Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jul 1, 2019.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    They all peddle misinformation and misrepresentations of that complexity.
    One can of course find people more ignorant than they are, about biological complexity. But that frames their insistence on misrepresenting it, to their audience of greater ignorance - it's not a good look.
    An example of the misinformation they peddle. It's possibly unconscious, it's possibly an entry in "How To Lie With Statistics" - your choice.
    The better they actually understand biological theory, the worse such assertions look - from the viewpoint of integrity and so forth.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And we see why we need a transcript.
    Because that, by itself, is irrelevant. By "irrelevant" is meant it doesn't matter, or have anything to do with the likelihood of living beings evolving from complex but non living complexity via any of the possible evolutionary mechanisms (Darwinian, Lamarckian, etc). If we had a transcript, we could identify the wrong turn in the argument.
    1) No 2) Nobody 3) No 4) No 5) No 6) What?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    OK,
    "purpose" implies a consciously motivated intent.

    But gravity is also a causal motivation dynamic force for water to run downstream in the direction of greatest satisfaction (the swimming pool), but there is no conscious intent involved at all. It is a mathematical imperative that water subject to gravity must run downhill. In doing so it unconsciously generates a kinetic energy, which able to do other work (generate electricity) or cause erosion of the shortest path downhill.

    All this is a result of unconscious, but quasi-intelligent behavior of the universe and its physical/mathematical potentials.
     
  8. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    The fact that a solution to a problem is hard, doesn't mean that the problem is unsolvable. On the other hand, if an explanation has flaws in the theoretical description, it is not even a working hypothesis to start with. Saying that anything can happen in billion years is not a theory. At least not a scientific one.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    (replaced intelligent with mathematical]
    Who is the designer? 2
    The Daisy, 3
    God?4
    A mathematical growth function? 5
    Bingo! 6
    Is petal growth an expression of growth function? If the growth function is expressed in a common evolved mathematical organizational growth function of many physical things, can we say that the growth function is a common mathematical growth function of many naturally occurring objects?

    This is the point; The daisy doesn't know maths, its DNA sets up a naturally evolved efficient growth function in accordance to a universal mathematical exponential function. Bingo!
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Once being a good Catholic boy, I sometimes still sit and wonder that question...You know, why doesn't ID also fall under the Abiogenesis blanket...
    Then after thinking it through some, I see the need to give myself an uppercut.
    Let me explain....Why doesn't the same standards apply to any supposed IDer? I mean how can anyone accept that some all powerful, all knowing, and existing for eternity, could ever be imagined to exist? So by those standards, isn't such beliefs then superfluous at best? Ýour agnosticism would also best fit myself. I mean if extraordinary evidence arose that showed we are the creation of some deity, and all other possibilities were invalidated, then sure! that deity/person/ghost or whatever, would have my endearing respect and devotion. But it's just impossible in the light of science in this day and age, and how science has pushed such needs to near oblivion.
    The same scenario was put to me rather sarcastically and facetiously re what would I do if GR was finally surpassed [with me being labeled as a GR fan boy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] Simple, if and when that did happen, I would absorb whatever knowledge I could on the matter, and like the reputable scientists around the world, encompass it with open arms.
    I don't go out to antagonise or rebuke religious people per se. I really don't give a stuff about them and their beliefs. I have the attitude of live and let live. The exception to that rule, is when such religious people start crusades against science, then sure! I'll give them both barrels. I have plenty of religious friends, including my beautiful wife and we all have tolerance for each others beliefs or non beliefs. I don't push mine down there throats, and they do not attempt that with me...with one small exception...The Mrs will always ask me to come to church with her on Christmas day.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I always mange without any hostility to avoid it though!!
     
    Write4U likes this.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    But that's not what scientists say. Scientist say that the probability of a future event lies in a identifiable range.
    Really, probability theory is a useless exercise? You realize that Pi is a function of probability theory.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

    What I don't understand is the desire to prove science wrong and supernatural intervention right.
    What is this masochistic obsession with intentional extraordinary miraculous interference by some unknowable entity, who requires your adoration and prayer to grant your wishes with the exact same probability factor of becoming true as in science?
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
  12. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,254
    I've read through a good portion of this thread, and it would seem that you ended up agreeing with exchemist (sort of) yet is it paddoboy, that you insist on considering abiogenesis a ''theory?''
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Abiogenesis is as certain as evolution, being the only scientific answer available wegs...But you are are renowned for your grand contacts extraordinae..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    exchemist, imo was playing semantics, and sadly that was supported by James.
    And again, this same debate elsewhere did not raise such controversy. As a link from Write4U says...."Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."
    which shows the semantics played by exchemist.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    White flocculent mats in and around the extremely gassy, high-temperature (>100°C, 212°F) white smokers at Champagne Vent.
    NOAA - http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04fire/logs/hirez/champagne_vent_hirez.jpg

    Cannot go further back, cause then we are talking about life forming before the earth itself was formed and that won't do at all.
    I believe it is reasonable to assume that the oldest known simple life forms are the closest to the purely abiogenetic transformation possible. The difference between bio-chemical and "living" organisms may not even be detectable.

    We know humans split off from a common ancestor line of hominids, but we don't know exactly when. Does that mean we have no theory of human evolution? Ah it's disputed, OK.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
    paddoboy likes this.
  15. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,254
    So, in other words...life was inevitable? I wonder why, though.

    ''Renowned?'' Well, then. lol
     
    Write4U likes this.
  16. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    I see that style all the time in your perennial arguing with someone else in the political sub-forums. Bald accusations intended to inflame. Or maybe an 'honest' pathological trait. Either way - if you can't be bothered to go into detailed counterarguments, just give it a rest here.
     
  17. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Complete and utter lying hypocrite. How many sample posts of yours would you like me to link here, giving the lie to that BS? You are the most militantly intolerant individual I have ever had the misfortune to cross swords with. By far. A projection hypocrite of the lowest order.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Actually, that is the opinion of some scientists. But again, the general consensus is that if it were to all start over again, things would certainly have been different.
    Don't be embarressed, its a bloody fact!! I have made my share of E-Mails to reputable, notable scientists and probably only received replies from 10% or so.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, its a fact. Link all you like. Show me where I have attacked any religious person who has not attacked or insinuated some nonsense about scientific theory being wrong, including yourself.
    And really! You need to calm down. Its your own fault you have been railroaded into a corner, making ridiculous and stupid usnscientific claims, including your creationist video.
     
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,254
    Hmm. I thought that the general consensus is that if life is inevitable here (on earth) it could be inevitable elsewhere, yes? (with the right conditions, etc)

    I didn't mean to open a Pandora's Box in your thread.

    You lost me here. lol
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    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!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,254
    Q-reeus - are you religious? Sorry, I became active here again recently, and have just run across your posts. It would help me with context.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    One hypothesis is that originally there was such an abundance of mineral riches and favorable environmental conditions that it became chemically "necessary" for life to emerge. That is not as speculative as it sounds.

    Ernest Schoffeniels
    http://www.eoht.info/page/Ernest Schoffeniels

    This just became clear to me. In a deterministic universe certain conditions make it deterministically necessary for a spontaneous original self-referential result.

    If Life is a deterministic necessary condition by the presence of sufficient available conditional values and functions, then the universe will respond as it must by spontaneously creating a self-assembled pattern which answers to the mathematical necessity and to our conception of requirements of Life.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019

Share This Page