Yes, meteorites are not necessary to explain abiogenesis, just as I first suggested.
Are you saying chiral molecules were not likely to occur on or within the Earth itself and without meteorites?
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Yes, meteorites are not necessary to explain abiogenesis, just as I first suggested.
Are you saying chiral molecules were not likely to occur on or within the Earth itself and without meteorites?
The substance, what molecule is it? And why do you suppose it arrived with meteorites and was not a product of the Earth by itself?
in some cases it is not molecules, but elements, or particles
which develop into microbes or cells .
just like what trippy is trying, and i'm stressing trying, to explain to you.
but in the cases that are microbes, come from other places
but there's also,
radiopanspermia,
which is microbes can be propagated in space by radiation pressure
again, research it.
which develop into microbes or cells .
just like what trippy is trying, and i'm stressing trying, to explain to you.
but in the cases that are microbes, come from other places
but there's also,
radiopanspermia,
which is microbes can be propagated in space by radiation pressure
again, research it.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
There are certain elements which cannot be naturally formed on earth. It takes a collapsing star to create gold., yet we find gold all the time, proving that we do indeed receive extra terrestial elements or compounds all the time. IMO, it sheds no light on the question of Abiogenesis. Also IMO, it makes no practical difference to universal functions.
The Earth, the Universe, that star which went Nova a billion years ago and we are just now receiving matter from that event,maybe even alien life forms. What difference does it make exactly when the first "living" thing emerged from simpler chemical structures. The process started with the BB and continues as we speak.
We only care because we want to be special, but in the scheme of things we are no more important than a garden snail.
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/differencebetween.net said:
Bingo!
Totally correct.
You as a layman dmoe, are getting there.
Obviously the claim that Abiogenesis is objective is factual, as it is in reality the only logical scientific choice we have. The same applies to Evolution....a logical scientific progress based on observation and available data.
Again, the only scientific choice available to us.
But obviously your own layman type somewhat "coloured" opinion based on past performances on the forum, are totally subjective.
Again in relation to Write4U statement.....
It is a totally objective statement that Abiogenesis occurred. At one time in the history of the earth there was no life, then there was.
It's that simple.
Note carefully dmoe, you did have another thread with an obvious agenda, labelled Objectivity and subjectivity in science, [or words to that effect] that was shifted to cesspool because of that agenda.
Just saying.
It's that simple.
Note carefully dmoe, you did have another thread with an obvious agenda, labelled Objectivity and subjectivity in science, [or words to that effect] that was shifted to cesspool because of that agenda.
Just saying.
no, that isn't what is in my mind concerning ayala OR evolution.This is what he is talking about (Leopold will not accept that it was a misquote - so evolution is disproved in his mind:shrug,
did you read the links you asked about?
after all, you WERE curious about it.
edit:
post 814 page 41
www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists/page41
post 1192 page 60
www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?14...ve-theorists&p=3199530&viewfull=1#post3199530
Last edited:
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/differencebetween.net said:
i think it's a matter of timing, not that any particular molecule could or couldn't exist on earth.
i suppose that certain meteorites could provide a substrate that might not be available on earth due to the intense heating of said meteorite.
paddoboy, one minor, little tiny "detail" that you would seem to need to clarify : which Post by this "Write W4 " are you referring to?
paddoboy, other than Earth, where else in the Universe have you personally witnessed this obvious "Abiogenesis"?
"Must have", paddoboy? Most everyone else on this Forum is certain that it has "taken" and still continues to take "place".
Details...Meh!!!
Last edited:
This lengthy thread has covered quite a lot.
First and foremost, how scientific theories, although never really 100% certain, do gain near certainty the more they align with observational data and continue to make outstandingly correct predictions.
To put it quite bluntly. Some scientific theories are often referred to as factual beyond any reasonable logical doubt.
This forum, supporting the points made in the OP, has not seen any alternative proposition/hypothesis even come close to reaching scientific theory status...plenty of huff and puff and false indignation when revealed as not applicable and plainly wrong, is all they have ever achieved.
The recent discussions re the supposed "uncertainty" of Evolution and Abiogenesis, as pushed by the deity brigade, highlights their quandary.
I suppose it was obvious though, that our dyed in the wool, Alternative hypothesis pushers, and their cryptic closet supporters were never going to take kindly to any objectivity and procedures that would invalidate there delusional dreams.
Here they are again, with a couple of additional points that are very relevant.
Most here that are interested in real science, will be happy to know, that those few that like to deride the greatest discipline of all, for whatever reason, be it religious, tall poppy syndrome, delusions of grandeur, or just plain old stubborn stupidity, that they will never really make any worthwhile difference.
I've said it many times, these forums are the only outlets they have, and although then being labeled a "science God worshiper" by the more stubbornly stupid of that brigade for saying that, it obviously is the plain objective truth of the matter. Because the peer review system, rather quickly sorts them out for what and who they are, along with their delusional dreams.
First and foremost, how scientific theories, although never really 100% certain, do gain near certainty the more they align with observational data and continue to make outstandingly correct predictions.
To put it quite bluntly. Some scientific theories are often referred to as factual beyond any reasonable logical doubt.
This forum, supporting the points made in the OP, has not seen any alternative proposition/hypothesis even come close to reaching scientific theory status...plenty of huff and puff and false indignation when revealed as not applicable and plainly wrong, is all they have ever achieved.
The recent discussions re the supposed "uncertainty" of Evolution and Abiogenesis, as pushed by the deity brigade, highlights their quandary.
I suppose it was obvious though, that our dyed in the wool, Alternative hypothesis pushers, and their cryptic closet supporters were never going to take kindly to any objectivity and procedures that would invalidate there delusional dreams.
Here they are again, with a couple of additional points that are very relevant.
paddoboy
That's a pretty well thought out framework that those with serious disagreements with current theory might have reasonable discussions within.
I would like to add another...
Make damn sure that you understand current theory as it is presented by the "main stream" before you embark on your exploration of new frontiers. That is the starting point. Our recent troubles are caused by the fact that our would-be Hawkings don't even understand the first postulate(Relativity) and flat out deny the second postulate(constant, invariant c)yet still claim to understand the theory based only on those two postulates. This is not rationality, it is delusion.
Grumpy
Most here that are interested in real science, will be happy to know, that those few that like to deride the greatest discipline of all, for whatever reason, be it religious, tall poppy syndrome, delusions of grandeur, or just plain old stubborn stupidity, that they will never really make any worthwhile difference.
I've said it many times, these forums are the only outlets they have, and although then being labeled a "science God worshiper" by the more stubbornly stupid of that brigade for saying that, it obviously is the plain objective truth of the matter. Because the peer review system, rather quickly sorts them out for what and who they are, along with their delusional dreams.
You are able to check yourself.....Try it...its actually quite obvious.
OK, recognising you know little about science and its methodology, Abiogenesis is the obvious natural progress by which life arose from non life.
Keeping that in mind, even you should realise that although we are objectively aware of the Evolution of life on Earth, we do not really know whether that life did start on Earth, or was seeded via a process called Panspermia, having begun elsewhere.
Not everyone. You havn't been taking notice. Some claim doubt re Evolution, mainly our mythical God botherers and Creationists.
Evolution is a near certain scientific fact
Details...Meh!!!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Objective statements ARE verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations. In the case of genetics (replicating organisms):
wiki,
All this seems very chemical in nature and therefore subject to analysis and experimentation, down to nano levels. I believe we have already identified how it all works at a general (already pretty deep) level and computer models are available to demonstrate the fundamental process.
check this out:http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology