Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

There is only one option left: George Soros did it.
(I hope he doesn't read this and sue me for falsely accusing him)

 

: Googles 'George Soros' :

: is no wiser for the Googling :

 

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.

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.

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.

 

GeorgeSorosgenesis

Not buying it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

wait till his son Keanu Reeves sacrifices for our sins

 

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.

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.

 

What?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

disease is the proof that the world was NOT created perfectly

 

No. I don't.

Wait. Is it possible you're being facetious here? That the above is not actually an assertion you are making? That is not obvious.