Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

[paddoboy]

My contention based on mainstream science is that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life first started in the universe. It certainly to the best of our knowledge was not created from or at the BB. The BB was the evolution of space and time [as we know them] at a time of t+10-43 seconds. From there and though a process that was a result of decreasing temperatures and pressures, and expansion, our first atomic nuclei was created at around 3 minutes. 380,000 years later, temps and pressures were such that the first light elements of hydrogen and helium were constructed. Still no life!!!

From there, stars, galaxies etc started to form...time frame around 400 million years post BB...still no life. From there the story gets more familiar and far more validated with eventually the formation of life from non life....or Abiogenesis. Again there is no other scientific answer. In other words, at one time there was no life, then there was.

While we certainly are still rather ignorant as to the exact process of Abiogenesis, we are just as certain that it is the only scientific answer.

An interesting account at WIKI.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

starting with...."Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth."

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred".

And an interesting account here......http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/calilasseia-78-papers-on-abiogenesis-t845.html
"Blind faith" in chemical evolution? Guess who hasn't read the scientific literature!

Here's 78 scientific papers from the abiogenesis literature, that demonstrate conclusively that "blind faith" doesn't apply. Instead, what applies is direct experimental confirmation that the postulated chemical reactions WORK, and work under the prebiotic conditions postulated to have been present on the early Earth ...

List of 78 papers at link......

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The best that can be said for any non scientific answer or religious/ID myth, is that the BB and our laws of physics including GR, say nothing about the time at t+10-43 seconds. In other words the BB tells us how the universe/spacetime [as we know them] evolved at that t+10-43 second point. But again as indicated, any answer is simply based on unsupported myth.
Scientifically speaking though, we do have reasonable scientific speculation at that time and it is pretty well summed up here.....https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230969681_The_Universe_The_ultimate_free_lunch

 

[Q-reeus]

My contention based on mainstream science is that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life first started in the universe. It certainly to the best of our knowledge was not created from or at the BB. The BB was the evolution of space and time [as we know them] at a time of t+10-43 seconds. From there and though a process that was a result of decreasing temperatures and pressures, and expansion, our first atomic nuclei was created at around 3 minutes. 380,000 years later, temps and pressures were such that the first light elements of hydrogen and helium were constructed. Still no life!!!

From there, stars, galaxies etc started to form...time frame around 400 million years post BB...still no life. From there the story gets more familiar and far more validated with eventually the formation of life from non life....or Abiogenesis. Again there is no other scientific answer. In other words, at one time there was no life, then there was.

While we certainly are still rather ignorant as to the exact process of Abiogenesis, we are just as certain that it is the only scientific answer.

An interesting account at WIKI.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

starting with...."Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth."

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred".

And an interesting account here......http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/calilasseia-78-papers-on-abiogenesis-t845.html
"Blind faith" in chemical evolution? Guess who hasn't read the scientific literature!

Here's 78 scientific papers from the abiogenesis literature, that demonstrate conclusively that "blind faith" doesn't apply. Instead, what applies is direct experimental confirmation that the postulated chemical reactions WORK, and work under the prebiotic conditions postulated to have been present on the early Earth ...

List of 78 papers at link......

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The best that can be said for any non scientific answer or religious/ID myth, is that the BB and our laws of physics including GR, say nothing about the time at t+10-43 seconds. In other words the BB tells us how the universe/spacetime [as we know them] evolved at that t+10-43 second point. But again as indicated, any answer is simply based on unsupported myth.
Scientifically speaking though, we do have reasonable scientific speculation at that time and it is pretty well summed up here.....https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230969681_The_Universe_The_ultimate_free_lunch

BS from the premier devout scientism adherent at SF. My only uncertainty re motives is whether you alone or jointly with James R have sought to bait me on a supposed 'vulnerability', while simultaneously driving a wedge between myself and a few others who have common ground in the UFO arena. No matter. Try this (once again) as antidote to that arrogant posturing:
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/04/c...me-the-chemistry-of-abiogensis-its-not-there/
And, again, note I have NO adherence to any organized or otherwise known to me religion. It's not necessary to have some label for whatever or whoever higher power(s) exists to recognize a crying need for such to explain organic life's origins.
PS: Another gaffe from you - right there in the title. Let me help; ask admin to change that embarrassment to something appropriate for your intentions:
"Chemistry plus Terrain plus Time = Abiogenesis."
Certainly NOT the stupid horse-before-cart "Chemistry Plus Biology = Abiogenesis"

 

[exchemist]

My contention based on mainstream science is that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life first started in the universe. It certainly to the best of our knowledge was not created from or at the BB. The BB was the evolution of space and time [as we know them] at a time of t+10-43 seconds. From there and though a process that was a result of decreasing temperatures and pressures, and expansion, our first atomic nuclei was created at around 3 minutes. 380,000 years later, temps and pressures were such that the first light elements of hydrogen and helium were constructed. Still no life!!!

From there, stars, galaxies etc started to form...time frame around 400 million years post BB...still no life. From there the story gets more familiar and far more validated with eventually the formation of life from non life....or Abiogenesis. Again there is no other scientific answer. In other words, at one time there was no life, then there was.

While we certainly are still rather ignorant as to the exact process of Abiogenesis, we are just as certain that it is the only scientific answer.

An interesting account at WIKI.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

starting with...."Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth."

"Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred".

And an interesting account here......http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/calilasseia-78-papers-on-abiogenesis-t845.html
"Blind faith" in chemical evolution? Guess who hasn't read the scientific literature!

Here's 78 scientific papers from the abiogenesis literature, that demonstrate conclusively that "blind faith" doesn't apply. Instead, what applies is direct experimental confirmation that the postulated chemical reactions WORK, and work under the prebiotic conditions postulated to have been present on the early Earth ...

List of 78 papers at link......

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
The best that can be said for any non scientific answer or religious/ID myth, is that the BB and our laws of physics including GR, say nothing about the time at t+10-43 seconds. In other words the BB tells us how the universe/spacetime [as we know them] evolved at that t+10-43 second point. But again as indicated, any answer is simply based on unsupported myth.
Scientifically speaking though, we do have reasonable scientific speculation at that time and it is pretty well summed up here.....https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230969681_The_Universe_The_ultimate_free_lunch

"Abiogenesis" is not an answer to anything.

It is merely a statement of the problem, viz. that there self-evidently was some process by which inorganic matter gave rise to life. "Abiogenesis" is just the term for that process, whatever it was, which we still do not understand.

 

[paddoboy]

BS from the premier devout scientism adherent at SF. My only uncertainty re motives is whether you alone or jointly with James R have sought to bait me on a supposed 'vulnerability', while simultaneously driving a wedge between myself and a few others who have common ground in the UFO arena. No matter. Try this (once again) as antidote to that arrogant posturing:
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/04/c...me-the-chemistry-of-abiogensis-its-not-there/
And, again, note I have NO adherence to any organized or otherwise known to me religion. It's not necessary to have some label for whatever or whoever higher power(s) exists to recognize a crying need for such to explain organic life's origins.
PS: Another gaffe from you - right there in the title. Let me help; ask admin to change that embarrassment to something appropriate for your intentions:
"Chemistry plus Terrain plus Time = Abiogenesis."
Certainly NOT the stupid horse-before-cart "Chemistry Plus Biology = Abiogenesis"

More conspiracy? You're a laugh a minute q-reeus! \Let me say it again, whether that offends your insecurities or not.....Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life arose, universally speaking. With regards to Earth, it is possible that Panspermia may have played a part.....Irrespective, at one time there was no life, then there was...or abiogenesis.

 

[paddoboy]

"Abiogenesis" is not an answer to anything.

It is merely a statement of the problem, viz. that there self-evidently was some process by which inorganic matter gave rise to life. "Abiogenesis" is just the term for that process, whatever it was, which we still do not understand.

Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life started. While certainly as was alluded in the OP, we may not know the exact pathway or methodology, does not detract from that scientific fact. So while you are correct in your second paragraph, the first sentence is wrong.

 

[paddoboy]

Another interesting article ......
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html
New evidence emerges on the origins of life:
In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it's still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells. Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists - Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD - have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.

"Our work shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene," said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. "This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms."

more at link.......
So yes, Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

 

[Q-reeus]

More conspiracy? You're a laugh a minute q-reeus! \Let me say it again, whether that offends your insecurities or not.....Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life arose, universally speaking. With regards to Earth, it is possible that Panspermia may have played a part.....Irrespective, at one time there was no life, then there was...or abiogenesis.

The prevailing ideological position has it that science automatically excludes any entertaining possible causes outside the strictly material. Which, applied to abiogenesis theorizing, constricts the available horizon to the point of necessarily embracing secular miracles of stupendous indeed absurd proportions.

And as expected, you made zero attempt to deal with the excellent demolition job outlined in that newer James Tour lecture vid. Go ahead, do your usual thing and shotgun email around. Try and get the ear of someone expert in the field. I'd enjoy reading the attempted rebuttal efforts of a committed materialist.

 

[Q-reeus]

Another interesting article ......
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html
New evidence emerges on the origins of life:
In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it's still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells. Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists - Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD - have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.

"Our work shows that the close linkage between the physical properties of amino acids, the genetic code, and protein folding was likely essential from the beginning, long before large, sophisticated molecules arrived on the scene," said Carter, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the UNC School of Medicine. "This close interaction was likely the key factor in the evolution from building blocks to organisms."

more at link.......
So yes, Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

Still a mystery - indeed. Why not take the time to view and actually absorb the salient points James Tour brings to bear? Blowtorch style.

 

[paddoboy]

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/29/8127

Quantifying the origins of life on a planetary scale:
Caleb Scharf and Leroy Cronin
PNAS July 19, 2016 113 (29) 8127-8132; first published July 5, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523233113

1. Edited by Neta A. Bahcall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved May 17, 2016 (received for review November 23, 2015)

Significance
In this paper, we describe an equation to estimate the frequency of planetary “origin of life”-type events that is similar in intent to the Drake Equation but with some key advantages—specifically, our formulation makes an explicit connection between “global” rates for life arising and granular information about a planet. Our approach indicates scenarios where a shared chemical search space with more complex building blocks could be the critical difference between cosmic environments where life is potentially more or less abundant but, more importantly, points to constraints on the search. The possibility of chemical search-space amplification could be a major variance factor in planetary abiogenesis probabilities.

Abstract
A simple, heuristic formula with parallels to the Drake Equation is introduced to help focus discussion on open questions for the origins of life in a planetary context. This approach indicates a number of areas where quantitative progress can be made on parameter estimation for determining origins of life probabilities, based on constraints from Bayesian approaches. We discuss a variety of “microscale” factors and their role in determining “macroscale” abiogenesis probabilities on suitable planets. We also propose that impact ejecta exchange between planets with parallel chemistries and chemical evolution could in principle amplify the development of molecular complexity and abiogenesis probabilities. This amplification could be very significant, and both bias our conclusions about abiogenesis probabilities based on the Earth and provide a major source of variance in the probability of life arising in planetary systems. We use our heuristic formula to suggest a number of observational routes for improving constraints on origins of life probabilities.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Another......
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987117301305

Highlights:
• This review includes the whole stage of chemical evolution of life. •The availabilities of P and N on the early Earth were discussed.
• Geochemical and geological settings favorable for the life's origin are proposed.

Abstract:
How and where did life on Earth originate? To date, various environments have been proposed as plausible sites for the origin of life. However, discussions have focused on a limited stage of chemical evolution, or emergence of a specific chemical function of proto-biological systems. It remains unclear what geochemical situations could drive all the stages of chemical evolution, ranging from condensation of simple inorganic compounds to the emergence of self-sustaining systems that were evolvable into modern biological ones. In this review, we summarize reported experimental and theoretical findings for prebiotic chemistry relevant to this topic, including availability of biologically essential elements (N and P) on the Hadean Earth, abiotic synthesis of life's building blocks (amino acids, peptides, ribose, nucleobases, fatty acids, nucleotides, and oligonucleotides), their polymerizations to bio-macromolecules (peptides and oligonucleotides), and emergence of biological functions of replication and compartmentalization. It is indicated from the overviews that completion of the chemical evolution requires at least eight reaction conditions of (1) reductive gas phase, (2) alkaline pH, (3) freezing temperature, (4) fresh water, (5) dry/dry-wet cycle, (6) coupling with high energy reactions, (7) heating-cooling cycle in water, and (8) extraterrestrial input of life's building blocks and reactive nutrients. The necessity of these mutually exclusive conditions clearly indicates that life's origin did not occur at a single setting; rather, it required highly diverse and dynamic environments that were connected with each other to allow intra-transportation of reaction products and reactants through fluid circulation. Future experimental research that mimics the conditions of the proposed model are expected to provide further constraints on the processes and mechanisms for the origin of life.

Concluding remarks
Now we could figure out the geochemical inventory necessary to drive all stages of chemical evolution, ranging from nutrient acquisition, organic synthesis, accumulation, polymerization, and their interactions. What geological processes could offer environments that meet all of the requirements? Were such processes occurring on the Hadean Earth? If so, are the occurrences ubiquitous phenomena or rare on other planets in the universe? These questions need to be tackled by future theoretical and experimental investigations.

 

[paddoboy]

The prevailing ideological position has it that science automatically excludes any entertaining possible causes outside the strictly material. Which, applied to abiogenesis theorizing, constricts the available horizon to the point of necessarily embracing secular miracles of stupendous indeed absurd proportions.

And as expected, you made zero attempt to deal with the excellent demolition job outlined in that newer James Tour lecture vid. Go ahead, do your usual thing and shotgun email around. Try and get the ear of someone expert in the field. I'd enjoy reading the attempted rebuttal efforts of a committed materialist.

Your opinion of some supposed demolition job by this James Tour, is akin to your similar opinion that GR was now defunct...that is with no credibility, but certainly plenty of baggage of sorts.
Once again, at one time there was no life, then there was q-reeus, and the only scientific answer is Abiogenesis.
But there is a door I did leave open for you in the OP, with regards to where GR and our laws of physics break down...You can insert your supposed mythical IDer in there if you like. More commonly known as "the god of the gaps".

 

[paddoboy]

While the vast majority of scientists do logically and reasonably see Abiogenesis as the only scientific answer to the origin of life, they also readily admit that the exact pathway is unknown at this time. This next article lists some of possible methods or pathways that it may have taken......
https://futurism.com/abiogenesis-7-scientific-theories-origin-life-one-new-one

Abiogenesis: 7 Scientific Theories for the Origin of Life… and One New One!

Since its inception in 1924, the Primordial Soup Theory has gained a firm following in scientific circles. The theory states that a young Earth possessed a reducing atmosphere and, following exposure to various forms of energy, basic compounds were formed. These compounds are then said to have accumulated in a ‘soup’ from which life evolved.

The big question this leaves is… How and why did life evolve from this collection of simple elements and compounds? How did it all start? Ultimately, the question revolves around abiogenesis, which is the process by which a living organism forms naturally from non-living matter. Here is a list (in no particular order) of seven existing theories for this initial abiogenesis, and an exciting new one. Fir the purposes of this article, we are looking at how life developed on Earth.

Beneath the Ice
Electricity
Panspermia
RNA
Simple Metabolism and Reactions
Clay Breeding Ground
Submarine Hydrothermal Vents

The New Theory!
The newest addition to this mix of theories has been clearly articulated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the USA (though a series of individuals have contributed over the years). The contention from supporters of this idea is that life evolved out of necessity, following the laws of nature, rather than through any accident or freak occurrence. In a number of papers, physicists have argued that the occurrence of life is a matter of inevitability, and they have a sound formula to support their claims.

More at link, including a description and rundown on all methodologies......

 

[Q-reeus]

Your opinion of some supposed demolition job by this James Tour, is akin to your similar opinion that GR was now defunct...that is with no credibility, but certainly plenty of baggage of sorts.
Once again, at one time there was no life, then there was q-reeus, and the only scientific answer is Abiogenesis.
But there is a door I did leave open for you in the OP, with regards to where GR and our laws of physics break down...You can insert your supposed mythical IDer in there if you like. More commonly known as "the god of the gaps".

So you simply refuse to entertain studying anything confronting your rigid materialist position. As expected. The gap for materialistic abiogenesis is imo infinitely wide. Keep hoping for some eventual 'breakthrough discovery(s)'. Just like certain True Believers of a different faith keep hoping for the 2nd Coming.
I note your usual tactic of flooding the thread with full reproductions of articles picked for the flashy titles. Let's hope it doesn't lead to another server meltdown I alone helped to partly recover some while back.

 

[paddoboy]

So you simply refuse to entertain studying anything confronting your rigid materialist position. As expected. The gap for materialistic abiogenesis is imo infinitely wide. Keep hoping for some eventual 'breakthrough discovery(s)'. Just like certain True Believers of a different faith keep hoping for the 2nd Coming.

One swallow old friend, does not a Summer make...and why you believe anyone could take your word for anything, considering the outlandish positions you hold to, is really beyond me.
Just let this simple statement sink in matey...and as detailed in the excellent OP, "At one time there was no life, no molecules, no atoms, , then there was!!! or Abiogenesis !
That says it all q-reeus, and I again apologise if that offends your insecurities and mythical beliefs.

 

[paddoboy]

From the previous paper...... In a number of papers, physicists have argued that the occurrence of life is a matter of inevitability, and they have a sound formula to support their claims.

here....https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/37/2011/esd-2-37-2011.html

Thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life:

Abstract.

Understanding the thermodynamic function of life may shed light on its origin. Life, as are all irreversible processes, is contingent on entropy production. Entropy production is a measure of the rate of the tendency of Nature to explore available microstates. The most important irreversible process generating entropy in the biosphere and, thus, facilitating this exploration, is the absorption and transformation of sunlight into heat. Here we hypothesize that life began, and persists today, as a catalyst for the absorption and dissipation of sunlight on the surface of Archean seas. The resulting heat could then be efficiently harvested by other irreversible processes such as the water cycle, hurricanes, and ocean and wind currents. RNA and DNA are the most efficient of all known molecules for absorbing the intense ultraviolet light that penetrated the dense early atmosphere and are remarkably rapid in transforming this light into heat in the presence of liquid water. From this perspective, the origin and evolution of life, inseparable from water and the water cycle, can be understood as resulting from the natural thermodynamic imperative of increasing the entropy production of the Earth in its interaction with its solar environment. A mechanism is proposed for the reproduction of RNA and DNA without the need for enzymes, promoted instead through UV light dissipation and diurnal temperature cycling of the Archean sea-surface.

 

[Q-reeus]

One swallow old friend, does not a Summer make...and why you believe anyone could take your word for anything, considering the outlandish positions you hold to, is really beyond me.
Just let this simple statement sink in matey...and as detailed in the excellent OP, "At one time there was no life, no molecules, no atoms, , then there was!!! or Abiogenesis !
That says it all q-reeus, and I again apologise if that offends your insecurities and mythical beliefs.

No. Just enduring to tears of boredom your repetitious mantra - blind materialist faith.
From your latest cut & paste attack in #14:

Here we hypothesize that life began, and persists today, as a catalyst for the absorption and dissipation of sunlight on the surface of Archean seas....
...From this perspective, the origin and evolution of life, inseparable from water and the water cycle, can be understood as resulting from the natural thermodynamic imperative of increasing the entropy production of the Earth in its interaction with its solar environment...

He he he. Are they serious? Well such teleological nonsense is par for the course when there is absolute commitment to a horizon narrowing ideology.

A mechanism is proposed for the reproduction of RNA and DNA without the need for enzymes,...

James Tour just shreds that kind of speculation. But the industry is well staffed with legions of adherents, heavily funded, and so rolls on by it's own momentum regardless.

 

[paddoboy]

No. Just enduring to tears of boredom your repetitious mantra - blind materialist faith.
From your latest cut & paste attack in #14:

Attack???Oh, you mean evidence invalidating and refuting your silly narrow stance against the fact that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to the origin of life.

He he he. Are they serious? Well such teleological nonsense is par for the course when there is absolute commitment to a horizon narrowing ideology.

More nervous laughter? More evading the message of the article?...more of the usual?

James Tour just shreds that kind of speculation. But the industry is well staffed with legions of adherents, heavily funded, and so rolls on by it's own momentum regardless.

Yeah sure ol fella, just as those cosmologists and physicists adhere to GR! And as usual, more of your nonsensical conspiracy crap.
I really believe you are doing whatever reputation you have left here even more harm.

 

[Q-reeus]

Attack???Oh, you mean evidence invalidating and refuting your silly narrow stance against the fact that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to the origin of life.

More nervous laughter? More evading the message of the article?...more of the usual?


Yeah sure ol fella, just as those cosmologists and physicists adhere to GR! And as usual, more of your nonsensical conspiracy crap.
I really believe you are doing whatever reputation you have left here even more harm.

Try adding 'imo'. You are expert in nothing useful. In fact competent in nothing useful. And, as you keep injecting off-topic stuff like GR, I will simply reiterate from other threads where GR was on topic - it WILL eventually be accepted as conceptually flawed thus necessarily wrong. Not owing to any quantum mods, but wrong within it's own classical realm of applicability. But similarly to materialistic abiogenesis, a huge bandwagon industry keeps it going and going. Now - don't keep that one going here. Stick to your own thread topic, badly titled as it is.

 

[paddoboy]

Try adding 'imo'. You are expert in nothing useful. In fact competent in nothing useful. And, as you keep injecting off-topic stuff like GR, I will simply reiterate from other threads where GR was on topic - it WILL eventually be accepted as conceptually flawed thus necessarily wrong. Not owing to any quantum mods, but wrong within it's own classical realm of applicability. But similarly to materialistic abiogenesis, a huge bandwagon industry keeps it going and going. Now - don't keep that one going here. Stick to your own thread topic, badly titled as it is.

No, not imo, an opinion generally accepted by the very vast majority. On the rest of your wishful thinking and unsupported conspiracy matters, I won't hold my breath... Just one thing for certain, when and if GR is superseded, it won't be replaced...any new QGT will simply extend the parameters and encompass mankind's greatest theory of space, time and the universe. In the meantime your new hero, James Tour and his unsupported hypothesis, along with your old hero, Svidzinsky and his unsupported hypothetical, will probably be lost in cyber space, never to be heard of again.

 

[exchemist]

Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life started. While certainly as was alluded in the OP, we may not know the exact pathway or methodology, does not detract from that scientific fact. So while you are correct in your second paragraph, the first sentence is wrong.

It is not an answer. It is a statement of the issue. All "abiogenesis" means is "the natural process by which life arose from non-life". We do not know, at all, how this happened yet, never mind exactly. There is no theory of abiogenesis. All we have is a collection of hypotheses, for various bits of the process.

It is true the term abiogenesis presumes a natural process, as opposed to some sort of deus ex machina intervention. But this is simply because it is a scientific term and science - by definition- operates on the basis of seeking natural explanations.

So all you are doing by banging the table about "abiogenesis" is asserting that a natural explanation is what we should all be looking for. And bears crap in the woods.

 

[paddoboy]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/figure/RSOB120190f1/