Jordan Peterson shows DNA Video

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 .

Out of ALL 3 of these I liked this one best.. hahaha

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: 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.

The Miller-Urey experiment proved that amino acids were not an exclusive result of 'life processes' only, but were just chemicals with a chemical source and that the process was exo-energic (it required an electrical spark).

Since that experiment, spectral analysis of gas clouds in deep space have also confirmed that amino acids behave like any other chemicals and don't require 'life'.

The experiment tells us nothing about the origins of life. It only told us of the origins of amino acids in chemistry.

The 'proto-life' conclusions that have been assumed by many regarding the Miller-Urey and subsequent experiments are entirely 'magical thinking' and are very poor science.

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.

No way would I argue that we don't know the conditions of the Earth about 5 billion years ago. I am very sure that the physics and chemistry was no different then.

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.

So, "Well, we don't know so God didn't do it" is any better answer?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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.

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 didn't misquote anything. 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.

I do not believe that it is special pleading. I can apply exactly the same logic, reasoning and sequence of though to other things.

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.

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').

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.

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.

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. When you look at the big bang or singularity, all the math and physics breaks down, so to call math atemporal is way off. Without time, there is no math or calculations. 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.

By your line of 'reasoning', mathematical truths don't exist.

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: 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.

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. 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.

The experiment tells us nothing about the origins of life. It only told us of the origins of amino acids in chemistry.

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.

So, "Well, we don't know so God didn't do it" is any better answer?

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: 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: 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.

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 lipid spheres, proposed as 'proto cell walls', actually rupture due to osmotic pressure before the internal chemistry can achieve concentrations sufficient to allow organization into long chain molecules. So that was a dead end, too.

The belief that abiogenesis is proved by a few proposed and un-linked components, is making assumptions based upon 'magical thinking', not science.

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.

"We don't know"? Since when is outright ignorance part of scientific method?

We do know how the chemistry works now and that the same chemistry was in place back then. It does offer substantial evidence 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).

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that you don't need a cometary impact to make amino acids. Just water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen and a spark. Precursors are here in vast amounts, just like in previous ages, but with each cometary impact, the amounts increase, so we have more now.

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 was pointing out the two either/or possibilities and that they were both evidenced against. The fact that neither could have happened makes their consequences highly improbable. I'm surprised you can't see that.

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 didn't misquote anything.

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.

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.

Apology accepted.

I do have some doubt about chemical abiogenesis. There are many things about the theory which seem to argue against it and are unresolved.

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.

I can apply the same reasoning about the existence of mathematical truth and I can see deductive evidence that satisfies me in both cases.

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

If God is not mathematically viable, you'd have to have some mathematics for the case, please present that.

is special pleading and doesn't answer the question, it only moves the goalposts and raises more questions.

Don't it just.

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.

So, the number 7 is not 7 at different times? Nope, it is atemporal.

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.

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...)

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.

I'm skeptical too, but in my case, I cannot deny that which I can infer through reason and deduction but is otherwise unevidenced directly.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

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?

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.

Ouch.

Um, the origin of life is believed to have started from amino acids, so to say it tells us nothing, is flat out laughable.

"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).

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.

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.

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.

Is there an echo in here?.. hello?..

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.

This then gets back to the definition of reasoning and deduction based upon circumstantial evidence, as somehow non-evidential. How does that work?

Your turn.

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.

It is empirically clear that both answers have equal weight because neither are definitively proven or disproven.

Your preference for one over the other is just an opinion.

Your reasoning, using an argument that religious people think they know everything, is wrong in the first instance and specious even if they did think they knew everything.

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.

I didn't argue against any of that. I'm just saying that there is SOME evidence in its favor, which is better than NONE like with god. There is a reason abiogenesis is a hypothesis and not yet a theory. It's been shown that parts of the process are possible in the right conditions. The same cannot be said about creation or the god concept.

The belief that abiogenesis is proved by a few proposed and un-linked components, is making assumptions based upon 'magical thinking', not science.

Can you quote me a single person anywhere that has ever said abiogenesis has been proved? You keep arguing against things that people are not claiming.

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.

DUDE. It happened in the PAST, on a much different planet earth, not today. The invalid comparisons are off the charts today.

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.

You don't know that a single step is required because you don't know anything about that type of life. It's very difficult to study something when you only have its ancestors on earth that have already evolved for 3.8 billion years. You can't exactly study the first life to ever emerge, you can only hypothesize. The same reason why your protection argument is null. It's an appeal to ignorance. You say that we don't know how it could be protected, and say it's evidence against abiogenesis. Not knowing something is not the same as evidence against something. You were using similar arguments against evolution in the other thread.

If God is not mathematically viable, you'd have to have some mathematics for the case, please present that.

I didn't make that claim. I said that it has not yet been shown to be mathematically possible, meaning there aren't any math theories of creation or god.

You claimed that math is absolute and atemporal. Since there is no math evidence for god, that should render him illogical and irrational by your standards, no? Math and god are both atemporal yet it's impossible to mathematically describe anything close to that idea? Pardon the pun, but something doesn't add up here.

So, the number 7 is not 7 at different times? Nope, it is atemporal.

If the universe is compacted to a dense singularity and time does not exist, then the entire concept of 7 is meaningless. How do you apply the number 7 to an infinitely dense timeless singularity? Math doesn't make any sense at that point.

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...)

You are great at completely changing the meaning of my arguments. Scientific evidence and mathematical data are 2 completely different things. Of course you use math within science, but math itself is NOT empirical science and not comparable to testable evidence.

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?

Honestly, I'd prefer that you address my points as they are, instead of changing the meaning by inserting words to instead argue a straw man rather than what I said.

"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).

Yes, "believed" is the right word to use because abiogenesis is an unproved hypothesis, as I have stated multiple times now.

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 in response to your unsubstantiated claim that creating amino acids has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a chemical process, of course the chemical creation of amino acids is relevant. You can't have life without amino acids.

If you want to go back to the step prior to amino acids, you probably have to enter the realm of cosmology. Nothing is ever the definitive "first part" of anything, unless you take it all the way back to the big bang, and we still don't even know if that was the first step. So if you really want to focus on semantics of "first step" then be my guest and waste more time.

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.

Rejecting a proposition entirely is not the same as lacking belief in that proposition and admitting you don't know if it is true. You seem to repeatedly paint one side as absolute and extreme, but it's the wrong side. The analogy was still bad.

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

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.

This is interesting info but it is all a minimum of eight years old (and I've seen it before).

Since this was posted, we have made great strides in technology but progress has slowed in regards to chemical abiogenesis.

Due to research by Venter (et al), we now know the minimum number of genes coded in DNA required for life (about 600). Additionally there is a requirement for ribosomes to synthesize proteins from messenger RNA templates, basic metabolic pathways, and a plasma membrane with pumps, carriers, and channels. The system cannot be much simpler than this and still be viable.

This puts a fairly major damper on the hopes of most of the research which seemed promising from back in 2010 when it seemed that you could build life in stages and they had no definite ideas of a minimum viable complexity.

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: 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.

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.

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.

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: 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'.

Funny, because experimentally verified abiogenesis steps are discounted by you as unevidence assertions, yet you trust this one implicitly.

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.

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).

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.

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: Barcs

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'.

Funny, because experimentally verified abiogenesis steps are discounted by you as unevidence assertions, yet you trust this one implicitly.

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.

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.

Argument from ignorance.

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.

Nope, Not even close. You have either misunderstood or willfully misrepresented what I wrote.

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 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!

You are taking certain pieces of it as absolute knowledge, while dishonestly dismissing everything else as "unevidenced."

Clearly and loudly, I will reiterate; I am not saying that! You are arguing some sort of nonsense that you made up.

To clarify:

- I am stating that none of what we know is "absolute knowledge".

- I am stating that the evidence (especially in this case) can be interpreted alternately and fits more than one conclusion.

- I am saying that we cannot even know if we know all possible theories which fit the evidence.

- I am saying that we do have one bit of evidence that fits a theory and another bit of evidence that disproves that same theory (like with chemical abiogenesis where we have evidence of the chemical reactions and a theory of a sequence as to how they might lead to life but we also have evidence of a minimal complexity which says that those reactions cannot produce even very primitive viable life, in that proposed sequence). The rational conclusion is that the theory is most probably invalid, but since we do not have perfect knowledge, we cannot outright reject the theory.

That is what I am saying.

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.

Actually you did say exactly that:

"However, it (abiogenesis) is entirely un-evidenced by objective observation."

Then in the next statement in regards to your experiment you say, "a replication method must have arisen with the proto-DNA structure in a single step" and "we now know the minimum number of genes coded in DNA required for life (about 600)."

I just see that as double standards. You say that we KNOW one thing that MUST HAVE happened, but abiogenesis is entirely unevidenced objectively. That's a direct conflict.

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.

The problem with that is what you posted can be interpreted alternatively as well! How do you not see that? You are setting rules for proto-RNA, based on the current DNA molecule, which makes it entirely hypothetical as well.

Argument from ignorance.

You need to learn what an argument from ignorance is. I didn't say, "I don't know, therefor abiogenesis is true!" I said that we don't know a lot about the process and it's hypothetical, therefor it's silly to make assumptions about it. Being honest and admitting that we don't know, isn't an argument from ignorance, because I'm not arguing anything except against your specific claims. You are the one actually making arguments based on ignorance, not me. I'm admitting the process is hypothetical and very difficult to study, and that we should let science continue to research it and figure it all out. I never said abiogenesis is proved. I said that it has experimental evidence.

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!

Do you understand what a hypothesis is in science? It doesn't mean, NO EVIDENCE. All I'm trying to say is that we should let science figure it out before making all kind of assertions about the probability of it, like you are. I never mentioned anything about probability of abiogenesis being true, just that there IS some evidence. You said it was "entirely unevidenced," so I took issue with that. When you take everything as ALL or NOTHING, I can see why you take positions like that, but it's a bit ridiculous.

- I am stating that the evidence (especially in this case) can be interpreted alternately and fits more than one conclusion.

What alternative explanation can you think of for the generation of amino acids? I don't understand this "alternative" interpretation thing. Either the postulated process can happen under certain conditions or it can't. Where is the interpretation of this?

a reply to: chr0naut

Chemical abiogenesis is a theory.

NO.

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.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

NO.

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.

OK, if you want, chemical abiogenesis is a hypothesis. I'll agree. The definition is relative to the weakness of the evidence for it, anyway.

What, exactly, did you think my argument was?

I thought I was arguing that there was insufficient evidence for chemical abiogenesis to call it fact, regardless of what you want to classify the insufficiency of the little evidence we do have, as.

Utterly?

a reply to: chr0naut

- 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.

DNA is more stable than RNA - that is why it is natural selection winner for genetic information in most life on earth. However when you are say they "break down rapidly in an unprotected environment" what do you mean by 'rapidly', and what do you mean by 'unprotected'?

Structure, stability and behaviour of nucleic acids in ionic liquids

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.

Now I suspect that in pre-biotic earth, there weren't any refrigerators to put the various nucleic acids into a protected enviornment, but on the other hand, several days is an eternity when we are talking about self-generating chemical reactions, billions or trillions of instance molecules in an energy rich and raw material rich solution. Especially when you reflect on the meaning of the word "self-generating chemical reaction". RNA and DNA can reproduce themselves, so it doesn't matter if one generation, by itself, is only stable for a few days because in that time it has replicated many times, each time restarting the stability clock. Think about it on a grander scale: humans 'break down rapidly in an unprotected environment', yet there are humans in existence and have been for many thousands of years. How can that be?

- 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?

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "Why isn't it happening all the time?" What leads you to believe that it isn't? What leads you to believe that modern conditions are anything like the conditions that existed at the 'crux' of pre-biotic / biotic earth. For one thing we KNOW for a certainty that life on earth actively modified the atmosphere. That is, the very existence of life changed the environmental conditions so that the conditions that brought forth the first life forms no longer exists.

Methane-filled Atmosphere of Early Earth Helped ‘Clear the Air’ for Oxygen

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.

Never-the-less, how can you possibly justify the assertion that it no longer happens? Yes, I'm asking how you can go about 'proving a negative'.

- 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.

Chemistry works like chemistry works. Chemical reactions occur because the correct conditions for that chemical reaction exists.

What do you mean by 'right from the first instance'? In what way can you say that a 'chemical reaction must exist before a chemical reaction can take place' and expect that anyone would derive any meaning from the statement? Are you saying that new chemical processes had to be developed by the atoms before they could become molecules? New molecular physics?

This is all just too silly and meaningless.