The origin of life

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Xmo1, Oct 22, 2017.

  1. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Found this:
    "Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds."-
    planetary-science.org/astrobiology/thoery-of-abiogenesis/


    Szostak, Harvard RNA World Part 1 The Origin of Cellular Life

    just as a matter of interest
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,659
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,778
    Jordan.S likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jordan.S Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
  8. Qedlin Saltum Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    While Szostak demonstrates a deep understanding of the subject, his conjectural thesis that RNA is the solution to origin of life creation is faith-based speculation derived from his apparent naturalistic ideological adherence on science of the gaps futuristic solutions. His lab experiments are precise intelligently designed and managed procedures to achieve desired results and biogeochemically irrelevant to primordial Earth conditions. His cellular membrane formation propositions are simplistic and unrealistic, and his contention that homopolymerization of back planes is not as absolute as expressed within the cell is not convincing. The issue of homochirality of amino acids is not addressed adequately and so is the information theory, naturalistically impossible, coding of the nucleotides.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,778
    This may illustrate the problem of duplicating duplicate regions :
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,465
    What rubbish.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,273
    That isn't so.
    Homochirality issues, like all the others, are still matters of research, nobody can "adequately" address them.
    There is nothing "naturalistically impossible" about the coding of the nucleotides, on any grounds whatsoever - much less those of information theory.
     
  12. Qedlin Saltum Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Yes, what Szostak proposes is rubbish.
     
  13. Qedlin Saltum Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    There have been decades of highly concentrated research on homochirality and there is no naturalistic solution, whether fro amino acids or sugars. To say they "are still matters of research" is a faith-based science of the gaps proposition. Coding of nucleotides is much more complex, from the lack of naturalistic processes to produce all amino acids - A,C,G, T,U - to overcoming the protein-nucleotide chicken and egg dilemma. But, even more, who/what is the code generator?It is easy to say still matters of research to shut down discussion while ignoring the limitations of naturalistic processes to do the job.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,273
    The pros tell me the major obstacle to determining which of the several known possibilities - or perhaps another not yet considered - is the correct or best explanation for the observed chirality is the uncertainty of the timeline - we don't know when the current chirality regime was fixed.
    Darwinian evolution can handle all of those circumstances, and is the current theoretical framework of continuing research - it would come down to which mechanism was the one actually involved. In Darwinian theory, of course, your questions don't quite make sense - proteins and nucleotides would have emerged together, not in sequence, and there probably was no "code generator" (very unlikely hypothesis).
    That these things are matters of research is a simple fact - there is, currently, research into them. Exciting stuff, I hear.
     
  15. Qedlin Saltum Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Scientific research is exciting, but inordinate and unjustifiable extension of basis biological processes into the realm of creative and design-based forces to overcome the intractable issues of naturalistic origin of life is not science, rather a faith-based philosophical naturalism ideology.
     
  16. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Qedlin you can tone it down a syllable. Get all the big words together and toss them into a round file. Then rewrite until you have the idea as simple as you can get it. Try notepad++. People shouldn't have to translate your verbiage to understand what you are talking about. There are really enough words in the English language to keep it simple. Verbiage is hubris.
     
  17. Qedlin Saltum Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Sorry, that should be "basic biological processes," not "basis." I can only then assume that you are not aware of the intent of some so-called scientists to use Darwinian processes to generate the first organisms through natural selection. Darwinian natural selection only applies to living organisms, not abiotic chemical compounds. Darwinism relies on natural selection. Natural selection only works on living organisms during replication. Replication comes from DNA based organisms. DNA is comprised of proteins, but protein design and construction is programmed in DNA, so any proposition that natural selection is relevant to pre-biotic organisms is absurd and any proposition that both DNA and proteins self-created randomly is also absurd.

    Philosophical naturalism is the present overarching and overriding principle being forced on all scientific enterprises and is purely natural, denying any God or extra-natural influence and asserting that the universe is solely physical and science can and will answer all the questions about the universe. This denies the validity of metaphysics in the composition of physical reality, which includes science, laws of the universe, mathematics, language, reason, logic, art, music, philosophy, religion and everything else that is not purely physical.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,465
    While nobody would deny that we do not yet have a model for the origin of life, you seem to be unaware that there are in fact hypotheses nowadays to account for the development of chirality. I watched part of an interesting video about this not so long ago, in which the lecturer, who researches in this area, explained he has found that different facets of certain mineral crystals have handedness, which affects the relative strength of adsorption of chiral organic molecules to it. Now adsorption on minerals is one of the processes that has - independently - been proposed for the synthesis of complex biochemically relevant molecules, as it provides a way of stabilising them. This work struck me as very interesting.

    The rest of your arguments are typical creationism. What they amount to is the assertion that, because we do not have a scientific model, there can be no scientific model. It is the argument from personal incredulity: "I cannot see how this could have happened naturally; ergo it could not have happened naturally". For instance you speak of "the limitations of naturalistic processes to do the job". I wonder what these "limitations" are and what scientific justification you think they have.

    As for "shutting down discussion", it is entirely legitimate to call out pseudoscience masquerading as science in order to get religion into school level science teaching. Because that is what the "Intelligent Design" movement is all about. It is social engineering by the American religious right and nothing to do with science at all.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,273
    That's probably why nobody does that.
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,465
    Indeed.

    Don't you love the "Gerry Adams*" technique of trying (feebly) to apply the standard critique of creationism back onto science itself? "Science of the Gaps" is an especially imbecilic concept. This seems to be a new one. As is the latching onto chirality as the latest God-of-the-Gaps phenomenon that science can never explain. They've had to give up the eye and even the bacterial flagellum, so now apparently it is chirality, but as usual too late, science is getting a handle on that too. What next? This crap about information and coding I suppose will go on for a while.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    *As in "The Brottish Armaeigh are morderous torrorosts", etc.
     
  21. Qedlin Saltum Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    This is more the issue - science is so closed-minded and prejudicial now that any hint of anything that extends or expands the areas of scientific investigation that are not approved by the philosophical naturalists, PN, of anti-theists is categorically dismissed, denigrated or excluded. ID is a perfect example, despite that anthropology, archaeology and psychology are scientific areas that require ID, the PN's strangle hold on science is hypocritical. The abject denial of PN's for the design of the universe and life shows the arrogance, blindness, prejudice and denial of many of the so-called scientists, who are supposed to examine objectively all natural phenomenon.
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Oh... one more loon for the ignore list.
     
  23. Qedlin Saltum Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    I will ignore your ad hominem and failing to respond rationally.
     

Share This Page