Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

[paddoboy]

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).
. .

The 101 articles and papers, general mainstream scientific consensus, and the fact that Abiogenesis is still the only scientific answer to how life obviously arose from non life, and there obvious baggage, says you, and they are wrong...........again!

Don't make me laugh too loud. Insults are your essential stock-in-trade.

Pot, kettle, black again.

 

[Michael 345]

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

Well religion has not exactly proven that their invisible smart guy authority actually exist

So given that Mr Stupidity steps in or in the case of the bible numerous Mr Stupidities

we are star stuff

So not handful of dust / mud / clay (depending on which translation you happen to be looking at)?

I rather like star stuff. Pity Mr ID didn't make me. I would like to think if he did my skeleton would be gold, suitable strengthened, not common calcium

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

I would not even dare have any mention of Big I

Mr Physics and Mrs Chemistry is fine, not a brain cell between them

 

[paddoboy]

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?

Abiogenesis is overwhelmingly supported. To say otherwise is telling porky pies.
Out of the number of different pathways, and methodologies, under the Abiogenesis banner, no particular path or paths have yet been determined.

 

[James R]

I'm enjoying this thread, because I get the opportunity to observe overreach and poor reasoning on both sides of the argument.

On one side, for example, we have paddoboy essentially claiming that abiogenesis is a solved problem, nothing more to see here. On the other we have Q-reeus saying that because he can't work out how it could have happened naturally then God must have done it, by default. There are other contributors on both sides who are making similar errors.

The overreach weakens both positions. The people who overreach by claiming that Science has it all worked out, but who are unable to do more that wave their hands in the general direction of chemistry and time make it look like the science is a fraud. And the people who overreach by claiming that there must be an Intelligent Designer (read God), without providing any evidence at all to support such a hypothesis make ID look like religious bunk.

 

[Write4U]

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".

Ahhh,.. a level playing field...excellent.

Have not yet seen either Tour or Peltzer lectures so cannot comment one way or the other. I don't understand why you believe I object to their viewpoint. I have read and listened to Behe re. irreducible complexity and the Kitzmiller Trail where the court found against the concept of irreducible complexity as a necessary aspect of life.

I'll check the links and let you know what I think.

 

[James R]

Q-reeus:

Not surprised you are not impressed. Being after all a committed atheist.

My atheism has nothing to do with my rejection of the central thesis of ID proponents such as yourself. I reject ID on the basis of lack of convincing evidence for it. Merely pointing to difficult problems for science to explain does nothing to advance the ID position. ID can't "win" this argument by default. If science hasn't solved the problem of abiogenesis yet, that doesn't mean that ID has made any progress towards making its case. All it means is that scientists have more work to do.

I strongly disagree with 'misleading' and 'bends the truth' aspersions. He and Tour actually show it's the mainstream workers and journalist promoters who do that all too regularly. Otherwise, the enterprise would collapse through lack of funding.

I have a quiet chuckle to myself whenever I hear a Creationist claim that scientists are in it for the money. Support evolution and watch the funding dollars roll in! Then it's rich rich rich for the self-interested biologists! Do these people even understand how grant money is spent? (Hint: it doesn't go towards purchasing a Porsche for the Lead Researcher.)

Re poisoning matter, I may have confused between him and Tour as to exact wording. As Peltzer explained, in particular Maillard reactions (there are other ones) accomplish just that, very effectively. The probability of useless stopper reactions grows exponentially as any hopeful peptide chain grows larger. Worse again with carbohydrates. And so on. And they are just rudimentary steps toward a self-replicating cell. That cartoon - 'Step 2; and then a miracle happens'.

I can't really comment on this. I'm neither a chemist nor a molecular biologist. Are you?

 

[James R]

Life is about trillions of chemical interactions perfectly knit together. Given that the age of earth is only 4 billions, you need several additional "miracles" daily, without losing the previous milestones.

Bear in mind that life took about 600 million years after the Earth was formed to start. An entire planet and a 600 million year time span is a large window in which lots of improbable things could happen. More to the point, there's no evidence that any "miracle" is required.

 

[globali]

Ouch. I detect a counter-sting in the tail there.

I see hidden variations of Id on these semantics. I wonder if the scientists whose references were used here agree with being a part of that.

 

[James R]

The Hazen lecture clearly explains the probability and potential pathways of abiogemesis on earth. It is not complicated. Especially in a dynamic environment, where the laws of chaos make almost anything possible at any given time.

This is an example of the overreach I referred to above.

If it is not complicated, as you claim, then why can't you just write down how it happened in a few sentences? I asked paddoboy the same question and he came up with nothing. I don't suppose you can do any better.

To be fair, though, I agree with this:

I don't understand the logic that rejects physical evidence and invents metaphysical causalities, which are described by impossible miraculous phenomena to account for the odds against abiogenesis.

 

[Q-reeus]

I'm enjoying this thread, because I get the opportunity to observe overreach and poor reasoning on both sides of the argument.

On one side, for example, we have paddoboy essentially claiming that abiogenesis is a solved problem, nothing more to see here. On the other we have Q-reeus saying that because he can't work out how it could have happened naturally then God must have done it, by default. There are other contributors on both sides who are making similar errors.

The overreach weakens both positions. The people who overreach by claiming that Science has it all worked out, but who are unable to do more that wave their hands in the general direction of chemistry and time make it look like the science is a fraud. And the people who overreach by claiming that there must be an Intelligent Designer (read God), without providing any evidence at all to support such a hypothesis make ID look like religious bunk.

Try again. No-one can offer a credible mechanism. No-one. Instead of distorting my position, play fair actually. Don't pretend to be a neutral unbiased arbiter on this. You have staked your position many times in many threads. Blind chance over time 'did it'. Something so 'inevitable' should have been worked out in some detail by now surely.
Or can you cite the breakthrough discovery that leaves mere fine details to be explained? No, you can't.

It annoys that admitting the existence of a higher power is decried as an 'unscientific' taboo heresy, while simultaneously giving lip service to 'their need be no real conflict between science and religion'. It's never spelt out that this platitude could only make coherent sense if religion is in fact nothing more than a godless system of ethics. That is - compatible religion = humanism in fact. I don't subscribe to any religion, but do see the necessity of a higher non-material being or beings.
That no doubt upsets your banal characterizations. Too bad. And I see no additional value in responding to your #366.

 

[James R]

Show stoppers? What show stoppers? I see a dynamic universe creating stuff as we speak.

Do you see it creating life from non-life as we speak? If so, point out where you're seeing that.

I look at the universe objectively and see only wonderous creativity in accordance to natural universal physical potentials and dynamic functions. Time and obstacles are inconsequential as far as the universe is concerned. Is it my imagination that sees the living results of abiogenesis, in spite of your skepticism?

Can you do better than merely claiming that the universe is somehow able to produce life from non-life, as a result of unspecified "physical potentials and dynamic functions"? Aren't you just assuming that living things are the result of a so-far-unknown natural process?

I can imagine natural processes doing the job, same as you can. But that's not the same as saying I know how the universe did the job, or even that I know the universe did do the job using natural processes only. Imagination isn't a substitute for knowledge. The IDers have the same problem. I can imagine a God creating life through a special act of creation. Given a religious education, that's very easy to imagine. But that's very different to knowing that God did it, or providing evidence that God did it (with a sufficient explanation of just how he did it).

What close look at the issues would suggest anything other than abiogenesis or panspermia. There is no third option that makes ANY sense whatever.

That is a matter of perspective, isn't it? For example, clearly literal biblical Creationism makes perfect sense to a certain group of people. That option makes no sense from a scientific perspective, but that doesn't seem to bother those people.

The unbridled imagination of believing in an infinite, omnipresent intelligent, motivated supernatural state or being is so much more implausible than you rejection of physics and the constructive powers of mathematical functions.

I agree, but only because I value evidence over superstition.

 

[globali]

Bear in mind that life took about 600 million years after the Earth was formed to start. An entire planet and a 600 million year time span is a large window in which lots of improbable things could happen. More to the point, there's no evidence that any "miracle" is required.

Sure many improbable things happen in 600 million years. But as far as we know so far, it didn't happen elsewhere in our solar system, or comets (despite the presence of organics). Some of them are way older that 600 million years. We also haven't found hints of intelligent life beyond our solar system yet.
This implies that there must be something special about life's chemistry...
In addition, improbable events are not enough because statistics say that in the long run the most probable events dominate. All you need is to visit a casino and play every day. Its a determinist event. You will lose your money. This is the natural selection of the events. A scenario that involves you winning all the time is simply not sustainable.

 

[Write4U]

Q-reeus said:
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.

Listen to yourself. You are comparing some scientist in a laboratory as having an advantage over the universe?

I have mentioned this several times, but apparently it keeps falling on deaf ears, while the talk is about the impossible odds of nature to provide an ideal fertile environment for complex chemistry and the "necessity" for an intentional motivated designer?

Natural biology has the ability to evolve matter from fields, to evolve single celled organisms to humans, but natural chemistry is unable to produce organic bio-molecules and single celled organisms from elemental chemicals. Sure.....

Who do you think has a better chance of finding the keys to self-assembly, a laboratory assistant who can set up one experiment per day as compared to Earth which has performed "two trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion" (2 x 10^54) chemical reactions (laboratory experiments) during its 4.5 billion year life span. That's just earth. Plus the extraterrestial 100 tons of space dust bombarding the earth every day for millions of years. You may want to expand your horizons.

And you assert that a scientist in a lab is a more reliable standard by which to judge universal chemistry and by which to judge the creative power power and potentials of 13.7 billion years of a dynamical universe, abundant with emerging fundamental chemical elements.
Have you given this any serious thought at all?

Controlled laboratory settings are capable of more and better chemistry than nature?..... are you kidding me?

 

[James R]

Q-reeus:

Try again. No-one can offer a credible mechanism. No-one.

Did I say they could? You can't provide a credible mechanism, either. You don't get to have your God by default.

Instead of distorting my position, play fair actually. Don't pretend to be a neutral unbiased arbiter on this. You have staked your position many times in many threads. Blind chance over time 'did it'.

Not just blind chance. The laws of chemistry, for example, must surely have played a part, and they don't operate randomly. Similarly, natural selection, once it gets up and running, isn't a process of mere "blind chance", as you are not doubt well aware.

Something so 'inevitable' should have been worked out in some detail by now surely.

That's a poor argument.

Was the invention of heavier-than-air flying machines so inevitable that it should have been worked out in 2000 BC? If not, what does that suggest to you, given the observation that we have such machines today?

Or can you cite the breakthrough discovery that leaves mere fine details to be explained? No, you can't.

Like I said, I'm neither a chemist not a molecular biologist. I'm not sure what a "breakthrough discovery" would entail. Perhaps you're thinking that the entire problem might be solved in one fell swoop by a single scientific discovery. Who knows? Maybe you're right about that. But it doesn't have to happen that way.

It annoys that admitting the existence of a higher power is decried as an 'unscientific' taboo heresy, while simultaneously giving lip service to 'their need be no real conflict between science and religion'. It's never spelt out that this platitude could only make coherent sense if religion is in fact nothing more than a godless system of ethics. That is - compatible religion = humanism in fact. I don't subscribe to any religion, but do see the necessity of a higher non-material being or beings.

I agree with you, I think. There can be clear conflict between science and religion in cases where religion starts making falsifiable statements that science can test. If religion says the Sun revolves around the Earth, rather than the other way round, then it will conflict with science, necessarily. Similarly when Dr Peltzer claims there is no descent with modification.

You and I could have a cordial discussion about just why you think there's a necessity for "higher non-material beings", possibly. I don't think this thread is the best place for it, though, or whether you'd even be interested in having such a discussion with me. I understand that you think the problem of abiogenesis necessitates such supernatural beings, for one thing, but I disagree with you that the problems you see for scientific abiogenesis are insurmountable. It seems to me that's just a statement of faith on your part.

 

[globali]

Controlled laboratory settings are capable of more and better chemistry than nature?..... are you kidding me?

Controlled lab settings is in fact ID. Of course its more efficient

 

[James R]

Sure many improbable things happen in 600 million years. But as far as we know so far, it didn't happen elsewhere in our solar system, or comets (despite the presence of organics). Some of them are way older that 600 million years. We also haven't found hints of intelligent life beyond our solar system yet.

There are some good reasons why we wouldn't expect life to exist on certain other planets and moons in our solar system, so the fact that (so far) we've only found life on Earth is not unexpected. Mind you, I'm looking forward to when we can drill through into Europa's oceans, and I also wouldn't be at all surprised if we dig up some Martian microbes in the not-too-distant future.

As for intelligent life elsewhere, that's a whole separate topic for discussion. Suffice it to say here that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This implies that there must be something special about life's chemistry...

Maybe. Maybe not.

In addition, improbable events are not enough because statistics say that in the long run the most probable events dominate. All you need is to visit a casino and play every day. Its a determinist event. You will lose your money. This is the natural selection of the events. A scenario that involves you winning all the time is simply not sustainable.

Life only had to "win" once (or maybe a handful of times), though. Once life gets going, natural selection does a lot of the heavy lifting from that point onwards.

 

[James R]

Any and all attempted exxplantions via supernatural and/or paranormal reasons, are by definition unscientific.

And therefore necessarily wrong, because the supernatural is bad. Right?

Can't really argue with that too much, except to say that over the last couple of hundred years, science has continually pushed the need for any ID or creationism back to near oblivion...

What has been shown is that creationism is not in the least scientific, in spite of the Creationists' claims to the contrary. It has also shown that ID, in the form it is most often pushed by its most vocal proponents, is just Creationism in disguise.

But showing that Creationism is unscientific does nothing to show that "scientific abiogenesis" is a fact. You don't get to have your scientific explanation by default, any more than Q-reeus gets to have his God by default.

No, by definition it tells us that life emerged from non life.

Nobody disagrees about that. If God formed Adam out of dust, that is life emerging from non-life. The argument is about the process.

I see that as actually awesome and revealing in how the universe/space/time operates. Not knowing the exact mechanism is certainly frustrating and actually may remain frustrating...Far from being vacuous.

Of course, and any revelation and answer will be Abiogenesis.

That's just an assumption you're making. It's no different from Q-reeus claiming that everything's so difficult that only a god could have made life.

Irrespective of the ID and creationist claims, scientists are as certain as one can be that Abiogenesis took place via one or more pathways.......

That's not saying much. Creationists would say that abiogenesis took place via one or more pathways, too.

 

[Write4U]

Controlled lab settings is in fact ID. Of course its more efficient

No, it isn't more efficient. Think..... 1 person in a lab vs the combinatory richness of cosmic spaces and time frames. Humans are smaller than bacteria in comparison to the solar system alone, and we are more efficient than nature???

Is that the kind of disrespect for natural functions that we completely ignore the natural consequences of our wanton waste of energy while repolluting the air with CO2 which was sequestered underground for billions of years. ID?

Humans are a surface nuisance. The earth will shrug us off like a bad case of fleas.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm enjoying this thread, because I get the opportunity to observe overreach and poor reasoning on both sides of the argument.

No over reach here James....I'm simply saying that the emergence of life from non life can only be explained by Abiogenesis and we have various pathways by which that may occur, but as yet , we can't determine which one. But I suppose it may seeyou perceived as an impartial judge to criticise my mostly mainstream accepted claims as I have shown many times. And again, as a reminder, this did not draw the controversy at another forum, where the exact same debate with near the exact same OP was also discussed. But there of course non mainstream myths and claims are quickly subdued or moved to the alternative/trash sections....yes, yes, I understand that this is no concern of yours, just saying James.

On one side, for example, we have paddoboy essentially claiming that abiogenesis is a solved problem, nothing more to see here.

I won't call you a liar James, but what I claim is just up there and what I have consistently claimed throughout this thread.
You see the problem started with exchemist, an avid supporter of q-reeus and hatred of myself for questioning so many of his mate's mythical claims over a wide range of subjects, some that you have taken part in. exchemist greatest problem seems to be, that he sees himself as a goody two shoes and much like q-reeus. judge and jury, with seemingly your support. That's OK, I can easily live with that.


I won't comment on your criticism of q-reeus'mythical claims, they speak for themselves.

 

[Write4U]

If it is not complicated, as you claim, then why can't you just write down how it happened in a few sentences? I asked paddoboy the same question and he came up with nothing. I don't suppose you can do any better.

Nor can you. God "did it" is not a recipe. Not by 3000 years of biblical history. A long sentence. Or was it six days?

I have no disagreement with you, just following up on your suggestion to write the recipe for life in a few concise sentences.

Can you answer a few of the specific questions to follow. I am willing to learn if enlightenment is available.

You are asking impossible questions. You want the recipe for life? Suppose we can never come up with the recipe?

Invoking ID does not solve your problem for a recipe. Is God gonna share the recipe if you pray real hard?

So having a few hundred scientist spending their lives in laboratories trying to design life is gonna solve the problem? At which point will you give up and admit that nature did what we are unable to do in a lab? Or are you then claim that as proof God did it?

So denying natural chemical evolutionary processes as being somehow divorced from universal self-assembly, is denying evolution period. Are you denying evolution? If not then you must grant that the stuff which makes up the universe is able evolve into anything that is even remotely mathematically and physically possible, given enough time and space.

There is no such recipe as a package of chemical for "instant" cooking (just add water) in order to produce life.

But I would propose that if Life was a result of "favorable conditions", from what I have read it seems that hell would be the perfect extreme dynamical condition for mixing and baking a living cake. Don't need to pre-heat the oven.....

Does that mean humans didn't evolve from simpler mammals? Or because the universe could never come up with such "irreducible complexity" it would be impossible to evolve complex patterns by normal universal evolutionary potentials and constants to begin with ?
Everything is ID? Why do we have science at all?

Can you explain the formation of the solar system in a few sentences or a single equation? Of course not, because 14.5 billion years of evolutionary processes cannot be summed up in a few sentences. It takes a bunch of books on natural values and functions, not a recipe.

Natural chemical evolution of the universal potentials is capable of creating biochemicals which are components of organic molecules which are components of living organisms. The whole evolutionary process is popularly referred to as abiogenesis because, regardles of how, life emerged from non-life at some point, most likely with some intermediate steps like viruses, which are technically not living organisms.

We even have the proof of intermediate steps between purely chemical compounds and biochemical patterns.

Did God create viruses or did their biochemical patterns emerge naturally?
What more evidence do you require? Viruses are the biochemical Lucy in the evolution from static inanimate to dynamic animate patterns . They are one obvious link between these two states.

This is a rambling post but I wanted clarity on some of the questions from Q- Reeus and Globali.