Mod note: Split thread from here. The original thread is for science. Pseudoscience can be discussed here. there have been narratives about how life started since urea was synthesized The standard claim is "life is caused by X and Y in environment Z" The standard response is "If you are given X and Y can you form life by utilizing environment Z" The standard reply is "no" Hence headlines like "Chemist Shows How X Can Be the Starting Point for Life as opposed to headlines like "Chemist Shows How X is the the Starting Point for Life" can be found on a quite a few occasions over the past 120 years.
Perhaps because the question as to whether "X Can Be the Starting Point for Life" is at least as important as "X is the the Starting Point for Life". Maybe even more important... The leap from "can be" to "is" is much shorter than "impossible" to "possible". If we concede the can be, how do we refute the is?
at least as important? more important? hardly Compare "Can I breathe?" to "I can breathe". Its quite simple The "is" is demonstrative. The "can be" is a speculation. Rain cheques and empirical claims are not compatible.
Why? Yes, let's... I agree. True. No, it is a conditional - and a prerequisite for the demonstrative. No incompatibility evident here. Quite simply, the argument that the building blocks of life "could [not] have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth" has been falsified. There is no speculation involved in this falsification, just good scientific methodology. The door is now open for empirical demonstration of such assembly, in the lab, with results reproducible by others, in the very near future. These few additional years of research represent the only "rain cheque" involved. This makes it very difficult to adhere to the creationist stance of "life could not possibly evolve absent the hand of god(s)". Like it or not, that view is becoming more incredible and less rational. Rapidly...
I'm not arguing that its not a prerequisite for a demonstrative. I am arguing that without a demonstrative it doesn't cut the mustard for empiricism. Its certainly a speculation if you think you can talk of a methodology bereft of a demonstration (sigh) If there wasn't a big difference between life and the chemicals that life utilizes Wohler would have put the last nail in the coffin during the 1820's .... (IOW in case you haven't noticed, the door has been open for 200 years ... which is quite a long time...... particularly for a rain cheque)
no less then the sort of nonsense that saturated biology before it made the jump into microbiology 1850 : cells are just lumps of organic matter 1900 : cells are just lumps of simply organized matter 1930 : cells have a somewhat delicately organized structure 1950 : cells are a bit more complex than previously anticipated 1980 : Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The door was first opened in the 1950s, with the discovery of the structure of DNA. In the fifty years since, significant and even extraordinary progress has been made - more than in the five thousand years prior. We are now engaged in responsible, evidence and reason based, progressive discussion about the outline of the transition from a world covered with chemical structures to a world covered with living beings, billions of years ago. Equating known and admitted ignorance (so well known and publicly admitted as to be the subject of intense research efforts) with ballyhooed nonsense is elegant cover for the situation everywhere outside of scientific biology, a situation for which the term "ignorance" is too kind, given the arrogance with which various fanciful scenarios were imposed on the public discussion. And still are. "Intelligent Design"? "Irreducible Complexity"? The stuff of comedy routines.
“ Iceaura that was simply a chapter of the saga It’s not at all difficult to find numerous claims being posited mainstream since Darwin. Actually what we can see is that many scientists have a deep commitment to the notion that life derives from matter ..... yet they admit that they can’t produce the evidence to corroborate their convictions due to being besieged with unregenerate problems. They’re convinced that life arose from matter /is reducible to matter, yet at the same time they must confess to having limited scientific grounds for their conviction. IOW it’s a classic a priori theory. It supersedes the scientific method and science itself, much like science fiction. Their messianic hope is that someday, someone, somehow may be able to validate it..... in the meantime their faith is unshakable. :shrug:
Matter and energy. No kidding. It's called "science". Or, in other words, there exist unsolved problems and unanswered questions regarding the origins and precursors of living beings on this planet billions of years ago. This strikes you as significant how, exactly?
In the sense that an answer is arrived at minus their standard tools of investigation (the standard tools that lend credibility to the claim of science)
100% true except for two details. first, the conditions on earth at the time of abiogenesis is indeed speculation. there is nothing written in stone about it. second, the "building blocks" created in these experiments (what i know of them) only produced half or less than the blocks required AND they were a racemic mixture, a condition in which it is impossible for life to form.
Then how much more complex would a god be who created the cells? So complex that it then doesn't seem like such a leap to say that occurred by natural process.
