It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Meldionne1
Is their a cliff note to what they're saying ? Can't watch video right now ... Will have to wait to later when home .
originally posted by: chr0naut
This is supposed to have happend through random interactions of basic chemistry in an inorganic soup?
Really?
originally posted by: noonebutme
originally posted by: chr0naut
This is supposed to have happend through random interactions of basic chemistry in an inorganic soup?
Really?
Yes, really. That is the current line of thinking as there is no evidence that any of this was the result of a supernatural entity.
And the concept of this isn't new, the Miller-Urey experiment proved it was possible that the primitive Earth conditions favoured the types of chemical reactions which could result in more complex organic compounds from inorganic material.
Sure, you'll argue that they don't actually know the conditions of the Earth at the time and what they were doing was a guess. I would argue they used all the available information we have to make a very well education basis for that.
Is it 100% conclusive? No, of course not. But it's better than, "Well, we don't know so God did it". Which is a pretty sh*t answer for anything.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Chemical abiogenesis is a theory. I would say that it is evidenced in the existence of the chemical nature of all life, but still I hold it as a theory (this is reasonable because I have alternate theories as well). However, it is entirely un-evidenced by objective observation.
Should I regard chemical abiogenesis as theoretically valid, or discard the notion because it is un-evidenced by objective observation? (hint, you suggested discarding a different theory, on precisely that basis).
Molecules like DNA & RNA (as proto-DNA would be) oxidise and break down rapidly in an unprotected environment, and even in the best environment, require constant maintenance (metabolism and replication) to continue to exist.
If chemical abiogenesis was probable enough to cause more than a single proto-DNA molecue at a time, in sequence and in physical proximity so that developmental/selection forces apply, why has the probability almost completely vanished (such that biologists seriously suggest a single phylogenetic tree of life)? Surely modern environs have everything needed in spades? Why isn't it happening all the time?
If, on the other hand, chemical abiogenesis has an extremely low probability of occurring (like a few shots per planet low), then the only way for more than a single proto-DNA molecue to arise at a time, in sequence and in physical proximity, is through a replication mechanism that was there, right from the first instance. Nothing else suffices as an explanation of a population of molecules of a chemical of rare occurrance that will break down over time.
You have done this 'misquotation trick' over and over again in nearly every topic thread to which you have contributed, not just with me. We can all see through it and it clouds the data of actual debate with the noise that you generate and that avoids the topic.
I do not believe that it is special pleading. I can apply exactly the same logic, reasoning and sequence of though to other things.
I believe that you think that atemporal things and absolutes don't actually exist (probably because you have not even given it much thought because they are beyond the remit of your type of 'science').
Mathematical truths exist. They don't become untruths dependent upon time. They are atemporal.
Mathematical truths exist regardless of the observer. They do not actually require an observer to remain true. They are absolutes.
Mathematical truths are also: repeatable, objectively observable, popularly considered factual, self-evidential, 'scientific', consistent and also conformant to reasoning and philosophical processes.
By your line of 'reasoning', mathematical truths don't exist.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Thesists don't belive that God exists only outside of time and space, that is what the word omnipresent means.
God exists within the entirety of all of space and time as well as external to them.
The experiment tells us nothing about the origins of life. It only told us of the origins of amino acids in chemistry.
So, "Well, we don't know so God didn't do it" is any better answer?
originally posted by: chr0naut
So, "Well, we don't know so God didn't do it" is any better answer?
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: chr0naut
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that shows how life can assemble from it's basic components. It's not a theory, and to say it is entirely un-evidenced is wrong. There are multiple experiments that have demonstrated parts of the process. Obviously it's still a big work in progress and hasn't been proved because there is still much that is not understood, but there actually is some evidence, so you are exaggerating big time by saying there is none.
Obviously the DNA / RNA / proto RNA was protected in some way and again, this is extremely speculative because we don't know the exact properties of the first life and the first genetic code. This doesn't offer anything against the idea.
The conditions on earth today are vastly different than the past. Abiogenesis simply shows what conditions would be necessary in order for such a thing to happen and last I checked we haven't had any recent comet impacts to create new amino acids in abundance (which is the first step).
Again, you are delving into the unknown and are assuming the first life had a complex replication mechanism. We don't know that. Most scientists lean to the origin of life being in under water thermal vents, which could theoretically produce life multiple times. So far, nothing you have said makes it improbable as you suggested.
I didn't misquote anything.
I cannot see how you could possibly It genuinely sounded like you were doubting abiogenesis because we didn't have precursors. If I read that wrong, I apologize.
I try to keep everything in context, but you are often the one that goes off on tangents and unrelated things, and also implies things that aren't actually there using the exploitation of semantics rather than the data itself.
Yes, it is absolutely 100% special pleading to say that the universe requires a creator but god does not. You are making special rules that you think applies to the universe, and creating a being that is an exemption to all of that, with no evidence at all.
If you can postulate god is eternal, than somebody else can postulate that the universe (or some aspect of it) is eternal. The logic doesn't change. Making up a god and inserting him into a place that can't be measured, tested or even shown to be mathematically viable
is special pleading and doesn't answer the question, it only moves the goalposts and raises more questions.
No, I'm skeptical because there is no way to even determine if such a concept is possible. You just make an assumption and use it as an argument (god is atemporal). You don't know that, you just say it because it's the popular apologist position and many people believe that. Making up concepts is not a logical argument method.
Math is man made and it's not science. Many math theories very heavily rely on interpretation to rectify equations to real world concepts. Calling it "atemporal" is nonsense. Math is not independent of time, it is a man made counting system that is used to calculate things.
There is a reason why scientific theories hold more weight than mathematical ones. The numbers themselves might be "absolute" (ie 1+1 will always be 2) but the system isn't absolute in scientific terms. Equivocating math to science is flat out wrong and also deceptive.
Wrong. Mathematical truths aren't the same as scientific truths. There are tons of math theories that we can't even tell if they are true. Sure the math adds up, but what does it actually mean? That's why I am skeptical of math theories, even popular ones like string theory where the math is flawless. It takes more than math to understand something.
Based on this comment, you are also insinuating that I think anything that doesn't have evidence doesn't exist. That's not true at all, I'm just SKEPTICAL of those things. That doesn't mean I rule them out completely. You seem to think I see everything as black or white, either it absolutely 100% exists or it absolutely doesn't. That's not what I think about the universe or science.
originally posted by: Barcs
I never said ONLY. You lecture me on misquoting, and you do the exact same thing as you accuse me of. You do this all the time.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Just because I said that theists claim god exists outside of the universe, doesn't mean they think he can't exist everywhere. There are numerous different versions of god and god beliefs. Stop being so linear and looking at it in such a narrow perspective. You completely ignored the context of my post.
Um, the origin of life is believed to have started from amino acids, so to say it tells us nothing, is flat out laughable.
Not sure why you take everything from an all or nothing perspective. The creation of amino acids is the first step in abiogenesis and it has been demonstrated. It's also been shown that amino acids can form via comet impacts and other high energy events. Miller-Urey isn't the only work done on the subject, by the way.
Those are both NON answers. If we don't know, we don't know, there is no reason to take an unknown and make any assumption about it, especially when it is being used as an answer or explanation for something. That's an appeal to ignorance and not logical.
originally posted by: noonebutme
originally posted by: chr0naut
So, "Well, we don't know so God didn't do it" is any better answer?
Out of the two, yes.
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, it can admit that and work to always improve on its knowledge.
The religious claim that they do, in fact, have all the answers -- 'God did it' is the defacto reply.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Chemical reactions and rudimentary structural organizations have been observed that could be parts of chemical abiogenesis, but they also could not be parts of chemical abiogenesis. This is the same as the way the vulcanization of rubber (a component of tyres) does not evidence an automobile. The whole chemical abiogenesis theory, which requires all the component notions, end to end, has never been observed once.
The Miller-Urey experiment did not prove 'a precursor of life', it proved that the idea that only life could create amino acids, was wrong, and that the genesis of amino acids is unremarkable chemically.
The belief that abiogenesis is proved by a few proposed and un-linked components, is making assumptions based upon 'magical thinking', not science.
Also, thermal vents are measured as being very low in amino acids, do not have the conditions to create amino acids and cannot concentrate amino acids.
I was clearly describing the consequernces of proposed proto-DNA and that a replication method must have arisen with the proto-DNA structure in a single step, i.e, an incremental result does not fit the data. You said that I stated that there was 'no proto-DNA'. You misquoted.
If God is not mathematically viable, you'd have to have some mathematics for the case, please present that.
So, the number 7 is not 7 at different times? Nope, it is atemporal.
Science without math is a thing?
Now who is playing semantics and being (self) deceptive. Your argument has just entered the irrational zone... (do, do, do, do, dadada...)
I wasn't quoting you. I clearly inserted a new word and italicized it just to clarify the fact.
How about, in future, if we quote each other, we use quote marks to make it clear?
"Um, the origin of life is believed to have started from amino acids...". (This time I did quote you, and added emphasis, for fun. You are good at doing this debate thing with really vague inference and no visible means of support).
The creation of amino acids from inorganic chemistry may just as possibly not be the first step in abiogenesis.
You are drawing a conclusion that goes beyond what the data tells us.
That was what I meant when I said that the rejection of a proposition based upon a proposed absence of evidence, is not rationally valid.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut
You may want to review this link here:
Origin of Life
It has a pretty comprehensive list of the work that has been done in regards to abiogenesis. It has gone far beyond amino acids. I understand being skeptical about it and admitting that it is a hypothesis, but substantial work HAS been done, so to say there isn't any evidence for it is pretty absurd and not a single one of those philosophical arguments even comes close to that in relation to existence of god or creation.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut
As I said, there is a reason it's a hypothesis. It's still a work in progress. And again we don't know for absolute sure that 600 is required for a proto-RNA mechanism. It's funny how you use the word "know" in certain situations as if it's set in stone, but then everything else you blow off as completely unevidenced guesswork.
That's some major double standards there. Every aspect that poses a problem is KNOWLEDGE, while every aspect that supports the abiogensis is just made up guesses. Come on, dude.
originally posted by: chr0naut
We 'know' it because it is experimentally verified, the experimental results were controversial at the time (because they invalidated a lot of previous thought on chemical abiogenesis) and have subsequently been heavily peer reviewed and further verified, not because it was a 'best guess'.
Also, it appears that a smaller viable genome is possible [in my defense, I was deliberately vague on the precise size] (link: The Smallest Viable Genome Is Very Weird) but still, a minimum viable genome size means that complexity cannot fall much below that level without inviability and is a total debunk of a natural unbroken incremental rise in complexity from inorganic chemistry up to the first living cells.
Not sure, but this last bit sounds like a retraction of your previous position where you stated "It has a pretty comprehensive list of the work that has been done in regards to abiogenesis. It has gone far beyond amino acids" and "to say there isn't any evidence for it is pretty absurd". Unless you were suggesting that I was supposed to be saying "Every aspect that poses a problem is KNOWLEDGE, while every aspect that supports the abiogensis is just made up guesses". In that case, I never said that.
originally posted by: Barcs
Funny, because experimentally verified abiogenesis steps are discounted by you as unevidence assertions, yet you trust this one implicitly.
originally posted by: chr0naut
We 'know' it because it is experimentally verified, the experimental results were controversial at the time (because they invalidated a lot of previous thought on chemical abiogenesis) and have subsequently been heavily peer reviewed and further verified, not because it was a 'best guess'.
Again, that's not necessarily true. We don't even know that the first life had a genome of that type, so like all the other work in abiogenesis, it's not set in stone because we don't know the exact first life form or what it was like internally. It's something that hasn't been figured out.
Funny how scientific experiments only count when it loosely agrees with your assumptions of god/creation and when it does, you latch onto it as absolute truth that is KNOWN, but all the other experiments are just dismissed as unevidenced guesswork.
Abiogenesis is about how life CAN emerge via natural processes, not necessarily how it did. It is near impossible to verify that (at least with our current understanding and technology).
Nope. What I said does not discount the work that has been done. Again, it's hypothetical process, so I don't see the point in trying to pick it apart.
You are taking certain pieces of it as absolute knowledge, while dishonestly dismissing everything else as "unevidenced."
originally posted by: chr0naut
Untrue.
I never stated,or implied, that "experimentally verified abiogenesis steps" are, or were, unevidenced assertions. I have clearly stated the opposite. If something has been experimentally verified, then evidence must have been collected, so your entire thrust of 'reasoning' is the pinnacle of irrationality.
Nor do I 'trust' the current findings "implicitly" either. I previously clearly stated that I hold much that has been evidenced, as merely theoretical. This is due to the fact that the relevant evidence can be interpreted alternately and I hold competing theories also compatible with the evidence.
Argument from ignorance.
You just accused me of dismissing it as "unevidenced guesswork" and here you are saying it is a "hypothetical process". Except for the big 'sciency' sounding word, you are saying exactly the same thing!
- I am stating that the evidence (especially in this case) can be interpreted alternately and fits more than one conclusion.
Chemical abiogenesis is a theory.
originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0nautNO.
Chemical abiogenesis is an hypothesis.
One with very good evidence to support it, much more than competing hypotheses, but an hypothesis none-the-less.
Your entire argument fails in its first sentence. Utterly.
- Molecules like DNA & RNA (as proto-DNA would be) oxidise and break down rapidly in an unprotected environment, and even in the best environment, require constant maintenance (metabolism and replication) to continue to exist.
Nucleic acids are not stable in aqueous solutions at ambient temperatures for long periods (several days to 1 month) (21) because of degradation by contaminating nucleases (22) and because of inherent chemical instability.
- If chemical abiogenesis was probable enough to cause more than a single proto-DNA molecue at a time, in sequence and in physical proximity so that developmental/selection forces apply, why has the probability almost completely vanished (such that biologists seriously suggest a single phylogenetic tree of life)? Surely modern environs have everything needed in spades? Why isn't it happening all the time?
The team’s new research indicates that this methane-rich haze drove a large amount of hydrogen out of the atmosphere, making room for massive amounts of oxygen. Their work, published March 13, 2017 in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, thus proposes a new contributing cause for the “Great Oxidation Event,” which occurred 2.4 billion years ago. During this event, oxygen concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere increased more than 10,000 times, resulting in an atmosphere much like the one that sustains life on Earth today.
“The transformation of Earth’s air from a toxic mix to a more welcoming, oxygen-rich atmosphere happened in a geological instant,” said James Farquhar, a professor of geology at UMD and a co-author of the study. Farquhar also has an appointment at UMD’s Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center. “With this study, we finally have the first complete picture of how methane haze made this happen.”
The researchers used detailed chemical records and sophisticated atmospheric models to reconstruct atmospheric chemistry during the time period immediately before the Great Oxidation Event. Their results suggest that ancient bacteria—the only life on Earth at the time—produced massive amounts of methane that reacted to fill the air with a thick haze, resembling the modern-day atmosphere of Saturn’s moon Titan.
- If, on the other hand, chemical abiogenesis has an extremely low probability of occurring (like a few shots per planet low), then the only way for more than a single proto-DNA molecue to arise at a time, in sequence and in physical proximity, is through a replication mechanism that was there, right from the first instance. Nothing else suffices as an explanation of a population of molecules of a chemical of rare occurrance that will break down over time.