Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

[paddoboy]

It appears that things are not that simple.

Of course you will blur the waters by using the usual wild card, the absolute argument:
"Anything can happen in billion years"

It is misleading when you argue that its that simple. There must be an unidentified key element (perhaps together with chemical natural selection).

I know that there is no argument that can convinve you about anything

I don't believe I have used anywhere that Abiogenesis is a simple process. And of course it has been 13.8 billion years.
And I'm sure that it is not blurring the waters by stating that "at one time there was no life, then there was" And further that the only scientific answer to that is abiogenesis, encompassing a variable number of pathways.
So far as I can see, we only have one active dissenter from the highlighted bit, speaking scientifically. I am ignoring at this time the semantics and pedant involved with Abiogenesis.

 

[Write4U]

Argument by authority 'fallacy'.
We get to argue against authorities.

Worse:

'I'm smarter than you' is not a valid argument.
'This is scientist is smarter than you and therefore, because I invoked him, that's makes me smarter than you, so just stop talking.' is also not a valid argument.

I'll kindly ask you to take the pill you offered globali: You're the one climbing on that high horse.

Oh, I don't attack arguments with ad hominem to the poster as globali did in spite of his own protestations.
This is becoming ridiculous.
If I cite Einstein am I arguing from authority? Does the argument become invalid because it was quoted by a layman?

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1]argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[2][3] Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

An argument from authority only means that the argument itself is subject to scrutiny in the context it was used, not that it is false. The argument is only defeasible if the authority itself is questionable or if the information was used in improper context.

Else, we end up with a false argument from authority every time we post an internet link to an authoritative article.
That's just silly.

"Hey folks, I fervently support mainstream scientists like Einstein, Newton, etc, etc.
I'm sorry if that causes me to occasionally post arguments from authority to present my own understanding and agreement with the science."

Sorry to break this news to all the skeptics who like to try and defeat all arguments, not with facts, but with arguments from incredulity in lieu of knowledgeable reason.

Not very informative, IMO.

Question:
Is quoting from the bible an "argument from authority" or "argument from ignorance"?

New thread?

 

[Write4U]

This article may be of interest; The Complexities of Biominerals

What are biominerals?

They’re biologically formed crystalline materials. At the nanocrystal level, biominerals look identical to geological ones, but zoom out and you see that the mineral consists of complex structures at the micrometer, millimeter, and centimeter scales. They also grow into strange shapes, such as curved bones and pointy teeth. These shapes and structures have evolved for specific functions in the animal.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/73

 

[Q-reeus]

I don't agree with that. Evolution by natural selection would seem to work with any sort of replicator, whether cellular or chemical. The ones that replicate most efficiently will have an advantage over the ones that don't. So there will be selective pressures for mods that promote replicative efficiencies. There are lots of rather speculative hypotheses about what the earliest chemical replicators might have been and how they might have originally formed and survived in the conditions prevalent on the early Earth. But there isn't any real consensus at this point. Each hypothesis has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Of course, getting from chemical replicators to the first cells would still be a huge leap. So I'm personally inclined to think that there were likely a whole succession of pre-biotic (or quasi-biotic) intermediate steps such as coacervates, in which the replicators sheltered in little bubbles where concentrations of reactants could increase to effective levels above the ambient environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coacervate

You must know I could quote various articles defining DE as starting from cellular life. But I won't quibble with extending it to the notion of molecular evolution. Merely convinced it would never via unguided means reach anything close to self-reproducing life.

 

[Michael 345]

Question:
Is quoting from the bible an "argument from authority" or "argument from ignorance"?

New thread?

The only reason I don't quote from a 2,000 year science text book written by the equivalent of Einstein is they were not publishing

I'm sure they existed and were just as smart as Einstein for the information (knowledge) available to them at the time

 

[paddoboy]

Merely convinced it would never via unguided means reach anything close to self-reproducing life.

And yet there you stand/sit, as do I! Q-reeus, you aint nothing but star dust, you emerged from the most lifeless of non lifes, and then you evolved to what you are today. We call that Abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[wegs]

Ah, so Q accepts abiogenesis, but that it was guided by a higher power?

This is a lengthy thread.

 

[Q-reeus]

Ah, so Q accepts abiogenesis, but that it was guided by a higher power?

This is a lengthy thread.

Semantics wegs. A higher intelligence had to do it, but exactly how is forever beyond our means to know.

 

[paddoboy]

Semantics wegs. A higher intelligence had to do it, but exactly how is forever beyond our means to know.

If that's your unscientific myth you want to run with, then be my guest.
The science tells us different. Abiogenesis, or the emergence of life from non life, is the only scientific answer...and of course evolution is a fact.

 

[Write4U]

The only reason I don't quote from a 2,000 year science text book written by the equivalent of Einstein is they were not publishing

It has been since.

I'm sure they existed and were just as smart as Einstein for the information (knowledge) available to them at the time

I agree, but if I cite the bible am making an argument from authority or from ignorance?

 

[Write4U]

Q-reeus said:
A higher intelligence had to do it, but exactly how is forever beyond our means to know.

You do know we might just as well argue that a higher quasi-intelligence did it....., no?

 

[paddoboy]

Now here's a more believable account of how life emerged via chemistry to what we see today. No some all powerful, omnipotent deity that has lived for eternity and just happens to not be governed or concerned with that which governs our lives and everything else...the laws of physics and GR.....
"The mystery of exactly how life began. Hunt for microbes that flourished in the most unlikely places: inside rocks in a mine shaft two miles down, inside a cave dripping with acid as strong as a car battery's, and in noxious gas bubbles erupting from the Pacific ocean floor. The survival of these tough microorganisms suggests they may be related to the planet's first primitive life forms. Host astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson deepens the search by investigating tantalizing and controversial chemical "signatures" of life inside three-billion-year-old rocks and meteorites found around the world".

Isn't that far more likely? Isn't that far more scientific, then some aged old myth, dreamed up in the stone age by our ancestors? The universe does not give a stuff about us....we are not at the center of the universe....we are an accident....we are star stuff, an assemblage of the elements born in nuclear synthesis and spewed out into the unknown to be the stuff planets form from, and then finally life!

 

[paddoboy]

Ah, so Q accepts abiogenesis, but that it was guided by a higher power?

This is a lengthy thread.

As a reasonably calming effect on this forum, that you have shown yourself to be, I submit this to you...You have probably seen or heard of it before, but anyway here it is again...

 

[Q-reeus]

You do know we might just as well argue that a higher quasi-intelligence did it....., no?

So I searched for a dictionary definition: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=quasi-intelligent bullshit

 

[wegs]

As a reasonably calming effect on this forum, that you have shown yourself to be

Aw, thanks - I have my moments. lol

I submit this to you...You have probably seen or heard of it before, but anyway here it is again...

I want to say that a coworker showed me this clip. It's an unfathomable mystery at times.

''We'' are an unfathomable mystery at times.

 

[Write4U]

Amino Acids

Amino acids are organic compounds composed of nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, along with a variable side chain group.

our body needs 20 different amino acids to grow and function properly. Though all 20 of these are important for your health, only nine amino acids are classified as essential (1Trusted Source).
These are histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophanand valine.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/essential-amino-acids#roles-in-your-body

The expression of genes into proteins is a fundamental and ubiquitous biological process. Since the 1960s [1], we have known that cells also harness this machinery to control complex processes and carry out information-processing tasks, but we are still far from understanding the details of how these behaviors emerge from the intricate interaction of biomolecules within a cell.

Figure 1: Scientists try to capture the complexity of the genetic expression of a protein (left) in artificial in vitro settings (right).
(Left) Enzymes (red) in the nucleus transcribe the genetic code onto RNA, stopping at the repressor protein (pink). Messenger RNA (mRNA) carries this information outside the nucleus, where it is translated by ribosomes (enzymes) into proteins (blue). Enzymes also break down proteins (and RNA, not shown) into smaller amino acids.
(Right) Karzbrun et al.designed a simple genetic network, made up from the machinery of bacteria, as a starting point to model the same process: “R” enzymes participate in transcription and translation; “X” enzymes break down the mRNA and proteins.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/8

 

[Write4U]

So I searched for a dictionary definition: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=quasi-intelligent bullshit

Aww, got lost?
Here, this may help. Picked up a couple more intelligences along the way......

INTELLIGENCE,

Sublime
(Class I): An undocumented intelligence; Sublime beings are hypothesized to exist on a higher plane or dimension.

Hyperintelligent
(Class II): Hyperintelligent beings generally outperform humans mentally.

Intelligent
(Class III): The Human baseline for intelligence.

Quasi-Intelligent
(Class IV): Seemingly intelligent; Quasi-Intelligent beings often mimick intelligence, either through reproduction, imitation, or otherwise.

Advanced
(Class V): Classified as a Creature whose evolution into racedom, complete with sentience, self-awareness, and culture has been established, documented, and recorded.

Adaptive
(Class VI): Adaptive beings can evolutionarily adapt over the course of generations. Most known life is classified as Adaptive.

Stagnant
(Class VII): A Stagnant being is often a Creature who has adapted to perfectly match its surroundings. Usually prehistoric, Stagnant beings often have no need for critical thinking or comprehension.

https://thefutureuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Intelligence_Classification

 

[Q-reeus]

Aww, got lost?
Here, this may help. Picked up a couple more intelligences along the way......

INTELLIGENCE,

Sublime
(Class I): An undocumented intelligence; Sublime beings are hypothesized to exist on a higher plane or dimension.

Hyperintelligent
(Class II): Hyperintelligent beings generally outperform humans mentally.

Intelligent
(Class III): The Human baseline for intelligence.

Quasi-Intelligent
(Class IV): Seemingly intelligent; Quasi-Intelligent beings often mimick intelligence, either through reproduction, imitation, or otherwise.

Advanced
(Class V): Classified as a Creature whose evolution into racedom, complete with sentience, self-awareness, and culture has been established, documented, and recorded.

Adaptive
(Class VI): Adaptive beings can evolutionarily adapt over the course of generations. Most known life is classified as Adaptive.

Stagnant
(Class VII): A Stagnant being is often a Creature who has adapted to perfectly match its surroundings. Usually prehistoric, Stagnant beings often have no need for critical thinking or comprehension.

https://thefutureuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Intelligence_Classification

Ouch. I detect a counter-sting in the tail there. Feel free to attempt a detailed, incisive critique of Tour or Peltzer re actual OP topic (confusingly titled as it is).
PS - I made a tactical error last sentence in #91. Having broken it repeatedly in order to answer your continued queries, will now amend it to: "Will never try and convince you against that entrenched position".

 

[iceaura]

Darwinian theory starts after abiogenesis has somehow created cellular life. Savvy?

That's wrong.
Darwinian evolutionary theory has proved widely applicable, and is currently the consensus best proposal for a theoretical framework of abiogenesis.

And as per your modus operandi, simply asserting peptide string growth is a non-issue i.e. 'creationist bs', won't work with me.

Why would I care what works with you? You just post video with no transcript and back it with insults anyway.

Cite the mainstream literature solving the problem of homochiral peptide chain magical development to useful enzymatic action.

You provide a transcript, or an argument of your own, or anything of the kind, and I will take it apart for you. Until then, there is no problem to solve - waving your hands and typing "homochiral" makes problems for nobody except you.

Not with copious human intervention with carefully purified initial reagents reacted in carefully controlled conditions of pH, temp, etc. in some highly sheltered environment, but as a natural process that will for sure progress under realistic prebiotic Earth environments.

Sheltered environments and pure reagents and so forth are very likely - essentially certain - to have existed on the prebiotic earth. One would need a powerful argument to declare them nonexistent. Meanwhile, nobody needs to assume that homochiral peptide chains were even involved in the early stages of abiogenesis. Furthermore, there were plenty of homochiral compounds lying around to act as templates for all kinds of complex peptide chirality (in clays, in crystals, seeded by chiral compounds from meteorites, etc etc etc) - including during peptide assembly, which btw can happen via splicing as well as step by step "exponentially improbable" events. And that's just what we know off the cuff, with the research beginning.

So the entire "improbable peptide chain" approach to concluding impossibility - rather than guide hypotheses of mechanism and sequence of event - is creationist bunk, and has been known to be so for decades now. What it's doing in that video is anyone's guess, until we see a transcript.

 

[Q-reeus]

That's wrong.
Darwinian evolutionary theory has proved widely applicable, and is currently the consensus best proposal for a theoretical framework of abiogenesis.

Why would I care what works with you? You just post video with no transcript and back it with insults anyway.

You provide a transcript, or an argument of your own, or anything of the kind, and I will take it apart for you. Until then, there is no problem to solve - waving your hands and typing "homochiral" makes problems for nobody except you.

Sheltered environments and pure reagents and so forth are very likely - essentially certain - to have existed on the prebiotic earth. One would need a powerful argument to declare them nonexistent. Meanwhile, nobody needs to assume that homochiral peptide chains were even involved in the early stages of abiogenesis. Furthermore, there were plenty of homochiral compounds lying around to act as templates for all kinds of complex peptide chirality (in clays, in crystals, seeded by chiral compounds from meteorites, etc etc etc) - including during peptide assembly, which btw can happen via splicing as well as step by step "exponentially improbable" events. And that's just what we know off the cuff, with the research beginning.

So the entire "improbable peptide chain" approach to concluding impossibility - rather than guide hypotheses of mechanism and sequence of event - is creationist bunk, and has been known to be so for decades now. What it's doing in that video is anyone's guess, until we see a transcript.

Don't make me laugh too loud. Insults are your essential stock-in-trade. The rest is your usual assertive tactics. Still waiting for those citations to mainstream literature claiming to have convincingly cracked the problem. A read through Wikipedia's up-to-date take on the state of abiogenesis postulates/theories reveals one thing - despite the huge number of competing theories explored in depth, none have achieved consensus support. Hint?