Of course I don't know it all...do you? But I prefer science and the evidence and certainty of evolution and certainty of natural Abiogenesis over silly supernatural myth.
Why don't you heed your own advice. Which of these is the original "irreducibly complex" flagella? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.sci-news.com/biology/bacterial-flagellar-motors-05612.html Do you realize how many billions of prototypes evolved that were functionally useless? We'll never know because they just disappeared in the mist of time. But it only takes 1 functional prototype to establish a working template. The ensuing evolutionary additions are a matter of time. That is the process of "natural selection". And that is why the assertion of an original irreducibly complexity is the intentional misleading part in Behe's declarations. There is no linear evolutionary process. It is an exponential function, both horizontally and vertically. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Motor species, from top to bottom: S. enterica8, V. fischeri8, B. bacteriovorus (this study), A. butzleri (this study), C. jejuni8, W. succinogenes (this study), H. pylori2. “B”, “M”, and “P” labels depict Basal disk, Medial ring, and Proximal rings respectively for the C. jejuni motor. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18115-1#Sec1 I would suggest you read these "current" papers on the evolution of flagellates. And please mods, this is very much on topic and I'd be very upset if you denied me the opportunity to enter this for the record in regard to the evolution of the flagellates. It is clearly topical and important to the conversation. Microtubule organizing center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule_organizing_center Form and behavior Note; 9 fused pairs of MT are self-organizing and self-assembling. NO irreducible complexity here, we're starting with the self-organization of 9 fundamental parts into a complex functional arrangement. The rest are just evolutionary additions.
I was trying to get you to see the obvious, but as usual your ego wouldn't let you. What you're saying is that you have no "chemical abiogenesis process" to explain. If you had a theory of chemical abiogenesis you'd be able to write something like: "The first chemical step is the formation of [xxx] from [yyy]. Then, via the following reactions [A,B,P,Q,S] the following chemicals are formed. [etc. etc., setting out each step in the chemical chain]. Then, at step 237, we see that the a living [cell/bacterium/whatever] has been formed, after following steps 1 through 236." But you can't. The reason why you can't is not just that you don't know enough chemistry. The fact is that the chemists who are working on this stuff don't have a complete theory of how chemicals made life. Your silly pretense that such a theory exists is a pathetic sham that you ought to have dropped long ago. I dared you to specify the "chemical abiogensis process" whose existence you keep asserting, because I knew you could not produce such a process, because I know there is currently no such known process. The most you are currently able to do is to wave your hands vaguely and write things like "maybe lightning had something to do with it" or "maybe it happened in hot sea vent". Maybe maybe maybe. "Maybe" doesn't make a scientific theory. "Maybe" is a vague hypothesis, at best. So next time you write , realise that you are completely unable to specify any such process, and that you have effectively owned up to your inability to do so several times in this thread. There is no "scientific theory of abiogenesis". Not yet. By pretending there is, you're just giving the ID nuts and the Creationists ammunition with which to ridicule you. There's no need to do that, so I don't know why you're so keen to make a fool of yourself.(*) Far from having an "exact pathway", you aren't actually even aware of a workable pathway, and you know it. But you pretend, all the same. Why? What process? You have no process. You know you have no process. Stop pretending. No. The question of abiogenesis can't be solved with definitions. You can't create a "scientific process of abiogensis" merely by saying that one exists "by definition". Nor can you dismiss something like ID as unscientific "by definition". In both cases, you need to give reasons. There is no "accepted chemical process of abiogenesis" and you know it. If there was one, you could detail it, or at least link to a place where we could all see it for ourselves. But you can't. You know you can't. You've even admitted you can't. So why continue to make yourself look like an idiot? There's good evidence for nuclear fusion in the sun, along with real scientific theories that describe precisely how and under what circumstances nuclear fusion occurs. In short, we have a scientific theory of nuclear fusion, whereas there is currently no scientific theory of abiogenesis. --- (*) Actually, after reading Yazata's post, I do know why you insist on making a fool of yourself. It's because you have a faith-based belief, like a religion, which is very important to you - so important you're willing to be thought a fool rather than giving it up.
I think you're right. paddoboy has turned science into his religion. His personal belief system seems to require to that only scientific explanations of phenomena are possible/valid. It follows that, as an article of his faith, abiogenesis will only ever be explained by a scientific theory. paddoboy's faith system is actually a bit worse than that, because not only does it require him to assume that all things will be explained eventually by science, but apparently it also requires him to assume, in this case, that abiogenesis has already been explained by science, when it is obvious to people outside paddoboy's faith community that it has not. For paddoboy, the word "scientific" is like part of a religious mantra. Claiming that a personal belief of his is "scientific" boosts his personal confidence that the belief must reflect a reality. For paddoboy, I think the word "scientific" plays a similar role to the role played by the phrase "it says so in the bible" in the case of fundamentalist Christians. Compare a statement like "The bible tells us how God created life" from a fundamentalist Christian to paddoboy's "the scientific theory of abiogenesis is the best theory we have about how life started". Both statements are approximately equivalent in content. They both imply the existence of a process without actually specifying one. The source of life is proclaimed confidently in both cases (it's "God" on the one hand and "science" on the other), but the claim is, at its base, nothing more than a faith claim, unsupported by suitable evidence. paddoboy's faith-based version of science does guarantee that for him. Strip away the dogmatic belief and we're left with a more realistic appraisal of the science. paddoboy will be quick to dismiss this truth as "philosophical mumbo jumbo", not realising that what you are doing here is pointing out specifically where the mumbo jumbo lies in paddoboy's own faith-based belief system.
You want my perspective? The self-organization of the MT allowing for the evolution of motility in otherwise immobile chemical objects was one of the several abiogenetic processes. IMO, motility is one of the expressions of Living things, but they do not all have to appear at the same time. Behe correctly addressed one of the abiogenetic processes, but came up with the wrong conclusions, due to his assumption of ID. It was purely a chemical evolutionary process. It's not really that complicated.
I disagree with him on that. If anything in religion refers to entities that can interact with the material world, that necessarily makes such entities and their works/products accessible to scientific examination. I'm not so sure. If you're a devout Jehovah's Witness, for instance, you will refuse the life-saving blood transfusion because you believe that it is God's will that you do not subject yourself to the procedure. Even for the moderate religionists, there's appears to be a problem. If you know prayer doesn't make a difference, why pray?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wow! along with all your other "compliments" you seem to have a "paddoboy complex" I see you didn't mention your previous error saying that the theory of evolution could not be both a scientific theory and a fact at the same time? That's OK, your forgiven. Let me again rephrase my opinion/stance/stubborness [or even foolishness to make you happy], re Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the only scientific process we know for how life arose...as such it is an important and recognised assumption, just as other recognised assumptions science makes, like the homegenous and Isotropic nature of the observable universe, which you as a scientist should know. Supernatural and paranormal claims of course are unscientific and fall outside of science in its attempt in describing a natural universe and natural Abiogenesis. The amazing thing that you appear to have missed is that this thread has been turned into a religious/creationist soap box for the pushing of the unscientific supernatural and paranormal nonsense. Are those maybe's similar in any way to your own excuses, excuses, excuses, you have made to fabricate support for your own views here and elsewhere? And of course I have given links to support my reasonable scientific views James. Abiogenisis, natural Abiogenisis is the generally accepted view of how life arose, despite not as yet knowing the details.....
You're just upset because I keep finding errors in what you write. You're also probably upset that you've made an example of yourself again in the sexism thread, where I've held you to account (along with a number of other people). Error? I believe I wrote quite an extensive post or two on the whole evolution as theory vs evolution as fact thing. Probably you skimmed over it as usual, or didn't understand it. Certainly, I can't recall you identifying any errors in what I wrote. I hope you'll post a summary of my supposed errors. So it's not a theory now, but an assumption? Up to now, you've been saying that it's the "best scientific theory" we have for explaining the origin of life. Now you're retracting and admitting that you just assume that life probably came from non-life by some natural process, are you? Are you saying, then, that I've been right all along, and there is no scientific theory of abiogenesis? Ok, you're forgiven. Yes. You opened the door to that by peddling your own faith-based belief. Fabricate? Which views in particular do you think I have fabricated support for? Be specific, please. You are, after all, accusing me of telling lies. You cited wikipedia, which doesn't support your views. It's a hypothesis. Hypotheses are tentative, until the evidence is in. You might say that a lot of people assume that's how life probably arose, or that they suspect it happened naturally, or whatever, but there's no "theory" that is capable of becoming "generally accepted". Not yet.
I think he would argue that subjective benefits (belonging to a community, prayer making you feel better) are not readily quantified by scientific exploration. Agreed. But they are very much in the minority. Most religious people avail themselves of science.
Why do you not accept that Abiogenesis is an axiom, unless you are religious? It is the only alternative. This is an either/or problem, without any optional solutions.
Whatever floats your boat James. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually I posted reputable links pointing out your error. The theory of evolution of life is both a theory and a fact. I reject your answer and see Abiogenesis as the only scientific answer/theory/assumption for the arising of life, and obviously the same assumption that most everyday scientists take as the status quo, for obvious reasons. Yes, we see a lot of people, reputable people assume Abiogenesis, because it is the only answer. The only alternative is an unscientific supernatural and paranormal view that creationists/IDers like to imagine. But hey! at least dmoe is "liking" your posts.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So which do you accept James? The scientific fact as evidenced by the part chemistry played in evolution itself, or the ancient derived myth of some magical spaghetti monster in the sky somewhere? But what you need to remember is that science has pushed the need for any sort of ID, back to near oblivion, and from the dark old days of imagining the Sun as God, the Moon, Mountains, rivers, etc etc.
https://www.quora.com/Is-abiogenesi...-solid-theories-concerning-the-origin-of-life by Krister Sundelin E-learning Producer (2020-present) Updated September 22 · Upvoted by Keith Robison , Ph.D. In Molecular&Cellular Biology; in Biopharma since 1996 Q: Is abiogenesis mostly considered fact by scientists, or is it merely a belief held by atheists due to lack of solid theories concerning the origin of life? A: Atheists have nothing to do with it. Atheists only don’t believe in gods. Abiogenesis is a serious field of study in biochemistry, biology, and genetics, in which those scientists hypothesise different ways of how you can get life from non-life and test their ideas. The hypotheses are not a complete path from non-life to life. Scientists don’t start with a bunch of chemicals and shake them and see if there was life coming out of it. Instead, there are much mote specific, like how can you get something like a cell membrane from nothing but lipids, how can amino-acids come to be naturally, or how could RNA form without a template to start with. So the field of abiogenesis is much more like building and testing rungs on a ladder and how they could be combined to a ladder, rather than showing the final ladder. It is much more showing how you can get life from non-life, and very much step by step; not necessarily how we got life from non-life. It’s very hard to deduce how we got life from non-life. The difficulty is that scientists in the field are working backwards, not the original chemistry. It happened 3.5 billion years ago, and very few clues remain. There are some clues in virology, some clues in genetics, some in geology, and so on, but they are like hints at individual rungs on the ladder, not the full story. For instance, there are some 350 genes that are common to all living things. There is some emerging evidence that proto-viruses may be the first living thing – previously, it was thought that viruses evolved later as simplified cells. There is the Miller-Urey experiment that shows that amino-acids can form in primitive conditions. There are even finds from comets and asteroids which show amino-acids in space, and quite recently even entire proteins (although short ones) in asteroids. But it is quite another challenge to assemble these clues and put together a complete story of how life started on Earth. There are three main hypotheses, the RNA World, the Protein World, and the Lipid World. The RNA World hypothesis. RNA is the “little sister” of DNA: one half of the ladder, but made up by basically the same chemistry (it has a different sugar molecule in the backbone – ribose instead of deoxyribose). It can form spontaneously under the right conditions, and also self-replicate. There is support for this idea in for instance that many viruses consists only of an RNA strain in a protein shell. One interesting sub-hypothesis to the RNA world hypothesis is that some forms of clay crystals – which themselves self-replicate – could act as catalyst or “scaffolding” for the formation of RNA. The Protein World hypothesis. We already know from Miller-Urey and the Stardust probe that amino-acids, the building blocks of proteins, can form naturally. Amino-acids can also polymerise into short polypeptides naturally in the right conditions. This is supported by a quite recent find of the protein hemolithin in a meteorite from Algeria. Some proteins can self-replicate too – there are the nasty prions of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (also known as mad cow disease), which is caused by misfolded proteins that catalyse other proteins to misfold as well. Again, there is some support for this idea from viruses, specifically their injector mechanisms and shells. The Protein World and even more so the RNA World provides the backbone for the “replication first” model, which suggests that if you have replication, you can have something similar to evolution but in chemistry: chemistry complexes which work can replicate and evolve, while chemistry complexes which do not work will not replicate. The Lipid World hypothesis. Lipids, for instance fatty acids, are actually pretty simple molecules, but they have the ability to form bubbles (micelles and liposomes), which also can self-replicate. The great advantage of a lipid bubble is that it separates the world into two parts: inside and outside. Molecules trapped inside a liposome cannot be washed away, so they are always in contact with other molecules. It also creates an energy potential between inside and outside, which in turn allows for more complex chemistry to happen. This is the basis for the “metabolism first” model, which suggests that for the chemistry of life to happen, you need energy pathways or metabolism first, and for that to happen, there must be an energy potential. The Lipid World provides this energy potential between the inside and the outside. All of the above. It may be – and is pretty likely – that all of the above happened. The question is rather in which order they combined, or if two or more happened at the same time. Viruses could indicate that the protein world and the RNA world combined first, which may have been an advantage compared to separate protein and RNA complexes. These were then enveloped in lipid bubbles, which gave the entire complex a survival advantage compared to protein-RNA complexes and separate lipid bubbles in the wild. This is one example of a “replication first” model. Another variant could be that liposomes and proteins combined first, and that they in turn absorbed RNA to catalyse protein replication. This would be an example of a “metabolism first” model. Although the field of abiogenesis is yet incomplete, there are several hypothetical pathways and scenarios for the process of simple chemistry becoming complex chemistry becoming chemistry complexes becoming what could resemble “life as we know it”. The rungs of the ladder are mostly there, but we don’t know the details. “But Krister”, I hear you say, “it really sounds as if scientists assume that abiogenesis happened. Isn’t that unscientific?” Well, what scientists don’t assume is that magic or gods were involved. That would be unscientific, and also unfalsifiable and untestable due to the alleged nature of the supernatural (i.e. beyond the natural world). Science does assume that there is a natural process behind everything. And that includes the origin of life. What abiogenesis is about is trying to pry out how it could and can happen naturally from the clues that are left.
Same link as previous..................... Paul Lucas , Ph.D in Biochemistry concluding remarks..................... So yes, abiogenesis is considered as something that happened, by whatever means. Scientists do not consider that there is a “gap” there. Creationists, of course, refuse to accept this. Creationists share a belief of atheists: if there is a “natural” process, then God is absent. Steve Baker: Blogger at LetsRunWithIt.com (2013-present) The word “abiogenesis” means “the making of life from non-living stuff” - and there really are only two choices here: Life arose from non-living stuff by itself. A magical creature from who-knows-where magicked it all into existence. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I like the last one above...simple, to the point and factual.
Another further down is a humdinger!!! Brian Leung: extract: Its obvious to any honest scientist that abiogenesis is not fact at all, and signs off thus...... Jesus saves. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're right, there is no detailed theory of chemical Abiogenesis. But there is also no alternate theory of Abiogenesis possible other than a chemical one. In view that a chemical process is the only scientifically acceptable option possible, there is no scientifically acceptable alternate religious theory possible. The debate is not about chemical Abiogenesis or evolution, the debate is about the causality of chemical Abiogenesis.
The "mainstream" is this: -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event. complicated by this: https://scitechdaily.com/geological-record-shows-earths-oxygen-came-from-mantle-cooling/ and this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211141747.htm Anoxic and reducing environments are widespread and packed with complex chemistry even now, when the entire planet is covered with living beings that chew into and scarf up defenseless chemical "species" like little vacuum cleaners. Before the evolution of photosynthesis and (coincidental?) mantle cooling poisoned the entire atmosphere with oxygen - an event marked by the worldwide appearance of rust deposits in the geological record - reducing environments were even more readily available. As were complex and elaborate nonliving chemical structures - before there were millions of little feeders in every cubic centimeter of water/rock/clay etc on the surface, chowing on anything they could digest, the entire surface of the planet was one big chemistry lab - with electricity.
And a dynamical laboratory that big only needs time . How can anyone make any kind of comparison between a single artificially created experiment and 3+ billion years of planetary chemical activities which, according to Hazen, yielded some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion = 2 x 10^54 chemical reactions. Glossary of chemical formulae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_chemical_formulae
An axiom is "a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof, whose truth is assumed to be self-evident". I don't accept abiogenesis as a self-evident truth because I don't like to pretend to know things I don't know. While I strongly suspect that a scientific theory of abiogenesis will be developed in the future, it's not an article of faith for me. I don't pretend to know the origin of life. It is not self-evident that it came from non-life through natural processes. That would be a faith-based assumption (or, if you prefer, a philosophical preference) tacked on to the idea of abiogenesis. When you say "It is the only alternative", how do you know that? Why are "God did it" and "Chemical processes did it" the only options? Are you sure you've exhausted all other possibilities? How can you be sure?
