natural selection only works on living organisms during replication. Replication comes from DNA based organisms. DNA is comprised of proteins, but protein design and construction is programmed in DNA, so any proposition that natural selection is relevant to pre-biotic organisms is absurd and any proposition that both DNA and proteins self-created randomly is also absurd.

Philosophical naturalism is the present overarching and overriding principle being forced on all scientific enterprises and is purely natural, denying any God or extra-natural influence and asserting that the universe is solely physical and science can and will answer all the questions about the universe. This denies the validity of metaphysics in the composition of physical reality, which includes science, laws of the universe, mathematics, language, reason, logic, art, music, philosophy, religion and everything else that is not purely physical.
 
Qedlin Saltum said:
There have been decades of highly concentrated research on homochirality and there is no naturalistic solution, whether fro amino acids or sugars. To say they "are still matters of research" is a faith-based science of the gaps proposition. Coding of nucleotides is much more complex, from the lack of naturalistic processes to produce all amino acids - A,C,G, T,U - to overcoming the protein-nucleotide chicken and egg dilemma. But, even more, who/what is the code generator?It is easy to say still matters of research to shut down discussion while ignoring the limitations of naturalistic processes to do the job.
Click to expand...
While nobody would deny that we do not yet have a model for the origin of life, you seem to be unaware that there are in fact hypotheses nowadays to account for the development of chirality. I watched part of an interesting video about this not so long ago, in which the lecturer, who researches in this area, explained he has found that different facets of certain mineral crystals have handedness, which affects the relative strength of adsorption of chiral organic molecules to it. Now adsorption on minerals is one of the processes that has - independently - been proposed for the synthesis of complex biochemically relevant molecules, as it provides a way of stabilising them. This work struck me as very interesting.

The rest of your arguments are typical creationism. What they amount to is the assertion that, because we do not have a scientific model, there can be no scientific model. It is the argument from personal incredulity: "I cannot see how this could have happened naturally; ergo it could not have happened naturally". For instance you speak of "the limitations of naturalistic processes to do the job". I wonder what these "limitations" are and what scientific justification you think they have.

As for "shutting down discussion", it is entirely legitimate to call out pseudoscience masquerading as science in order to get religion into school level science teaching. Because that is what the "Intelligent Design" movement is all about. It is social engineering by the American religious right and nothing to do with science at all.
 
Last edited:
Qedlin Saltum said:
but inordinate and unjustifiable extension of basis biological processes into the realm of creative and design-based forces to overcome the intractable issues of naturalistic origin of life is not science, rather a faith-based philosophical naturalism ideology.
Click to expand...
That's probably why nobody does that.
 
iceaura said:
That's probably why nobody does that.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Don't you love the "Gerry Adams*" technique of trying (feebly) to apply the standard critique of creationism back onto science itself? "Science of the Gaps" is an especially imbecilic concept. This seems to be a new one. As is the latching onto chirality as the latest God-of-the-Gaps phenomenon that science can never explain. They've had to give up the eye and even the bacterial flagellum, so now apparently it is chirality, but as usual too late, science is getting a handle on that too. What next? This crap about information and coding I suppose will go on for a while. :rolleyes:

*As in "The Brottish Armaeigh are morderous torrorosts", etc.
 
exchemist said:
While nobody would deny that we do not yet have a model for the origin of life, you seem to be unaware that there are in fact hypotheses nowadays to account for the development of chirality.

Hypotheses are untested or unverified propositions, which can be made in abundance and will never yield a solution in this case. The 100% chirality required for genetic structures are produced within the cell, another catch22, never naturally which only produces racemic mixtures.

I watched part of an interesting video about this not so long ago, in which the lecturer, who researches in this area, explained he has found that different facets of certain mineral crystals have handedness, which affects the relative strength of adsorption of chiral organic molecules to it. Now adsorption on minerals is one of the processes that has - independently - been proposed for the synthesis of complex biochemically relevant molecules, as it provides a way of stabilising them. This work struck me as very interesting.

Thanks, I am sure it is very interesting and they are desperately seeking a solution, however, it has no relevance to origin of life and will never yield 100% chirality.

The rest of your arguments are typical creationism. What they amount to is the assertion that, because we do not have a scientific model, there can be no scientific model. It is the argument from personal incredulity: "I cannot see how this could have happened naturally; ergo it could not have happened naturally". For instance you speak of "the limitations of naturalistic processes to do the job". I wonder what these "limitations" are and what scientific justification you think they have.

All you have to do is read what forces and processes are being proposed to accomplish the biochemical assembly of increasing levels of complex structures critically necessary for the origin of life -
1. Darwinian processes before life existed, what a joke,
2. Panspermia, which only displaces the issue,
3. Solar radiation, lightening, volcanoes, hydrothermal vents which have no selectivity or regulatory level discretion,
4. There are only 4 known physical forces - gravity, EM, WNF, SNF, none of which is any combination is capable of coding nucleotides, creating bi-directional cell membranes, homochiral amino acids, homopolymerized sugars, metabolic enzymes or proteins, reproducibility or the colocation, coincidence or concentration of critical elements.

Since naturalism is impotent to explain or divulge all that is necessary for origin of life, the logical scientific theory cannot be restricted to purely natural processes. It has nothing to do with "I cannot see," and everything to do with "there does not exist."

As for "shutting down discussion", it is entirely legitimate to call out pseudoscience masquerading as science in order to get religion into school level science teaching. Because that is what the "Intelligent Design" movement is all about. It is social engineering by the American religious right and nothing to do with science at all.
Click to expand...

This is more the issue - science is so closed-minded and prejudicial now that any hint of anything that extends or expands the areas of scientific investigation that are not approved by the philosophical naturalists, PN, of anti-theists is categorically dismissed, denigrated or excluded. ID is a perfect example, despite that anthropology, archaeology and psychology are scientific areas that require ID, the PN's strangle hold on science is hypocritical. The abject denial of PN's for the design of the universe and life shows the arrogance, blindness, prejudice and denial of many of the so-called scientists, who are supposed to examine objectively all natural phenomenon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top