Chemical evolution:

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by paddoboy, Aug 7, 2020.

  1. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    Have you done any abiogenesis research?

    I haven't watched the video either, probably for similar reasons to yours. But I'll guess that he basically presents a whole collection of still-open questions that any plausible account of the origins of life will need to be able to answer. If that's what he's doing, then it's probably a valuable service in the wider cultural discourse.

    It doesn't advance a creationist conclusion, that's true. But it does serve to communicate that abiogenesis research is much farther from explaining the origin of life than laypeople are often given to believe.

    I still think that the most intellectually respectable position to take in these matters is agnostic: We Just Don't Know.

    Maybe we will in the future, or maybe we won't. I kind of suspect the latter, given that time-travel seems unlikely so we will never be able to go back and observe what actually did happen. (If we did, we would probably contaminate things and throw history off entirely with a giant grandfather paradox.) So the best that science is likely to ever be able to do is generate plausible hypotheses. The problem is that multiple plausible hypotheses are probably possible. Life might have originated in any number of different ways. Different steps in different orders. We will likely never know which one is the true account.

    I'm certainly inclined to favor naturalistic accounts of life's origins, but that's because of my preexisting methodological and metaphysical naturalism assumptions. But again, it isn't something that I actually know. It's kind of baked in at the beginning, not unlike the creationists own assumptions.
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,199
    No, but then I am not holding myself out to be an authority on abiogenesis research, whereas James Tour is.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,596
    In what way does Creationism serve to communicate anything, other than often misdirected morality? A miracle is equal to a mathematical equation? (E = Mc^2)?
    We know what it is NOT! There is no mystical sky-daddy who plays with three fundamental universal values from which he makes EVERYTHING!

    The Universe is not a LEGO set, designed by a benign wisdom. It is a dynamical collection of stuff, interacting in accordance to their relational values. This is"demonstrable".

    Creationist cannot demonstrate ANYTHING, except faith for which millions of people have given their lives because God told them it was good thing.

    I do not call that science, I call that stupid.

    p.s. I am not addressing human philosophical tenets which attempt to guide mankind on a path which is compatible with long term survival.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Thanks Foghorn.
    So? Sorry to upset your apple cart dmoe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    ... So much for sensibilities with you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    I have never inferred that Abiogenesis anything other then Abiogenesis is life from non life, and that evolution then continues that progress of life.
    Chemical evolution is fact, and the Universe had hundreds of millions of years to arrive at what it did.
    Universal Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer as to how life arose, without fabricating any silly unscientific ID or spaghetti monster of one form or another, to warm the cockles of the hearts of those that need that comforting feeling.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Rubbish. The only concerted effort/s are the panic moves from religious orginisations to counter the continued progress of science, as per the OP, and the ultimate fear that their mythical ID hopes will finally be put to bed, once and for all. [not withstanding the fabricated conspiracies that will surely surface

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Yes, that is certainly a valid point. Which incidentally is why on most occasions I will also link to the paper and post the Abstract and conclusion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Why is your confidence in science declining? Because it has yet to come up with a final theory that could put the ID/magic spaghetti monster to bed, once and for all? That may or may not happen. The point is Yazata [and please excuse me for trying to teach Granny to suck eggs] science has come along way from when we adored mountains, and rivers, and the Sun and the Moon, and to explain the heavens around us, and reasonable assessments as to the evolution of spacetime itself. And by the same token, mostly science and scientists also accept life elsewhere [do you?] but accordingly accept that we still have yet to find any conclusive evidence for such. Why that seemingly contradictory view Yazata?
    The current pandemic and the quick fire vaccines that now seem pretty close is another in more recent times and examples Yazata.
    Your problem as I see it, is that you probably do accept ID [don't get me wrong, that's OK and your business] deep down. Would that be close to the mark? And maybe the highlighted section applies?
    I personally as a lay person, accept science and the scientific method, and understand the nature of science and the many changes and continued progress that ensures, and understand that neither you, or I, or anyone else can ever do without it.
    I understand fully that it has not nor will answer all the questions, and that any paddoboyish idealistic ideas of science that you see the need to accuse me of, is probably driven by my forthright dismissal of all that is unscientific and mythical, and how that may apply to your own beliefs.
    That along of course with my often mentioned philosophical remark about science being what we know, and philosophy being what we don't know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Actually what you need to do, is get yourself familiar with how literally this turkey [Tour] takes the bible, and his admittance of probably rejecting any further evidence for Abiogenesis. That along with his "darling" persona by those with fanatical religious convictions.
    What evidence is there for ID, that does not or cannot be explained by current science.
    What I do understand is that the Sun and Moon and stars must have been seen as extraordinary entities without scientific explanation for stone age man. I mean seriously, can you imagine such awe for them without science to fall back on?
     
  13. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    ...sensibilities...
    Like your sensible response to my Post #62 :
    In my Post #62, I simply pointed out that that abiogenesis is NOT part of the theory of evolution...that they are two separate areas of Science study.
    But, YOU had to immediately make the accusation that I was in some way supporting ID...!
    And now you have to show your vast superior intellect by essentially restating what I stated in my Post #62 utilizing toadies pop-science :
    As an aside, is there any difference in meaning between the words inferred and implied, paddoboy?
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    In actual fact, it appears to be you, q-reeus and the religiously fanatical Tour, that's conflating the unsupported myth of ID with the logic of extrapolation back to the obvious...Abiogenesis.
    Bye dmoe!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Facts: Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer for how life came to be.

    We have no evidence whatsoever in any ID with regards to the universe.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Found the following paper of interest, rather then the nonsense by the religiously fanatical James Tour and his supporters.....

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsob.170050
    Chemical roots of biological evolution: the origins of life as a process of development of autonomous functional systems:

    Abstract
    In recent years, an extension of the Darwinian framework is being considered for the study of prebiotic chemical evolution, shifting the attention from homogeneous populations of naked molecular species to populations of heterogeneous, compartmentalized and functionally integrated assemblies of molecules. Several implications of this shift of perspective are analysed in this critical review, both in terms of the individual units, which require an adequate characterization as self-maintaining systems with an internal organization, and also in relation to their collective and long-term evolutionary dynamics, based on competition, collaboration and selection processes among those complex individuals. On these lines, a concrete proposal for the set of molecular control mechanisms that must be coupled to bring about autonomous functional systems, at the interface between chemistry and biology, is provided.



    6. Conclusion
    In this prospective critical review, we have focused on the first steps of the process of the origins of life, which have important implications for subsequent stages. Ours constitute a non-conventional approach to prebiotic evolution, because it shifts the attention from homogeneous populations of molecules to populations of heterogeneous, compartmentalized and functionally integrated assemblies of molecules. The consequences of such a shift of perspective are multiple, both at the level of the individual units—which require an adequate characterization as self-maintaining systems with an internal organization—and also in terms of their collective and long-term evolutionary dynamics, based on competition, collaboration and selection mechanisms that are in need of further investigation.

    The fact that such compartmentalized individuals possess an internal organization allows speaking about function in a physiologically relevant sense, because one can distinguish between parts of the system that contribute in a distinctive way to its maintenance as a whole. Immediate research goals to be targeted, in this context, will be: (i) the implementation of feasible versions of these composite systems, under specific experimental conditions; and (ii) the careful analysis and characterization of the roles played by the various kinds of molecules involved in the integrative process, ascribing functional properties to each of them. In this way, the concept of function has good chances to get naturalized, opening a scientific research programme to discover its deep chemical roots. As a result, new perspectives and theoretical approaches to understand evolvability as a general property of matter, well-grounded in experimental data, should also be brought forth.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    and further...................

    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_chem_2.html

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The question of life’s origin has engaged the minds of humans since they first contemplated our place on Earth and in the Universe. The subject often elicits emotion—first because it involves ourselves, and second because biochemists don’t yet have a comprehensive account of the specific steps that led to life on our planet.

    A Non-scientific Idea Many people have been raised to accept unquestioningly certain principles, one of which is that life originated by means of a God or gods. The theological or philosophical idea that life resulted from such a supernatural process is a belief. Admittedly, it might be a perfectly good belief, but it remains just that—a belief—for no unambiguous information, acceptable in a laboratory of science or a court of law, confirms the creation of life by a supernatural being or beings. Scientists have no clear data whatsoever supporting the idea that someone or something deposited already-made life on planet Earth long ago. Furthermore, we have no known way to test experimentally the idea that divine intervention created life.

    Science is agnostic when it comes to God—not atheistic, as some people prefer to read that laden word wrongly—just agnostic. Aside from personal feelings or cultural persuasions, most professional scientists just don’t know what to make of a God or gods. We simply have no bone fide data on which to base a judgment.

    The belief that life suddenly arose by means of some vitalistic process is outside the realm of modern science. Today’s scientific method, which is a means of inquiry based on reasoned logic bolstered by experimental and observational tests, cannot be used to study supernatural ideas for the origin of life. Accordingly, such ideas, unprovable even in principle, seem destined to remain beliefs forever, hence beyond the subject of science.

    Three Scientific Proposals Several alternative theories for the origin of life do not require the help of supernatural beings. Each of these theories relies on natural principles and each can be tested experimentally. These theories are thus based on science rather than on theology, and only one of them has thus far survived the test of time, criticism, and debate.

    First, life might have originated on Earth by means of panspermia, meaning “germs everywhere.” This idea, also called exogenesis, maintains that microscopic living organisms came to our planet from outer space. An asteroid or comet, perhaps containing primitive cells or simple bacteria, could have fallen to Earth at some time in the past, after which they evolved over billions of years into the more advanced forms of life now spread across our planet. That said, no meteorites—the landed debris of asteroids and comets—have ever been shown to harbor bona fide life.

    The basic tenet of panspermia is that primitive life, which originated someplace else, was deposited on Earth’s surface by means of a collision with some other object that already harbored life. However, most space scientists argue that unprotected simple life wouldn’t likely survive the harsh environment of outer space or the fiery plunge into our atmosphere. High-energy radiation and high-speed particles in interplanetary and interstellar space, as well as violent friction and intense heat while moving through air, would almost surely destroy any form of life riding on the backs of small celestial bodies. On the other hand, microscopic spores might survive such alien conditions, provided they’re deeply embedded within the incoming rocks. If biologists have learned anything new about life recently, it’s that life is very hardy and often capable of surviving in extreme environments.
    more at link.............
     
  17. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Again, paddoboy, Please provide Direct Quotes from me, from any of my Posts, where I "appear" to be "conflating the unsupported myth of ID with" anything.
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,299
    The latest (?) from theist who try to explain god to us heathens is he is beyond time and space and unknowable

    Scientists say OK, take them at their word and with a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ don't bother looking for evidence

    Then get berated for not looking

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    paddoboy likes this.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Your record on this forum over many years is evidence of how you conflate, confuse, ramble, misinterpret, antagonise over many matters pedantic and otherwise.
    I'll leave that judgement call to our peers dmoe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    The real hilarious part is how they can quote and support this James Tour, who has openly admitted in his belief in the literal interpretation of the bible, and does not really care what evidence supporting Abiogenesis may come to light...It will not change his mind. Then he calls it science.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Listening to him [in admitted short doses as any more makes me sick] and his "fire and brimstone" like preaching, [reminds me of old Father Patrick, parish priest of the Catholic school I went to

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] gives it away as to his intentions. Old Father Patrick didn't even need the microphone once he started! and St Francis church Paddo was pretty big!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    As the old song by Neil Diamond goes, "like a small Earthquake"
     
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    It's a heuristic hypothesis, a hypothesis that helps guide future inquiry. If the hypothesis about the role of chemical evolution in the origin of life turns out to be true, then chemical evolution's role in the origin of life would indeed be a fact. Except that nobody really knows that at this point. If the hypothesis turns out to be false, then chemical evolution's role wouldn't be a fact.


    Abiogenesis just means life from non-life. It's not an answer until a plausible pathway from non-life to life is not only elucidated, but verified as being what actually happened. Until that blessed day, abiogenesis at best names a research program. (And frankly, I don't know how a particular model of the origin of life can ever be conclusively verified without being able to travel back in time and observe.)

    Says the guy who can't provide a scientific explanation for the origin of the so-called "laws of physics", for what explains the reality of mathematics, or for why the universe appears to behave logically and rationally. Those just appear to be givens, articles of faith.

    It's ironic that in the early modern era of the scientific revolution, it was generally assumed that the laws of nature were analogous to the laws of a state, laid down by its ruler. It was assumed that reality is rational because its creator was rational. Today belief in God has started to disappear, while the "laws" of nature, the truths of abstract mathematics and the logical rationality of reality remain behind like the Cheshire cat's grin in Alice.

    The theists obviously can't explain those things either. Their God-premise doesn't seem to be informative, when the goal is to reduce the unknown to the known, not to mystify things by multiplying the unknowns.

    The problem is that you and they seem to be occupying a very similar faith-based place, regardless of how violently you insult them.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  22. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Again you show your inability to participate in any Truly Honest Conversation.
    My Post #62, which says nothing about ID :
    Yet you responded with Trolling, Casting Aspersions and Accusations - the usual paddoboy MO - according to many of our peers.
    My condolences, paddoboy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2020
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Disagree totally! We have seen enough of chemical evolution and the experts know enough to be able to logically extrapolate that backwards, as scientists do.
    I find that even more disagreeable coming from someone who does appear educated.
    Do we need to achieve a piece of the Sun or another star to understand it operates via nuclear fusion? Do you doubt that scientific principle? It is afterall the only scientific answer.



    If you have viewed some of the James Tour videos, you would understand that he insults all intelligent beings that prefer science over mythical beliefs.
    Is that an insult? Then so be it.
     

Share This Page