Abiogenesis is the Scientific God

Has e anyone noticed that the resident retard, and thread starter, begins these topics with simplistic reasoning and the, when the conversation becomes too complicated for his tiny mind to follow he just vanishes into laconic mind-farts or into obscurity?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To SpuriousMonkey:

Thanks for part of the NPAS article, which contained:

"...The mechanism provides concentrated molecules in bulk
water without requiring molecules to adsorb onto surfaces.
Surface-assisted accumulation is often thought to solve the
concentration problem, either via drying or specific adsorption.
However, biological systems complex enough to evolve a replicating
machinery would most likely need to disconnect, at least
temporarily, from such restricting adsorbing surfaces..."

The bold requirement above is done by crystal rolling in flow of stream, I think.

This NPAS article clearly strengthens the probability that life, from non-life began in the huge volume of the oceans, but I think the possibility that the 2D surface of certain crystals in streams, with lattice spacing that matches the organic molecules separations in the film forming on them still has good change of wining the race to be first to create life from non-life, despite the enormous relative disadvantage in the volumes of the streams containing these crystals. As I understand it the binding to the crystal surface is not strong enough to prevent the completed membrane from being torn off when the stream current "rolls" the crystal.

This NPAS article now has me doubting that the "crystal surface" path really is the most likely. I am curious, which of the many possibilities for forming life from non-life do you think most likely? You know more about all this than I do.

PS it is your choice, but leopold99's mind is too closed and and he is so ill informed that IMHO there is essentially zero probability of changing his POV with facts and logic. I quit trying, but still come here occasionally as you and others do present material worth reading.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, I do not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What evidence do you have that someone started this thread? Perhaps this thread has always existed. Alternatively, what appear to be a sequence of chronologically ordered posts may have been brought into being at the same time by some unknown agent. This seems to be what you are suggesting. Are you arguing for Intelligent Design of this thread?

 

I doubt he is. That would imply the IDer likes to include bad designs, with low intelligence. Why would He/She do that?

 

Do any of you biologist type folk know if Thomas Gold's deep hot biosphere idea still on the table?

 

I think "On the floor, but not dead" is more correct.

The big test was the failure of the well drilled in Sweden about 30 or 40 years ago. The site was chosen as long ago a meteor hit and fractured the deep granite (facilitating the deep abiotic oil flow) and the near surface was well formed "glassified cap" to contain the oil. Only very small traces of oil were found, which later were shown to be from the drill rig pipes themselves. They got deep into the fractured granite zone (It tended to deflect the drill bit and soon breaks off the end of the drill line, but even though this happened often they went deeper.) Finally, after one of these break-off events, the investors/ supporters said: "That is it. - Pull the sting and lets go home."

I.e. the abiotic oil theory, at least for all of the western world’s big oil companies, fell off the table onto the floor, but it can still occasionally murmur a few words in Russian.

 

I already mentioned unfertilized frog eggs poked by a bit of steel. You ignore the implications. You have seen hundreds of thousands of seed grow into plants. A seed is not a living plant, and if not prodded into growing is as inanimate as any rock - over time, it decays and crumbles. All of the living structure of a plant is made up of non-living stuff, even simple elements, transformed into living stuff by spontaneous chemical reactions.

A spore fo a fungus would be an even sharper example, if I could rely on you to know anything about this living stuff you claim requires devine intervention to exist.

But if you have some actual idea of what it is that cannot have come into being without a creator, what is that ? Is it the DNA/protein complex that enables replication ? The cellulare structures such as mitochondria? The arrangements of these things within a vessel ?

 

That life comes from non-life is axiomatic. There could be no life in the midst of the Big Bang, and there is life now.

 

ophiolite, spuriousmonkey,
what evidence supports your claim that inanimate things become alive under natural conditions?

 

james,
it's hard to say.
i'm not one to believe in fairies, ghosts, or goblins, but i have a real problem with believing that life arose from nothing under natural conditions, especially in the face of a complete lack of evidence.
most of what has been stated in this thread by ophiolite and spurious is nothing more than hypothesis, theories, and conjecture.

don't get me wrong, i understand that the best course of action on the part of science is to follow a natural explanation.

 

We do know that it happened, just not exactly how. But we do know far more today than even 100 years ago. We know about non-supernatural entities, long molecules that interact with other molecules in a self-reinforcing cycle. That's DNA. They make copies of themselves without being conscious, it's done through chemistry, just the physical structure of the molecules. Different arrangements have different physical properties. The beginning of this process was a long time ago, and it's always more difficult to understand events and circumstances the farther in the past they happened. We only know the correct age of the Earth to a reasonable degree of accuracy because of science. It is highly reasonable to assume that science will eventually uncover these mysteries.

 

The evidence of its happening in front of you every day. I pointed to seeds and spores, above.

You may reject the piles of evidence as unconvincing to you (without appearing to understand it, btw), but you cannot in good faith assert it does not exist.

Evidence item number gazillion: the early rocks with identified beings fossilized in them show very simple life only. This stage lasts a very long time, billions of years. Exactly what natural in situ abiogenesis predicts.

Living things look, act, and have their being exactly as if they had arisin from the inanimate on this planet. They in no respect appear alien, and their elements and organizational principles fit the inanimate context of this planet very, very well.

 

Leopold,
one of the things that creationists make a big noise about is the great odds against a particular protein forming. The fail to note that
a) you can change a great many of the individual amino acids in its structure and it will still perform its task perfectly. If you play poker you know that the odds against being dealt a straight flush (sequential numbers - same suit) are high. The odds against being dealt a straight (sequential numbers only) is still high, but not nearly as high as the former. Our bodies may use a specific protein for a particular task, but it is not the only one that could have done the job. And if we look at other life forms we find that the task in them is done by similar, but not identical proteins. [And, wonder of wonders, the more closely related to us they are, the closer is the identity of those proteins. Quite a coincidence.]
b) Proteins are three dimensional structure. The way the proteins folds is as important, or even more important than the consituent amino acids. Again, this reducs the odds of producing 'randomly', biologically useful molecules.

 

a lack of evidence is not a theory james.
it's not only a lack but a complete lack.
nowhere at anytime or place do you see things becoming alive.
it's such a ridiculous hypothesis that it can't even be recreated in the lab.

 

we are not talking about odds or proteins.

 

Leopold. I have not heard you refute anything in the article I posted.

You have not read any science on abiogenesis by your own admission other then some websites made by...some dickheads with a computer.

So, there is only one thing left to say.

"Science is interesting and if you don't agree then fuck off"

 

why don't you fuckoff?